User login
Study reveals lack of sexual aids for cancer survivors
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
Treatment and Management of Multiple Myeloma (FULL)
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016]. 
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016].
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016].
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
Denosumab on par with zoledronic acid for multiple myeloma bone disease
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma with bone involvement.
Major finding: The hazard ratio for noninferiority of denosumab was 0.98 (P = .010).
Data source: A phase 3 randomized double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial in 1,718 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with one or more lytic bone lesions.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
Source: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
Drug receives orphan designation for MM
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
Cutaneous multiple myeloma is a deadly indicator
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with those without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; HR, 1.9).
Study details: A retrospective study of 1,228 patients with multiple myeloma, of whom 14 patients had cutaneous involvement (1.14%).
Disclosures: The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
Source: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:471-8.
Agent can decrease GI toxicity in MM patients
Results of a case-control study suggest a cytoprotective agent can reduce treatment-related gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
Use of this agent, amifostine, was associated with significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher oral mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Additionally, amifostine did not appear to compromise the anti-myeloma activity of treatment, which consisted of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT).
Ehsan Malek, MD, of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The researchers compared HDM plus auto-HSCT, with or without pre-treatment amifostine, in previously treated MM patients.
There were 107 patients who received amifostine and 114 who did not. The 107 patients received amifostine at 740 mg/m2, given as a bolus infusion at 24 hours and 15 minutes before HDM.
Baseline characteristics were largely similar in the amifostine and control groups. However, more patients in the amifostine group received a tandem HSCT (17 vs 0), and more patients in the control group had an ECOG performance status of 0 (64.3% vs 43%).
Patients in the amifostine group had a longer median time from diagnosis to first HSCT—10 months (range, 4-39) vs 7 months (range, 1-95).
A majority of patients in both groups were in partial response or better at baseline. However, more patients in the control group had stable disease (6.2% vs 1%) or progressive disease (8% vs 0%).
Results
For all-grade GI toxicities, there was largely no significant difference between the amifostine and control groups. However, patients in the amifostine group had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities.
Rates of all-grade GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—53.3% vs 64.0%, P=0.104
- Nausea—90.7% vs 95.6%, P=0.143
- Vomiting—65.4% vs 75.4%, P=0.102
- Diarrhea—93.5% vs 84.2%,P=0.030.
Rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—27.1% vs 47.4%, P=0.002
- Nausea—31.8% vs 86.0%, P<0.0001
- Vomiting—18.7% vs 52.6%, P<0.0001
- Diarrhea—56.1% vs 73.7%, P=0.006.
The researchers said amifostine was well tolerated and produced no significant adverse effects.
They also said amifostine had “no discernable effect” on engraftment, progression-free survival, or overall survival.
The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 11 days (range, 9-16) in the control group and 10 days (range, 6-21) in the amifostine group (P=0.011). The median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range, 0-26) and 19 days (range, 8-71), respectively (P<0.21).
The median progression-free survival was 40 months in the amifostine group and 32 months in the control group (P=0.012). The median overall survival was 70 months and 67 months, respectively (P=0.84). 
Results of a case-control study suggest a cytoprotective agent can reduce treatment-related gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
Use of this agent, amifostine, was associated with significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher oral mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Additionally, amifostine did not appear to compromise the anti-myeloma activity of treatment, which consisted of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT).
Ehsan Malek, MD, of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The researchers compared HDM plus auto-HSCT, with or without pre-treatment amifostine, in previously treated MM patients.
There were 107 patients who received amifostine and 114 who did not. The 107 patients received amifostine at 740 mg/m2, given as a bolus infusion at 24 hours and 15 minutes before HDM.
Baseline characteristics were largely similar in the amifostine and control groups. However, more patients in the amifostine group received a tandem HSCT (17 vs 0), and more patients in the control group had an ECOG performance status of 0 (64.3% vs 43%).
Patients in the amifostine group had a longer median time from diagnosis to first HSCT—10 months (range, 4-39) vs 7 months (range, 1-95).
A majority of patients in both groups were in partial response or better at baseline. However, more patients in the control group had stable disease (6.2% vs 1%) or progressive disease (8% vs 0%).
Results
For all-grade GI toxicities, there was largely no significant difference between the amifostine and control groups. However, patients in the amifostine group had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities.
Rates of all-grade GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—53.3% vs 64.0%, P=0.104
- Nausea—90.7% vs 95.6%, P=0.143
- Vomiting—65.4% vs 75.4%, P=0.102
- Diarrhea—93.5% vs 84.2%,P=0.030.
Rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—27.1% vs 47.4%, P=0.002
- Nausea—31.8% vs 86.0%, P<0.0001
- Vomiting—18.7% vs 52.6%, P<0.0001
- Diarrhea—56.1% vs 73.7%, P=0.006.
The researchers said amifostine was well tolerated and produced no significant adverse effects.
They also said amifostine had “no discernable effect” on engraftment, progression-free survival, or overall survival.
The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 11 days (range, 9-16) in the control group and 10 days (range, 6-21) in the amifostine group (P=0.011). The median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range, 0-26) and 19 days (range, 8-71), respectively (P<0.21).
The median progression-free survival was 40 months in the amifostine group and 32 months in the control group (P=0.012). The median overall survival was 70 months and 67 months, respectively (P=0.84).
Results of a case-control study suggest a cytoprotective agent can reduce treatment-related gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
Use of this agent, amifostine, was associated with significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher oral mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Additionally, amifostine did not appear to compromise the anti-myeloma activity of treatment, which consisted of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT).
Ehsan Malek, MD, of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The researchers compared HDM plus auto-HSCT, with or without pre-treatment amifostine, in previously treated MM patients.
There were 107 patients who received amifostine and 114 who did not. The 107 patients received amifostine at 740 mg/m2, given as a bolus infusion at 24 hours and 15 minutes before HDM.
Baseline characteristics were largely similar in the amifostine and control groups. However, more patients in the amifostine group received a tandem HSCT (17 vs 0), and more patients in the control group had an ECOG performance status of 0 (64.3% vs 43%).
Patients in the amifostine group had a longer median time from diagnosis to first HSCT—10 months (range, 4-39) vs 7 months (range, 1-95).
A majority of patients in both groups were in partial response or better at baseline. However, more patients in the control group had stable disease (6.2% vs 1%) or progressive disease (8% vs 0%).
Results
For all-grade GI toxicities, there was largely no significant difference between the amifostine and control groups. However, patients in the amifostine group had significantly lower rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities.
Rates of all-grade GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—53.3% vs 64.0%, P=0.104
- Nausea—90.7% vs 95.6%, P=0.143
- Vomiting—65.4% vs 75.4%, P=0.102
- Diarrhea—93.5% vs 84.2%,P=0.030.
Rates of grade 2 or higher GI toxicities in the amifostine and control groups, respectively, were:
- Oral mucositis—27.1% vs 47.4%, P=0.002
- Nausea—31.8% vs 86.0%, P<0.0001
- Vomiting—18.7% vs 52.6%, P<0.0001
- Diarrhea—56.1% vs 73.7%, P=0.006.
The researchers said amifostine was well tolerated and produced no significant adverse effects.
They also said amifostine had “no discernable effect” on engraftment, progression-free survival, or overall survival.
The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 11 days (range, 9-16) in the control group and 10 days (range, 6-21) in the amifostine group (P=0.011). The median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range, 0-26) and 19 days (range, 8-71), respectively (P<0.21).
The median progression-free survival was 40 months in the amifostine group and 32 months in the control group (P=0.012). The median overall survival was 70 months and 67 months, respectively (P=0.84).
FIRST trial analysis shows more benefit for lenalidomide
Lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone showed a significant overall survival benefit, compared with melphalan with prednisone and thalidomide, for patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the final analysis of the phase 3 FIRST trial.
The prespecified final analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) at a follow-up of 60 months or longer, according to the study, which was published in Blood. The FIRST study included 1,623 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone continuously until disease progression (Rd continuous), lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for 18 cycles instead of continuously (Rd18), or melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide (MPT). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics were distributed evenly across the three treatment arms.
The Rd continuous cohort also experienced significantly longer PFS, compared with the MPT arm (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79, P less than .00001).
“Taken together, these findings suggest that Rd affords a clinical advantage in subsequent lines of therapy and highlight the importance of using Rd continuous and not MPT as first-line treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with [newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma],” the researchers wrote.
The OS benefit was similar for patients who received Rd continuous (59.1 months) and Rd18 (62.3 months). The researchers suggested that the similar survival could be due to a combination of factors, including the impact of subsequent lines of treatment and the older age of the patient population.
However, the benefit for Rd18 was not seen in the PFS analysis. Patients in the Rd18 group had a median PFS similar to that of patients in the MPT group (21 months vs. 21.9 months), both of which were shorter than the Rd continuous group (26 months).
The 4-year PFS more than doubled among patients in the Rd continuous arm (32.6%), compared with patients in both the Rd18 group (14.3%) and the MPT group (13.6%).
Patients in the Rd continuous group also experienced a decreased risk for progression or death, compared with patients in the Rd18 group (HR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.60-0.81).
The researchers noted that no new safety concerns were observed in the final analysis. Second primary malignancies, including hematologic and solid tumors, were found in 36% of patients in the Rd continuous group, 38% of patients in the Rd18 group, and 46% of patients in the MPT group.
Celgene Corporation sponsored the study. Dr. Facon and his coauthors reported financial ties to various pharmaceutical companies, including Celgene.
SOURCE: Facon T et al. Blood. 2018 Jan 18;131(3):301-10.
Lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone showed a significant overall survival benefit, compared with melphalan with prednisone and thalidomide, for patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the final analysis of the phase 3 FIRST trial.
The prespecified final analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) at a follow-up of 60 months or longer, according to the study, which was published in Blood. The FIRST study included 1,623 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone continuously until disease progression (Rd continuous), lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for 18 cycles instead of continuously (Rd18), or melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide (MPT). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics were distributed evenly across the three treatment arms.
The Rd continuous cohort also experienced significantly longer PFS, compared with the MPT arm (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79, P less than .00001).
“Taken together, these findings suggest that Rd affords a clinical advantage in subsequent lines of therapy and highlight the importance of using Rd continuous and not MPT as first-line treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with [newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma],” the researchers wrote.
The OS benefit was similar for patients who received Rd continuous (59.1 months) and Rd18 (62.3 months). The researchers suggested that the similar survival could be due to a combination of factors, including the impact of subsequent lines of treatment and the older age of the patient population.
However, the benefit for Rd18 was not seen in the PFS analysis. Patients in the Rd18 group had a median PFS similar to that of patients in the MPT group (21 months vs. 21.9 months), both of which were shorter than the Rd continuous group (26 months).
The 4-year PFS more than doubled among patients in the Rd continuous arm (32.6%), compared with patients in both the Rd18 group (14.3%) and the MPT group (13.6%).
Patients in the Rd continuous group also experienced a decreased risk for progression or death, compared with patients in the Rd18 group (HR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.60-0.81).
The researchers noted that no new safety concerns were observed in the final analysis. Second primary malignancies, including hematologic and solid tumors, were found in 36% of patients in the Rd continuous group, 38% of patients in the Rd18 group, and 46% of patients in the MPT group.
Celgene Corporation sponsored the study. Dr. Facon and his coauthors reported financial ties to various pharmaceutical companies, including Celgene.
SOURCE: Facon T et al. Blood. 2018 Jan 18;131(3):301-10.
Lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone showed a significant overall survival benefit, compared with melphalan with prednisone and thalidomide, for patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to the final analysis of the phase 3 FIRST trial.
The prespecified final analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) at a follow-up of 60 months or longer, according to the study, which was published in Blood. The FIRST study included 1,623 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone continuously until disease progression (Rd continuous), lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone for 18 cycles instead of continuously (Rd18), or melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide (MPT). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics were distributed evenly across the three treatment arms.
The Rd continuous cohort also experienced significantly longer PFS, compared with the MPT arm (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79, P less than .00001).
“Taken together, these findings suggest that Rd affords a clinical advantage in subsequent lines of therapy and highlight the importance of using Rd continuous and not MPT as first-line treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with [newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma],” the researchers wrote.
The OS benefit was similar for patients who received Rd continuous (59.1 months) and Rd18 (62.3 months). The researchers suggested that the similar survival could be due to a combination of factors, including the impact of subsequent lines of treatment and the older age of the patient population.
However, the benefit for Rd18 was not seen in the PFS analysis. Patients in the Rd18 group had a median PFS similar to that of patients in the MPT group (21 months vs. 21.9 months), both of which were shorter than the Rd continuous group (26 months).
The 4-year PFS more than doubled among patients in the Rd continuous arm (32.6%), compared with patients in both the Rd18 group (14.3%) and the MPT group (13.6%).
Patients in the Rd continuous group also experienced a decreased risk for progression or death, compared with patients in the Rd18 group (HR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.60-0.81).
The researchers noted that no new safety concerns were observed in the final analysis. Second primary malignancies, including hematologic and solid tumors, were found in 36% of patients in the Rd continuous group, 38% of patients in the Rd18 group, and 46% of patients in the MPT group.
Celgene Corporation sponsored the study. Dr. Facon and his coauthors reported financial ties to various pharmaceutical companies, including Celgene.
SOURCE: Facon T et al. Blood. 2018 Jan 18;131(3):301-10.
FROM BLOOD
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Continuously administered lenalidomide with dexamethasone regimen improved PFS (HR, 0.69) and OS (HR, 0.78), compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide.
Study details: Final analysis of the phase 3 FIRST trial.
Disclosures: Celgene Corporation sponsored the study. Dr. Facon and his coauthors reported financial ties to various pharmaceutical companies, including Celgene.
Source: Facon T et al. Blood. 2018 Jan 18;131(3):301-10.
Drugs appear comparable for delaying SREs in MM
In a phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
The median time to first on-study SRE was 23 months in the denosumab arm and 24 months in the zoledronic acid arm.
There were fewer renal adverse events (AEs) but more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm.
“Until recently, treatment options for the prevention of skeletal-related events in multiple myeloma were limited to bisphosphonates, which are cleared through the kidneys and can be associated with increased renal impairment,” said Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“Denosumab, which is not cleared through the kidneys, provides a new treatment option for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma.”
Dr Raje and her colleagues conducted this phase 3 trial of denosumab and reported the results in The Lancet Oncology. The trial was sponsored by Amgen, the company developing denosumab.
Denosumab is the first fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.
In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
The team randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
Skeletal surveys using conventional radiography were obtained every 12 to 24 weeks per protocol. The primary endpoint of the study was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression).
The primary endpoint was met. The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
Approximately 60% of all first SREs occurred within the first 3 months, and 81% occurred within the first 6 months.
Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was similar between the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms (HR=0.90; 95% CI: 0.70-1.16; P=0.41).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively. There were more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 4% in the denosumab arm and 3% in the zoledronic acid arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs (in the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms, respectively) were neutropenia (15% in both arms), thrombocytopenia (14% and 12%), anemia (12% and 10%), febrile neutropenia (11% and 10%), and pneumonia (8% in both arms).
The most common serious AE was pneumonia (8% in both arms).
Treatment-emergent AEs led to study drug discontinuation in 13% of patients in the denosumab arm and 12% in the zoledronic acid arm.
One patient in the zoledronic acid arm died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. No other deaths were considered treatment-related.
In a phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
The median time to first on-study SRE was 23 months in the denosumab arm and 24 months in the zoledronic acid arm.
There were fewer renal adverse events (AEs) but more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm.
“Until recently, treatment options for the prevention of skeletal-related events in multiple myeloma were limited to bisphosphonates, which are cleared through the kidneys and can be associated with increased renal impairment,” said Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“Denosumab, which is not cleared through the kidneys, provides a new treatment option for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma.”
Dr Raje and her colleagues conducted this phase 3 trial of denosumab and reported the results in The Lancet Oncology. The trial was sponsored by Amgen, the company developing denosumab.
Denosumab is the first fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.
In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
The team randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
Skeletal surveys using conventional radiography were obtained every 12 to 24 weeks per protocol. The primary endpoint of the study was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression).
The primary endpoint was met. The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
Approximately 60% of all first SREs occurred within the first 3 months, and 81% occurred within the first 6 months.
Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was similar between the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms (HR=0.90; 95% CI: 0.70-1.16; P=0.41).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively. There were more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 4% in the denosumab arm and 3% in the zoledronic acid arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs (in the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms, respectively) were neutropenia (15% in both arms), thrombocytopenia (14% and 12%), anemia (12% and 10%), febrile neutropenia (11% and 10%), and pneumonia (8% in both arms).
The most common serious AE was pneumonia (8% in both arms).
Treatment-emergent AEs led to study drug discontinuation in 13% of patients in the denosumab arm and 12% in the zoledronic acid arm.
One patient in the zoledronic acid arm died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. No other deaths were considered treatment-related.
In a phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
The median time to first on-study SRE was 23 months in the denosumab arm and 24 months in the zoledronic acid arm.
There were fewer renal adverse events (AEs) but more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm.
“Until recently, treatment options for the prevention of skeletal-related events in multiple myeloma were limited to bisphosphonates, which are cleared through the kidneys and can be associated with increased renal impairment,” said Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.
“Denosumab, which is not cleared through the kidneys, provides a new treatment option for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma.”
Dr Raje and her colleagues conducted this phase 3 trial of denosumab and reported the results in The Lancet Oncology. The trial was sponsored by Amgen, the company developing denosumab.
Denosumab is the first fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.
In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
The team randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
Skeletal surveys using conventional radiography were obtained every 12 to 24 weeks per protocol. The primary endpoint of the study was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression).
The primary endpoint was met. The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
Approximately 60% of all first SREs occurred within the first 3 months, and 81% occurred within the first 6 months.
Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was similar between the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms (HR=0.90; 95% CI: 0.70-1.16; P=0.41).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively. There were more hypocalcemia AEs in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 4% in the denosumab arm and 3% in the zoledronic acid arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs (in the denosumab and zoledronic acid arms, respectively) were neutropenia (15% in both arms), thrombocytopenia (14% and 12%), anemia (12% and 10%), febrile neutropenia (11% and 10%), and pneumonia (8% in both arms).
The most common serious AE was pneumonia (8% in both arms).
Treatment-emergent AEs led to study drug discontinuation in 13% of patients in the denosumab arm and 12% in the zoledronic acid arm.
One patient in the zoledronic acid arm died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. No other deaths were considered treatment-related.
Meningococcal Arthritis Masking as Possible Myeloma
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
For a group of clinicians in Australia, the diagnosis of meningococcal arthritis was “straightforward” except for abnormal serum total protein, anemia, and immunoglobulin results, which suggested their patient might have a hematological disorder such as myeloma.
The patient came to the hospital after 4 days of worsening knee and arm pain so severe he could not stand. His knees and both wrists showed swelling but no palpable lymphadenopathy or hepatosplenomegaly. The patient’s medical history showed he was taking no regular medications.
Joint aspiration grew Neisseria meningitidis. The patient’s blood tests showed hemoglobin 126 g/dL, white blood cell count 15.3 x 109/L, an unusually high total protein level (100 g/L), and an IgM kappa paraprotein band of 45 g/L on protein electrophoresis. A computed tomography scan showed widespread lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilevel thoracic vertebral collapse. A bone marrow biopsy showed evidence of a lymphocytic infiltrate, with lymphoplasmacytoid differentiation.
The histology best fitted a diagnosis of nodal marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation, the clinicians say. Having ruled out other possibilities, they settled on non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Initially, the suspicion was that the patient had septic arthritis due to Staphylococcus aureus (the most common organism isolated in septic arthritis), and he was given piperacillin/tazobactam. That was changed to flucloxacillin and then to ceftriaxone after the result of N meningitidis. The patient also was treated with rituximab and bendamustine for the lymphoma with a complete remission.
Meningococcal infection presenting as septic arthritis in the case of invasive meningococcemia is rare, the clinicians say, but primary meningococcal arthritis is even rarer. The case highlights the important aspect that “diagnosis of one condition can lead to diagnosis of another”—in this case, the lymphoma-weakened immune system led to the symptoms of polyarthropathy and the diagnosis of primary meningococcal arthritis. The clinicians also cited a case of a patient who presented with meningococcal meningitis and arthritis who was found to have an underlying Waldenström disease, and a patient whose HIV was diagnosed again after the patient presented with meningococcal arthritis symptoms.
The clinicans say such cases underscore the importance of screening for an underlying impaired immune response in patients presenting with rare conditions such as meningococcal arthritis.
Three-drug combo delivers PFS for myeloma in OPTIMISMM trial
The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, compared with just the two agents, according to Celgene.
Celgene, which markets pomalidomide, announced the results from the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928) on Feb. 6. The company expects the results to be presented at future medical meetings, they said.
OPTIMISMM is the first phase 3 trial to examine a triple-drug combination for multiple myeloma patients who have all received prior lenalidomide, Celgene noted.
The pomalidomide/bortezomib/low-dose dexamethasone combination is not currently approved, but pomalidomide plus dexamethasone is approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and have shown disease progression within 60 days of last therapy.
The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, compared with just the two agents, according to Celgene.
Celgene, which markets pomalidomide, announced the results from the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928) on Feb. 6. The company expects the results to be presented at future medical meetings, they said.
OPTIMISMM is the first phase 3 trial to examine a triple-drug combination for multiple myeloma patients who have all received prior lenalidomide, Celgene noted.
The pomalidomide/bortezomib/low-dose dexamethasone combination is not currently approved, but pomalidomide plus dexamethasone is approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and have shown disease progression within 60 days of last therapy.
The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, compared with just the two agents, according to Celgene.
Celgene, which markets pomalidomide, announced the results from the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928) on Feb. 6. The company expects the results to be presented at future medical meetings, they said.
OPTIMISMM is the first phase 3 trial to examine a triple-drug combination for multiple myeloma patients who have all received prior lenalidomide, Celgene noted.
The pomalidomide/bortezomib/low-dose dexamethasone combination is not currently approved, but pomalidomide plus dexamethasone is approved for multiple myeloma patients who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and have shown disease progression within 60 days of last therapy.