Multiple Myeloma

Micrograph showing MM

MADRID—New research suggests one triplet regimen may be more active but also more toxic than another in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

In the FORTE trial, the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRD) produced higher response rates than carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCD).

However, treatment with KRD also produced significantly more grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs than the KCD regimen.

Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Torino in Italy, presented these results, from a planned interim analysis of FORTE, at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S410.

The trial enrolled 477 MM patients younger than 65 years of age.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Four 28-day KCD cycles (n=154)

  Carfilzomib at 20 mg/m² (for cycles 1 and 2) or 36 mg/m² (for subsequent cycles) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16

  Cyclophosphamide at 300 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15

  Dexamethasone at 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23

• Four 28-day KRD cycles (n=309)

  Carfilzomib and dexamethasone as above

  Lenalidomide at 25 mg on days 1-21

After the fourth induction cycle, all patients received cyclophosphamide at 2 g/m², followed by peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection for autologous stem cell transplant.

Patient characteristics

The median age was 57 (range, 52-62) in the KCD arm and the KRD arm (range, 51-62). In both arms, 55% of patients were male.

Roughly half of patients in both arms had an ISS stage of I (52% in the KCD arm and 51% in the KRD arm), 31% of patients in both arms were stage II, and 17% were stage III.

Fifty-eight percent of patients in the KCD arm and 59% in the KRD arm did not have t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17. Thirty-one percent and 26%, respectively, did have one of these cytogenetic abnormalities. (For the remaining patients, cytogenetic risk data were missing.)

PBSC mobilization and response

The median number of PBSCs collected was 8.6 x 10⁶/kg in the KCD arm and 6.3 x 10⁶/kg in the KRD arm. Plerixafor was required in 6% of patients in the KCD arm and 28% of patients in the KRD arm (P<0.001).

Ninety-two percent of patients in the KCD arm and 96% in the KRD arm had a partial response or better. Sixty-one percent and 74%, respectively, had a very good partial response (P=0.01). Six percent and 15%, respectively, had a complete response.

Safety

Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (2% and 1%), neutropenia (6% and 5%), and anemia (2% and 3%). Seven percent of KRD patients and 6% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious hematologic AE.

Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) included dermatologic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), renal events (1% and 2%), fever (4% and 1%), infections (5% and 3%), gastrointestinal AEs (2% and 1%), hepatic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), venous thromboembolism (1% and 0%), hypertension (3% and 2%), and cardiac events (1% and 2%).

Thirty-two percent of KRD patients and 16% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious non-hematologic AE (P<0.001).

Four percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm discontinued treatment due to AEs. Fifteen percent and 6%, respectively, reduced the dose of at least 1 drug (P=0.005).

One percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm died from AEs. In the KCD arm, 1 patient had a sudden death, and 1 died of pneumonia. In the KRD arm, there was 1 sudden death in a patient with sepsis, 1 patient died of infection, and 1 died of cardiac arrest (this patient previously discontinued treatment due to renal failure).

Micrograph showing MM

MADRID—New research suggests one triplet regimen may be more active but also more toxic than another in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

In the FORTE trial, the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRD) produced higher response rates than carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCD).

However, treatment with KRD also produced significantly more grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs than the KCD regimen.

Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Torino in Italy, presented these results, from a planned interim analysis of FORTE, at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S410.

The trial enrolled 477 MM patients younger than 65 years of age.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Four 28-day KCD cycles (n=154)

  Carfilzomib at 20 mg/m² (for cycles 1 and 2) or 36 mg/m² (for subsequent cycles) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16

  Cyclophosphamide at 300 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15

  Dexamethasone at 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23

• Four 28-day KRD cycles (n=309)

  Carfilzomib and dexamethasone as above

  Lenalidomide at 25 mg on days 1-21

After the fourth induction cycle, all patients received cyclophosphamide at 2 g/m², followed by peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection for autologous stem cell transplant.

Patient characteristics

The median age was 57 (range, 52-62) in the KCD arm and the KRD arm (range, 51-62). In both arms, 55% of patients were male.

Roughly half of patients in both arms had an ISS stage of I (52% in the KCD arm and 51% in the KRD arm), 31% of patients in both arms were stage II, and 17% were stage III.

Fifty-eight percent of patients in the KCD arm and 59% in the KRD arm did not have t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17. Thirty-one percent and 26%, respectively, did have one of these cytogenetic abnormalities. (For the remaining patients, cytogenetic risk data were missing.)

PBSC mobilization and response

The median number of PBSCs collected was 8.6 x 10⁶/kg in the KCD arm and 6.3 x 10⁶/kg in the KRD arm. Plerixafor was required in 6% of patients in the KCD arm and 28% of patients in the KRD arm (P<0.001).

Ninety-two percent of patients in the KCD arm and 96% in the KRD arm had a partial response or better. Sixty-one percent and 74%, respectively, had a very good partial response (P=0.01). Six percent and 15%, respectively, had a complete response.

Safety

Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (2% and 1%), neutropenia (6% and 5%), and anemia (2% and 3%). Seven percent of KRD patients and 6% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious hematologic AE.

Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) included dermatologic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), renal events (1% and 2%), fever (4% and 1%), infections (5% and 3%), gastrointestinal AEs (2% and 1%), hepatic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), venous thromboembolism (1% and 0%), hypertension (3% and 2%), and cardiac events (1% and 2%).

Thirty-two percent of KRD patients and 16% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious non-hematologic AE (P<0.001).

Four percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm discontinued treatment due to AEs. Fifteen percent and 6%, respectively, reduced the dose of at least 1 drug (P=0.005).

One percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm died from AEs. In the KCD arm, 1 patient had a sudden death, and 1 died of pneumonia. In the KRD arm, there was 1 sudden death in a patient with sepsis, 1 patient died of infection, and 1 died of cardiac arrest (this patient previously discontinued treatment due to renal failure).

Micrograph showing MM

MADRID—New research suggests one triplet regimen may be more active but also more toxic than another in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

In the FORTE trial, the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRD) produced higher response rates than carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCD).

However, treatment with KRD also produced significantly more grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs than the KCD regimen.

Francesca Gay, MD, PhD, of University of Torino in Italy, presented these results, from a planned interim analysis of FORTE, at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S410.

The trial enrolled 477 MM patients younger than 65 years of age.

The patients were randomized to receive:

• Four 28-day KCD cycles (n=154)

  Carfilzomib at 20 mg/m² (for cycles 1 and 2) or 36 mg/m² (for subsequent cycles) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16

  Cyclophosphamide at 300 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15

  Dexamethasone at 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23

• Four 28-day KRD cycles (n=309)

  Carfilzomib and dexamethasone as above

  Lenalidomide at 25 mg on days 1-21

After the fourth induction cycle, all patients received cyclophosphamide at 2 g/m², followed by peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection for autologous stem cell transplant.

Patient characteristics

The median age was 57 (range, 52-62) in the KCD arm and the KRD arm (range, 51-62). In both arms, 55% of patients were male.

Roughly half of patients in both arms had an ISS stage of I (52% in the KCD arm and 51% in the KRD arm), 31% of patients in both arms were stage II, and 17% were stage III.

Fifty-eight percent of patients in the KCD arm and 59% in the KRD arm did not have t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17. Thirty-one percent and 26%, respectively, did have one of these cytogenetic abnormalities. (For the remaining patients, cytogenetic risk data were missing.)

PBSC mobilization and response

The median number of PBSCs collected was 8.6 x 10⁶/kg in the KCD arm and 6.3 x 10⁶/kg in the KRD arm. Plerixafor was required in 6% of patients in the KCD arm and 28% of patients in the KRD arm (P<0.001).

Ninety-two percent of patients in the KCD arm and 96% in the KRD arm had a partial response or better. Sixty-one percent and 74%, respectively, had a very good partial response (P=0.01). Six percent and 15%, respectively, had a complete response.

Safety

Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (2% and 1%), neutropenia (6% and 5%), and anemia (2% and 3%). Seven percent of KRD patients and 6% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious hematologic AE.

Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs and serious AEs (in the KRD and KCD arms, respectively) included dermatologic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), renal events (1% and 2%), fever (4% and 1%), infections (5% and 3%), gastrointestinal AEs (2% and 1%), hepatic events (8% and 1%, P<0.001), venous thromboembolism (1% and 0%), hypertension (3% and 2%), and cardiac events (1% and 2%).

Thirty-two percent of KRD patients and 16% of KCD patients had at least 1 grade 3/4 or serious non-hematologic AE (P<0.001).

Four percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm discontinued treatment due to AEs. Fifteen percent and 6%, respectively, reduced the dose of at least 1 drug (P=0.005).

One percent of patients in the KRD arm and 2% in the KCD arm died from AEs. In the KCD arm, 1 patient had a sudden death, and 1 died of pneumonia. In the KRD arm, there was 1 sudden death in a patient with sepsis, 1 patient died of infection, and 1 died of cardiac arrest (this patient previously discontinued treatment due to renal failure).

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests young cancer survivors struggle to get their social lives “back to normal” within the first 2 years of their diagnosis.

The study showed that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer had significantly worse social functioning than the general population around the time of cancer diagnosis as well as 1 year and 2 years later.

These findings were published in Cancer.

“The research is important to help these young survivors better reintegrate into society,” said study author Brad Zebrack, PhD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

He and his colleagues collected data from 141 AYA cancer patients (ages 14 to 39) who visited 1 of 5 US medical facilities between March 2008 and April 2010.

The patients completed a self-report measure of social functioning within the first 4 months of diagnosis, then again at 12 months and 24 months.

Compared to the general population, the AYA cancer patients had significantly worse social functioning scores at all time points:

• Around the time of diagnosis—52.0 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 12 months—73.1 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 24 months—69.2 vs 85.1 (P<0.001).

Overall, the patients did experience improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month time point, but their scores remained stable after that.

The researchers noted that 9% of patients had consistently high/normal social functioning, 47% had improvements in social functioning over time, 13% had worsening social functioning over time, and 32% had consistently low social functioning.

“This finding highlights the need to screen, identify, and respond to the needs of high-risk young adult-adolescent patients at the time of diagnosis and then monitor them over time,” Dr Zebrack said.

“They are likely the ones most in need of help in managing work, school, and potentially problematic relationships with family members and friends.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests young cancer survivors struggle to get their social lives “back to normal” within the first 2 years of their diagnosis.

The study showed that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer had significantly worse social functioning than the general population around the time of cancer diagnosis as well as 1 year and 2 years later.

These findings were published in Cancer.

“The research is important to help these young survivors better reintegrate into society,” said study author Brad Zebrack, PhD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

He and his colleagues collected data from 141 AYA cancer patients (ages 14 to 39) who visited 1 of 5 US medical facilities between March 2008 and April 2010.

The patients completed a self-report measure of social functioning within the first 4 months of diagnosis, then again at 12 months and 24 months.

Compared to the general population, the AYA cancer patients had significantly worse social functioning scores at all time points:

• Around the time of diagnosis—52.0 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 12 months—73.1 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 24 months—69.2 vs 85.1 (P<0.001).

Overall, the patients did experience improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month time point, but their scores remained stable after that.

The researchers noted that 9% of patients had consistently high/normal social functioning, 47% had improvements in social functioning over time, 13% had worsening social functioning over time, and 32% had consistently low social functioning.

“This finding highlights the need to screen, identify, and respond to the needs of high-risk young adult-adolescent patients at the time of diagnosis and then monitor them over time,” Dr Zebrack said.

“They are likely the ones most in need of help in managing work, school, and potentially problematic relationships with family members and friends.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests young cancer survivors struggle to get their social lives “back to normal” within the first 2 years of their diagnosis.

The study showed that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer had significantly worse social functioning than the general population around the time of cancer diagnosis as well as 1 year and 2 years later.

These findings were published in Cancer.

“The research is important to help these young survivors better reintegrate into society,” said study author Brad Zebrack, PhD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

He and his colleagues collected data from 141 AYA cancer patients (ages 14 to 39) who visited 1 of 5 US medical facilities between March 2008 and April 2010.

The patients completed a self-report measure of social functioning within the first 4 months of diagnosis, then again at 12 months and 24 months.

Compared to the general population, the AYA cancer patients had significantly worse social functioning scores at all time points:

• Around the time of diagnosis—52.0 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 12 months—73.1 vs 85.1 (P<0.001)
• At 24 months—69.2 vs 85.1 (P<0.001).

Overall, the patients did experience improvements in social functioning from baseline to the 12-month time point, but their scores remained stable after that.

The researchers noted that 9% of patients had consistently high/normal social functioning, 47% had improvements in social functioning over time, 13% had worsening social functioning over time, and 32% had consistently low social functioning.

“This finding highlights the need to screen, identify, and respond to the needs of high-risk young adult-adolescent patients at the time of diagnosis and then monitor them over time,” Dr Zebrack said.

“They are likely the ones most in need of help in managing work, school, and potentially problematic relationships with family members and friends.”

Carfilzomib, a selective second-generation proteasome inhibitor, has performed well in clinical trials. So because other “triplets”—combinations of alkylator, proteasome inhibitor, and steroid—had shown “encouraging” response rates, researchers from the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Bethesda, Maryland, and others, conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of twice-weekly carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCyd) for patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM).

The researchers tested 3 doses of carfilzomib: 36 mg/m², 45 mg/m², and 56 mg/m². Of the 22 enrolled patients, 16 were treated with the maximum dose.

Fourteen patients completed all 8 cycles of treatment; 10 in the maximum-dose group completed all 8. At 56 mg/m², the overall response rate was 87.5%. Among the 14 patients whose disease responded to therapy, the median time to response was 1 month.

Five patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects (AEs), but the researchers found no dose-limiting toxicities at any of the dose levels. The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.

The researchers concluded that based on previous research, KCyd with 36 mg/m² is safe and effective in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed MM. However, their findings suggest that twice-weekly carfilzomib 56 mg/m² in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone also is effective with “manageable toxicity.”

Source:
Boccia RV, Bessudo A, Agajanian R, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. In press.
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.05.009.

Carfilzomib, a selective second-generation proteasome inhibitor, has performed well in clinical trials. So because other “triplets”—combinations of alkylator, proteasome inhibitor, and steroid—had shown “encouraging” response rates, researchers from the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Bethesda, Maryland, and others, conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of twice-weekly carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCyd) for patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM).

The researchers tested 3 doses of carfilzomib: 36 mg/m², 45 mg/m², and 56 mg/m². Of the 22 enrolled patients, 16 were treated with the maximum dose.

Fourteen patients completed all 8 cycles of treatment; 10 in the maximum-dose group completed all 8. At 56 mg/m², the overall response rate was 87.5%. Among the 14 patients whose disease responded to therapy, the median time to response was 1 month.

Five patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects (AEs), but the researchers found no dose-limiting toxicities at any of the dose levels. The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.

The researchers concluded that based on previous research, KCyd with 36 mg/m² is safe and effective in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed MM. However, their findings suggest that twice-weekly carfilzomib 56 mg/m² in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone also is effective with “manageable toxicity.”

Source:
Boccia RV, Bessudo A, Agajanian R, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. In press.
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.05.009.

Carfilzomib, a selective second-generation proteasome inhibitor, has performed well in clinical trials. So because other “triplets”—combinations of alkylator, proteasome inhibitor, and steroid—had shown “encouraging” response rates, researchers from the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Bethesda, Maryland, and others, conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of twice-weekly carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCyd) for patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM).

The researchers tested 3 doses of carfilzomib: 36 mg/m², 45 mg/m², and 56 mg/m². Of the 22 enrolled patients, 16 were treated with the maximum dose.

Fourteen patients completed all 8 cycles of treatment; 10 in the maximum-dose group completed all 8. At 56 mg/m², the overall response rate was 87.5%. Among the 14 patients whose disease responded to therapy, the median time to response was 1 month.

Five patients discontinued treatment because of adverse effects (AEs), but the researchers found no dose-limiting toxicities at any of the dose levels. The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, and anemia.

The researchers concluded that based on previous research, KCyd with 36 mg/m² is safe and effective in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed MM. However, their findings suggest that twice-weekly carfilzomib 56 mg/m² in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone also is effective with “manageable toxicity.”

Source:
Boccia RV, Bessudo A, Agajanian R, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. In press.
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.05.009.

Beckman Coulter has been authorized to market its ClearLLab Reagents (T1, T2, B1, B2, M) tests for use with flow cytometry to detect leukemias, lymphomas, and myeloproliferative disorders in blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

[email protected]

Beckman Coulter has been authorized to market its ClearLLab Reagents (T1, T2, B1, B2, M) tests for use with flow cytometry to detect leukemias, lymphomas, and myeloproliferative disorders in blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

[email protected]

Beckman Coulter has been authorized to market its ClearLLab Reagents (T1, T2, B1, B2, M) tests for use with flow cytometry to detect leukemias, lymphomas, and myeloproliferative disorders in blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

[email protected]

MADRID – The risk of osteoporotic fracture associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could be assessed using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have found.

In a retrospective cohort study, Huifang Lu, MD, and her collaborators found that FRAX could predict the risk of fracture with reasonable accuracy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.66 for predicting a fracture 10 years after HSCT.

“Current guidelines recommend the evaluation of bone health at 1 year following the transplant, but we recommend that this needs to happen at a much earlier time,” Dr. Lu said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Determining how to assess risk earlier and prevent bone loss remains a challenge, however. FRAX is an easy and quick tool to use, but its predictive ability is modest, she said.

As the finding comes from a retrospective study, prospective evaluation of FRAX is needed in HSCT patients. If shown predictive in this setting, bone health could be assessed earlier using FRAX, ideally at or before the time of the transplant, to allow appropriate action to be taken, such as prescribing bisphosphonates to those identified to be at high risk.

There is no consensus on preventing and treating bone loss following HSCT, said Dr. Lu. In a meta-analysis performed by Dr. Lu and her associates (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52[5]:663-70), less bone loss was seen in patients who received a bisphosphonate.

As the use of HSCT has expanded over the past two decades, there is an expanding population of survivors with potential long-term effects such as bone loss and a higher risk of fractures, compared with the general population, Dr. Lu explained.

The FRAX tool takes into account pre-HSCT factors such as age, smoking status, alcohol use, prior fracture, body mass index, and corticosteroid use. This can be considered in association with the fracture risk related to the various conditioning and supporting regimens that patients receive around the time of their transplants.

The study included 5,170 adult patients who had undergone HSCT at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center over a 10-year period. Patients were considered to have entered the cohort at the time of their transplants, Dr. Lu said. Their history of osteoporotic fractures up to 3.3 years later was obtained and verified by radiology and physician assessment. FRAX probabilities were then derived from baseline information.

The mean age of patients included was 52 years, 57% were male and 75% were white. One-quarter had experienced a prior fracture. Of note, 26% of the cohort underwent HSCT for multiple myeloma, 70% of whom had already had a fracture, compared with 9% of those who underwent HSCT for another reason such as leukemia or lymphoma.

Multivariate analyses were performed with and without considering death as a competing risk, and similar results were obtained. Higher FRAX scores (20 or greater) were more likely to be recorded in individuals who sustained a fracture than in those who did not. Patients who had an allogeneic HSCT were 15% more likely to have a fracture as those who received an autologous transplant. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients with multiple myeloma were more likely than those who had HSCT for other reasons to sustain a fracture by 10 years based on FRAX results (hazard ratio, 3.16).

Future research needs to look at the optimal cut offs for FRAX scores predictive of events and see if there is any association between the loss of bone and fracture risk. There also needs to be an evaluation of the use of concomitant medications and health economic analyses performed.

Dr. Lu had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Rolanette and Berdon Lawrence Bone Disease Program of Texas and via Cancer Survivorship Research Seed Monday Grants from the University Cancer Foundation and Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

MADRID – The risk of osteoporotic fracture associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could be assessed using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have found.

In a retrospective cohort study, Huifang Lu, MD, and her collaborators found that FRAX could predict the risk of fracture with reasonable accuracy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.66 for predicting a fracture 10 years after HSCT.

“Current guidelines recommend the evaluation of bone health at 1 year following the transplant, but we recommend that this needs to happen at a much earlier time,” Dr. Lu said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Determining how to assess risk earlier and prevent bone loss remains a challenge, however. FRAX is an easy and quick tool to use, but its predictive ability is modest, she said.

As the finding comes from a retrospective study, prospective evaluation of FRAX is needed in HSCT patients. If shown predictive in this setting, bone health could be assessed earlier using FRAX, ideally at or before the time of the transplant, to allow appropriate action to be taken, such as prescribing bisphosphonates to those identified to be at high risk.

There is no consensus on preventing and treating bone loss following HSCT, said Dr. Lu. In a meta-analysis performed by Dr. Lu and her associates (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52[5]:663-70), less bone loss was seen in patients who received a bisphosphonate.

As the use of HSCT has expanded over the past two decades, there is an expanding population of survivors with potential long-term effects such as bone loss and a higher risk of fractures, compared with the general population, Dr. Lu explained.

The FRAX tool takes into account pre-HSCT factors such as age, smoking status, alcohol use, prior fracture, body mass index, and corticosteroid use. This can be considered in association with the fracture risk related to the various conditioning and supporting regimens that patients receive around the time of their transplants.

The study included 5,170 adult patients who had undergone HSCT at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center over a 10-year period. Patients were considered to have entered the cohort at the time of their transplants, Dr. Lu said. Their history of osteoporotic fractures up to 3.3 years later was obtained and verified by radiology and physician assessment. FRAX probabilities were then derived from baseline information.

The mean age of patients included was 52 years, 57% were male and 75% were white. One-quarter had experienced a prior fracture. Of note, 26% of the cohort underwent HSCT for multiple myeloma, 70% of whom had already had a fracture, compared with 9% of those who underwent HSCT for another reason such as leukemia or lymphoma.

Multivariate analyses were performed with and without considering death as a competing risk, and similar results were obtained. Higher FRAX scores (20 or greater) were more likely to be recorded in individuals who sustained a fracture than in those who did not. Patients who had an allogeneic HSCT were 15% more likely to have a fracture as those who received an autologous transplant. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients with multiple myeloma were more likely than those who had HSCT for other reasons to sustain a fracture by 10 years based on FRAX results (hazard ratio, 3.16).

Future research needs to look at the optimal cut offs for FRAX scores predictive of events and see if there is any association between the loss of bone and fracture risk. There also needs to be an evaluation of the use of concomitant medications and health economic analyses performed.

Dr. Lu had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Rolanette and Berdon Lawrence Bone Disease Program of Texas and via Cancer Survivorship Research Seed Monday Grants from the University Cancer Foundation and Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

MADRID – The risk of osteoporotic fracture associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) could be assessed using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have found.

In a retrospective cohort study, Huifang Lu, MD, and her collaborators found that FRAX could predict the risk of fracture with reasonable accuracy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.66 for predicting a fracture 10 years after HSCT.

“Current guidelines recommend the evaluation of bone health at 1 year following the transplant, but we recommend that this needs to happen at a much earlier time,” Dr. Lu said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Determining how to assess risk earlier and prevent bone loss remains a challenge, however. FRAX is an easy and quick tool to use, but its predictive ability is modest, she said.

As the finding comes from a retrospective study, prospective evaluation of FRAX is needed in HSCT patients. If shown predictive in this setting, bone health could be assessed earlier using FRAX, ideally at or before the time of the transplant, to allow appropriate action to be taken, such as prescribing bisphosphonates to those identified to be at high risk.

There is no consensus on preventing and treating bone loss following HSCT, said Dr. Lu. In a meta-analysis performed by Dr. Lu and her associates (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52[5]:663-70), less bone loss was seen in patients who received a bisphosphonate.

As the use of HSCT has expanded over the past two decades, there is an expanding population of survivors with potential long-term effects such as bone loss and a higher risk of fractures, compared with the general population, Dr. Lu explained.

The FRAX tool takes into account pre-HSCT factors such as age, smoking status, alcohol use, prior fracture, body mass index, and corticosteroid use. This can be considered in association with the fracture risk related to the various conditioning and supporting regimens that patients receive around the time of their transplants.

The study included 5,170 adult patients who had undergone HSCT at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center over a 10-year period. Patients were considered to have entered the cohort at the time of their transplants, Dr. Lu said. Their history of osteoporotic fractures up to 3.3 years later was obtained and verified by radiology and physician assessment. FRAX probabilities were then derived from baseline information.

The mean age of patients included was 52 years, 57% were male and 75% were white. One-quarter had experienced a prior fracture. Of note, 26% of the cohort underwent HSCT for multiple myeloma, 70% of whom had already had a fracture, compared with 9% of those who underwent HSCT for another reason such as leukemia or lymphoma.

Multivariate analyses were performed with and without considering death as a competing risk, and similar results were obtained. Higher FRAX scores (20 or greater) were more likely to be recorded in individuals who sustained a fracture than in those who did not. Patients who had an allogeneic HSCT were 15% more likely to have a fracture as those who received an autologous transplant. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients with multiple myeloma were more likely than those who had HSCT for other reasons to sustain a fracture by 10 years based on FRAX results (hazard ratio, 3.16).

Future research needs to look at the optimal cut offs for FRAX scores predictive of events and see if there is any association between the loss of bone and fracture risk. There also needs to be an evaluation of the use of concomitant medications and health economic analyses performed.

Dr. Lu had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Rolanette and Berdon Lawrence Bone Disease Program of Texas and via Cancer Survivorship Research Seed Monday Grants from the University Cancer Foundation and Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Lab mouse

Preclinical research suggests a targeted therapy may be able to rebuild and strengthen bone in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers tested an antibody targeting the protein sclerostin, an important regulator of bone formation, in mouse models of MM.

The antibody prevented bone loss and even increased bone volume in the mice.

The treatment also made bones more resistant to fracture and worked synergistically with zoledronic acid.

Michelle McDonald, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues reported these findings in Blood.

“Multiple myeloma is a cancer that grows in bone, and, in most patients, it is associated with widespread bone loss and recurrent bone fractures, which can be extremely painful and debilitating,” Dr McDonald said.

“The current treatment for myeloma-associated bone disease with bisphosphonate drugs prevents further bone loss, but it doesn’t fix damaged bones, so patients continue to fracture. We wanted to re-stimulate bone formation and increase bone strength and resistance to fracture.”

So the researchers tested an antibody that targets and neutralizes sclerostin. In clinical studies of osteoporosis, such antibodies have been shown to increase bone mass and reduce fracture incidence.

In the mouse models of MM, the antibody prevented further bone loss and even doubled bone volume in some of the mice.

“When we looked at the bones before and after treatment, the difference was remarkable,” Dr McDonald said. “We saw less lesions or ‘holes’ in the bones after anti-sclerostin treatment. These lesions are the primary cause of bone pain, so this is an extremely important result.”

The treatment also made the bones substantially stronger, with more than double the resistance to fracture observed in many of the tests.

The researchers then combined the antibody with the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and observed positive results.

“Bisphosphonates work by preventing bone breakdown, so we combined zoledronic acid with the new anti-sclerostin antibody that rebuilds bone,” Dr McDonald said. “Together, the impact on bone thickness, strength, and resistance to fracture was greater than either treatment alone.”

The researchers said these findings suggest a potential new strategy for reducing fractures in patients with MM.

“[M]yelomas, like other cancers, vary from individual to individual and can therefore be difficult to target,” said study author Peter I. Croucher, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

“By targeting sclerostin, we are blocking a protein that is active in every person’s bones and not something unique to a person’s cancer. Therefore, in the future, when we test this antibody in humans, we are hopeful to see a response in most, if not all, patients.”

“We are now looking towards clinical trials for this antibody and, in the future, development of this type of therapy for the clinical treatment of multiple myeloma. This therapeutic approach has the potential to transform the prognosis for myeloma patients, enhancing quality of life, and ultimately reducing mortality. It also has clinical implications for the treatment of other cancers that develop in the skeleton.” 

Lab mouse

Preclinical research suggests a targeted therapy may be able to rebuild and strengthen bone in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers tested an antibody targeting the protein sclerostin, an important regulator of bone formation, in mouse models of MM.

The antibody prevented bone loss and even increased bone volume in the mice.

The treatment also made bones more resistant to fracture and worked synergistically with zoledronic acid.

Michelle McDonald, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues reported these findings in Blood.

“Multiple myeloma is a cancer that grows in bone, and, in most patients, it is associated with widespread bone loss and recurrent bone fractures, which can be extremely painful and debilitating,” Dr McDonald said.

“The current treatment for myeloma-associated bone disease with bisphosphonate drugs prevents further bone loss, but it doesn’t fix damaged bones, so patients continue to fracture. We wanted to re-stimulate bone formation and increase bone strength and resistance to fracture.”

So the researchers tested an antibody that targets and neutralizes sclerostin. In clinical studies of osteoporosis, such antibodies have been shown to increase bone mass and reduce fracture incidence.

In the mouse models of MM, the antibody prevented further bone loss and even doubled bone volume in some of the mice.

“When we looked at the bones before and after treatment, the difference was remarkable,” Dr McDonald said. “We saw less lesions or ‘holes’ in the bones after anti-sclerostin treatment. These lesions are the primary cause of bone pain, so this is an extremely important result.”

The treatment also made the bones substantially stronger, with more than double the resistance to fracture observed in many of the tests.

The researchers then combined the antibody with the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and observed positive results.

“Bisphosphonates work by preventing bone breakdown, so we combined zoledronic acid with the new anti-sclerostin antibody that rebuilds bone,” Dr McDonald said. “Together, the impact on bone thickness, strength, and resistance to fracture was greater than either treatment alone.”

The researchers said these findings suggest a potential new strategy for reducing fractures in patients with MM.

“[M]yelomas, like other cancers, vary from individual to individual and can therefore be difficult to target,” said study author Peter I. Croucher, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

“By targeting sclerostin, we are blocking a protein that is active in every person’s bones and not something unique to a person’s cancer. Therefore, in the future, when we test this antibody in humans, we are hopeful to see a response in most, if not all, patients.”

“We are now looking towards clinical trials for this antibody and, in the future, development of this type of therapy for the clinical treatment of multiple myeloma. This therapeutic approach has the potential to transform the prognosis for myeloma patients, enhancing quality of life, and ultimately reducing mortality. It also has clinical implications for the treatment of other cancers that develop in the skeleton.” 

Lab mouse

Preclinical research suggests a targeted therapy may be able to rebuild and strengthen bone in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers tested an antibody targeting the protein sclerostin, an important regulator of bone formation, in mouse models of MM.

The antibody prevented bone loss and even increased bone volume in the mice.

The treatment also made bones more resistant to fracture and worked synergistically with zoledronic acid.

Michelle McDonald, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and her colleagues reported these findings in Blood.

“Multiple myeloma is a cancer that grows in bone, and, in most patients, it is associated with widespread bone loss and recurrent bone fractures, which can be extremely painful and debilitating,” Dr McDonald said.

“The current treatment for myeloma-associated bone disease with bisphosphonate drugs prevents further bone loss, but it doesn’t fix damaged bones, so patients continue to fracture. We wanted to re-stimulate bone formation and increase bone strength and resistance to fracture.”

So the researchers tested an antibody that targets and neutralizes sclerostin. In clinical studies of osteoporosis, such antibodies have been shown to increase bone mass and reduce fracture incidence.

In the mouse models of MM, the antibody prevented further bone loss and even doubled bone volume in some of the mice.

“When we looked at the bones before and after treatment, the difference was remarkable,” Dr McDonald said. “We saw less lesions or ‘holes’ in the bones after anti-sclerostin treatment. These lesions are the primary cause of bone pain, so this is an extremely important result.”

The treatment also made the bones substantially stronger, with more than double the resistance to fracture observed in many of the tests.

The researchers then combined the antibody with the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and observed positive results.

“Bisphosphonates work by preventing bone breakdown, so we combined zoledronic acid with the new anti-sclerostin antibody that rebuilds bone,” Dr McDonald said. “Together, the impact on bone thickness, strength, and resistance to fracture was greater than either treatment alone.”

The researchers said these findings suggest a potential new strategy for reducing fractures in patients with MM.

“[M]yelomas, like other cancers, vary from individual to individual and can therefore be difficult to target,” said study author Peter I. Croucher, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

“By targeting sclerostin, we are blocking a protein that is active in every person’s bones and not something unique to a person’s cancer. Therefore, in the future, when we test this antibody in humans, we are hopeful to see a response in most, if not all, patients.”

“We are now looking towards clinical trials for this antibody and, in the future, development of this type of therapy for the clinical treatment of multiple myeloma. This therapeutic approach has the potential to transform the prognosis for myeloma patients, enhancing quality of life, and ultimately reducing mortality. It also has clinical implications for the treatment of other cancers that develop in the skeleton.” 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Congress of EHA

An all-oral treatment regimen can produce deep and durable responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

In a phase 1/2 study, patients with newly diagnosed MM received treatment with ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for up to 12 cycles, followed by maintenance with ixazomib alone.

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not proceed to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to transplant.

Most patients did not complete all 12 cycles of induction, but 38% proceeded to maintenance, and 12% remain on study treatment at a median follow-up of 56 months.

Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, presented these results at the EHA Congress as abstract S408. The research was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Patients

The trial included 65 patients. Their median age was 66 (range, 34-86), and 55% were male. Eight percent of patients had high-risk cytogenetics.

ECOG performance status was 0 for 43% of patients, 1 for 52%, and 2 for 5%. ISS stage was 1 for 43% of patients, 2 for 43%, and 3 for 14%.

Treatment

Patients received ixazomib (1.68 - 3.95 mg/m² in phase 1 and 4.0 mg in phase 2 on days 1, 8, and 15) plus lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for up to twelve, 28-day cycles. Patients could then receive ixazomib maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Twenty-three patients (35%) discontinued induction to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Thirty-seven patients discontinued study treatment for other reasons—17 of them during induction. Twenty-one patients discontinued due to progressive disease, 9 due to adverse events (AEs), 5 due to patient withdrawal, 1 due to unsatisfactory response, and 1 due to other reasons.

Twenty-five patients completed induction and went on to receive ixazomib maintenance. Five patients remain on study treatment.

Safety

Seventy-eight percent of patients had a grade 3 or higher AE, 46% had a serious AE, 57% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 15% had an AE leading to discontinuation of any of the study drugs. There were 2 on-study deaths.

The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, back pain, vomiting, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and rashes/eruptions/exanthems.

Efficacy

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not go on to receive HSCT.

The complete response (CR) rates were 23% and 32%, respectively. Thirty four percent and 32%, respectively, had a very good partial response (VGPR). And 30% and 17%, respectively, had a partial response (PR).

Thirty-two percent of patients who received maintenance (n=8) had an improvement in their response during the maintenance phase.  Two patients went from a VGPR to a stringent CR, 3 went from a VGPR to a CR, 2 went from a VGPR to a near CR, and 1 went from a PR to a VGPR.

Sixteen patients were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD). Of the patients with a stringent CR/CR, 89% (8/9) were MRD-negative.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to HSCT. The 4-year overall survival rate was 84% and 82%, respectively.

“Long-term follow-up, a median follow-up of 56 months, with the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone demonstrates that this is an efficacious regimen for newly diagnosed myeloma patients, with excellent tolerability, and something that can be maintained for a long period of time,” Dr Kumar said. “These results form the basis for an ongoing phase 3 program.”

Congress of EHA

An all-oral treatment regimen can produce deep and durable responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

In a phase 1/2 study, patients with newly diagnosed MM received treatment with ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for up to 12 cycles, followed by maintenance with ixazomib alone.

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not proceed to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to transplant.

Most patients did not complete all 12 cycles of induction, but 38% proceeded to maintenance, and 12% remain on study treatment at a median follow-up of 56 months.

Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, presented these results at the EHA Congress as abstract S408. The research was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Patients

The trial included 65 patients. Their median age was 66 (range, 34-86), and 55% were male. Eight percent of patients had high-risk cytogenetics.

ECOG performance status was 0 for 43% of patients, 1 for 52%, and 2 for 5%. ISS stage was 1 for 43% of patients, 2 for 43%, and 3 for 14%.

Treatment

Patients received ixazomib (1.68 - 3.95 mg/m² in phase 1 and 4.0 mg in phase 2 on days 1, 8, and 15) plus lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for up to twelve, 28-day cycles. Patients could then receive ixazomib maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Twenty-three patients (35%) discontinued induction to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Thirty-seven patients discontinued study treatment for other reasons—17 of them during induction. Twenty-one patients discontinued due to progressive disease, 9 due to adverse events (AEs), 5 due to patient withdrawal, 1 due to unsatisfactory response, and 1 due to other reasons.

Twenty-five patients completed induction and went on to receive ixazomib maintenance. Five patients remain on study treatment.

Safety

Seventy-eight percent of patients had a grade 3 or higher AE, 46% had a serious AE, 57% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 15% had an AE leading to discontinuation of any of the study drugs. There were 2 on-study deaths.

The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, back pain, vomiting, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and rashes/eruptions/exanthems.

Efficacy

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not go on to receive HSCT.

The complete response (CR) rates were 23% and 32%, respectively. Thirty four percent and 32%, respectively, had a very good partial response (VGPR). And 30% and 17%, respectively, had a partial response (PR).

Thirty-two percent of patients who received maintenance (n=8) had an improvement in their response during the maintenance phase.  Two patients went from a VGPR to a stringent CR, 3 went from a VGPR to a CR, 2 went from a VGPR to a near CR, and 1 went from a PR to a VGPR.

Sixteen patients were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD). Of the patients with a stringent CR/CR, 89% (8/9) were MRD-negative.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to HSCT. The 4-year overall survival rate was 84% and 82%, respectively.

“Long-term follow-up, a median follow-up of 56 months, with the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone demonstrates that this is an efficacious regimen for newly diagnosed myeloma patients, with excellent tolerability, and something that can be maintained for a long period of time,” Dr Kumar said. “These results form the basis for an ongoing phase 3 program.”

Congress of EHA

An all-oral treatment regimen can produce deep and durable responses in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

In a phase 1/2 study, patients with newly diagnosed MM received treatment with ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for up to 12 cycles, followed by maintenance with ixazomib alone.

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not proceed to transplant.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to transplant.

Most patients did not complete all 12 cycles of induction, but 38% proceeded to maintenance, and 12% remain on study treatment at a median follow-up of 56 months.

Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, presented these results at the EHA Congress as abstract S408. The research was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Patients

The trial included 65 patients. Their median age was 66 (range, 34-86), and 55% were male. Eight percent of patients had high-risk cytogenetics.

ECOG performance status was 0 for 43% of patients, 1 for 52%, and 2 for 5%. ISS stage was 1 for 43% of patients, 2 for 43%, and 3 for 14%.

Treatment

Patients received ixazomib (1.68 - 3.95 mg/m² in phase 1 and 4.0 mg in phase 2 on days 1, 8, and 15) plus lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for up to twelve, 28-day cycles. Patients could then receive ixazomib maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Twenty-three patients (35%) discontinued induction to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Thirty-seven patients discontinued study treatment for other reasons—17 of them during induction. Twenty-one patients discontinued due to progressive disease, 9 due to adverse events (AEs), 5 due to patient withdrawal, 1 due to unsatisfactory response, and 1 due to other reasons.

Twenty-five patients completed induction and went on to receive ixazomib maintenance. Five patients remain on study treatment.

Safety

Seventy-eight percent of patients had a grade 3 or higher AE, 46% had a serious AE, 57% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 15% had an AE leading to discontinuation of any of the study drugs. There were 2 on-study deaths.

The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, back pain, vomiting, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and rashes/eruptions/exanthems.

Efficacy

The overall response rate was 88% for the entire cohort and 80% among patients who did not go on to receive HSCT.

The complete response (CR) rates were 23% and 32%, respectively. Thirty four percent and 32%, respectively, had a very good partial response (VGPR). And 30% and 17%, respectively, had a partial response (PR).

Thirty-two percent of patients who received maintenance (n=8) had an improvement in their response during the maintenance phase.  Two patients went from a VGPR to a stringent CR, 3 went from a VGPR to a CR, 2 went from a VGPR to a near CR, and 1 went from a PR to a VGPR.

Sixteen patients were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD). Of the patients with a stringent CR/CR, 89% (8/9) were MRD-negative.

The median progression-free survival was 35.4 months in the entire cohort and 29.4 months in patients who did not proceed to HSCT. The 4-year overall survival rate was 84% and 82%, respectively.

“Long-term follow-up, a median follow-up of 56 months, with the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone demonstrates that this is an efficacious regimen for newly diagnosed myeloma patients, with excellent tolerability, and something that can be maintained for a long period of time,” Dr Kumar said. “These results form the basis for an ongoing phase 3 program.”

Photo courtesy of Merck

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed clinical holds on 3 trials testing combination therapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)—KEYNOTE-183, KEYNOTE-185, and KEYNOTE-023.

In 2 of these trials—KEYNOTE-183 and -185—there were more deaths among patients receiving pembrolizumab than among patients receiving comparator treatments.

KEYNOTE-183 is a phase 3 study of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in refractory or relapsed and refractory MM.

KEYNOTE-185 is a phase 3 study of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in newly diagnosed and treatment-naïve MM.

The excess deaths in the pembrolizumab arms of KEYNOTE-183 and -185 led to a pause in enrollment for both trials, which was announced last month.

Now, the FDA says available data suggest the risks of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide or lenalidomide outweigh any potential benefit for MM patients.

Therefore, all patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-183 and -185 will discontinue investigational treatment with pembrolizumab.

The same applies to patients in the pembrolizumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone cohort of KEYNOTE-023.

KEYNOTE-023 is a phase 1 trial of pembrolizumab in combination with backbone treatments. Cohort 1 of this trial was designed to evaluate pembrolizumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in MM patients who received prior treatment with an immunomodulatory agent (lenalidomide, pomalidomide, or thalidomide).

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks interaction between the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its receptor ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2.

Pembrolizumab is FDA-approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high solid tumors.

Photo courtesy of Merck

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed clinical holds on 3 trials testing combination therapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)—KEYNOTE-183, KEYNOTE-185, and KEYNOTE-023.

In 2 of these trials—KEYNOTE-183 and -185—there were more deaths among patients receiving pembrolizumab than among patients receiving comparator treatments.

KEYNOTE-183 is a phase 3 study of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in refractory or relapsed and refractory MM.

KEYNOTE-185 is a phase 3 study of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in newly diagnosed and treatment-naïve MM.

The excess deaths in the pembrolizumab arms of KEYNOTE-183 and -185 led to a pause in enrollment for both trials, which was announced last month.

Now, the FDA says available data suggest the risks of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide or lenalidomide outweigh any potential benefit for MM patients.

Therefore, all patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-183 and -185 will discontinue investigational treatment with pembrolizumab.

The same applies to patients in the pembrolizumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone cohort of KEYNOTE-023.

KEYNOTE-023 is a phase 1 trial of pembrolizumab in combination with backbone treatments. Cohort 1 of this trial was designed to evaluate pembrolizumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in MM patients who received prior treatment with an immunomodulatory agent (lenalidomide, pomalidomide, or thalidomide).

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks interaction between the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its receptor ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2.

Pembrolizumab is FDA-approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high solid tumors.

Photo courtesy of Merck

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed clinical holds on 3 trials testing combination therapy with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)—KEYNOTE-183, KEYNOTE-185, and KEYNOTE-023.

In 2 of these trials—KEYNOTE-183 and -185—there were more deaths among patients receiving pembrolizumab than among patients receiving comparator treatments.

KEYNOTE-183 is a phase 3 study of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in refractory or relapsed and refractory MM.

KEYNOTE-185 is a phase 3 study of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in newly diagnosed and treatment-naïve MM.

The excess deaths in the pembrolizumab arms of KEYNOTE-183 and -185 led to a pause in enrollment for both trials, which was announced last month.

Now, the FDA says available data suggest the risks of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide or lenalidomide outweigh any potential benefit for MM patients.

Therefore, all patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-183 and -185 will discontinue investigational treatment with pembrolizumab.

The same applies to patients in the pembrolizumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone cohort of KEYNOTE-023.

KEYNOTE-023 is a phase 1 trial of pembrolizumab in combination with backbone treatments. Cohort 1 of this trial was designed to evaluate pembrolizumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in MM patients who received prior treatment with an immunomodulatory agent (lenalidomide, pomalidomide, or thalidomide).

Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks interaction between the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its receptor ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2.

Pembrolizumab is FDA-approved to treat classical Hodgkin lymphoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and microsatellite instability-high solid tumors.

Photo by Graham Colm

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed marketing of the ClearLLab Reagent Panel, a combination of conjugated antibody cocktails designed to aid the detection of hematopoietic neoplasia.

This includes chronic and acute leukemias, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The ClearLLab reagents are intended for in vitro diagnostic use to identify various cell populations by immunophenotyping on an FC 500 flow cytometer.

The reagents are directed against B, T, and myeloid lineage antigens and intended to identify relevant leukocyte surface molecules.

ClearLLab provides 2 T-cell tubes, 2 B-cell tubes, and a myeloid tube, each consisting of pre-mixed 4- to 5-color cocktails. Together, this totals 18 markers as directly conjugated antibodies.

The reagents can be used with peripheral whole blood, bone marrow, and lymph node specimens.

The results obtained via testing with the ClearLLab reagents should be interpreted along with additional clinical and laboratory findings, according to Beckman Coulter, Inc., the company that will be marketing the reagents.

The FDA reviewed data for the ClearLLab reagents through the de novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for novel, low-to-moderate-risk devices that are not substantially equivalent to an already legally marketed device.

The FDA’s clearance of the ClearLLab reagents was supported by a study designed to demonstrate the reagents’ performance, which was conducted on 279 samples at 4 independent clinical sites.

Results with the ClearLLab reagents were compared to results with alternative detection methods used at the sites.

The ClearLLab results aligned with the study sites’ final diagnosis 93.4% of the time and correctly detected abnormalities 84.2% of the time.

Along with its clearance of the ClearLLab reagents, the FDA is establishing criteria, called special controls, which clarify the agency’s expectations in assuring the reagents’ accuracy, reliability, and clinical relevance.

These special controls, when met along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the ClearLLab reagents and similar tools.

The special controls also describe the least burdensome regulatory pathway for future developers of similar diagnostic tests.

Photo by Graham Colm

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed marketing of the ClearLLab Reagent Panel, a combination of conjugated antibody cocktails designed to aid the detection of hematopoietic neoplasia.

This includes chronic and acute leukemias, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The ClearLLab reagents are intended for in vitro diagnostic use to identify various cell populations by immunophenotyping on an FC 500 flow cytometer.

The reagents are directed against B, T, and myeloid lineage antigens and intended to identify relevant leukocyte surface molecules.

ClearLLab provides 2 T-cell tubes, 2 B-cell tubes, and a myeloid tube, each consisting of pre-mixed 4- to 5-color cocktails. Together, this totals 18 markers as directly conjugated antibodies.

The reagents can be used with peripheral whole blood, bone marrow, and lymph node specimens.

The results obtained via testing with the ClearLLab reagents should be interpreted along with additional clinical and laboratory findings, according to Beckman Coulter, Inc., the company that will be marketing the reagents.

The FDA reviewed data for the ClearLLab reagents through the de novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for novel, low-to-moderate-risk devices that are not substantially equivalent to an already legally marketed device.

The FDA’s clearance of the ClearLLab reagents was supported by a study designed to demonstrate the reagents’ performance, which was conducted on 279 samples at 4 independent clinical sites.

Results with the ClearLLab reagents were compared to results with alternative detection methods used at the sites.

The ClearLLab results aligned with the study sites’ final diagnosis 93.4% of the time and correctly detected abnormalities 84.2% of the time.

Along with its clearance of the ClearLLab reagents, the FDA is establishing criteria, called special controls, which clarify the agency’s expectations in assuring the reagents’ accuracy, reliability, and clinical relevance.

These special controls, when met along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the ClearLLab reagents and similar tools.

The special controls also describe the least burdensome regulatory pathway for future developers of similar diagnostic tests.

Photo by Graham Colm

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed marketing of the ClearLLab Reagent Panel, a combination of conjugated antibody cocktails designed to aid the detection of hematopoietic neoplasia.

This includes chronic and acute leukemias, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The ClearLLab reagents are intended for in vitro diagnostic use to identify various cell populations by immunophenotyping on an FC 500 flow cytometer.

The reagents are directed against B, T, and myeloid lineage antigens and intended to identify relevant leukocyte surface molecules.

ClearLLab provides 2 T-cell tubes, 2 B-cell tubes, and a myeloid tube, each consisting of pre-mixed 4- to 5-color cocktails. Together, this totals 18 markers as directly conjugated antibodies.

The reagents can be used with peripheral whole blood, bone marrow, and lymph node specimens.

The results obtained via testing with the ClearLLab reagents should be interpreted along with additional clinical and laboratory findings, according to Beckman Coulter, Inc., the company that will be marketing the reagents.

The FDA reviewed data for the ClearLLab reagents through the de novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for novel, low-to-moderate-risk devices that are not substantially equivalent to an already legally marketed device.

The FDA’s clearance of the ClearLLab reagents was supported by a study designed to demonstrate the reagents’ performance, which was conducted on 279 samples at 4 independent clinical sites.

Results with the ClearLLab reagents were compared to results with alternative detection methods used at the sites.

The ClearLLab results aligned with the study sites’ final diagnosis 93.4% of the time and correctly detected abnormalities 84.2% of the time.

Along with its clearance of the ClearLLab reagents, the FDA is establishing criteria, called special controls, which clarify the agency’s expectations in assuring the reagents’ accuracy, reliability, and clinical relevance.

These special controls, when met along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the ClearLLab reagents and similar tools.

The special controls also describe the least burdensome regulatory pathway for future developers of similar diagnostic tests.