lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma clinical update eha 2010 dr. oussama jradi
DESCRIPTION
Lenalidomide in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Clinical Update EHA 2010 DR. OUSSAMA JRADI. ASCO and EHA 2010 re-defined the Meaning of Maintenance Treatment in Multiple Myeloma. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
2
Lenalidomide in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Clinical Update EHA 2010
DR. OUSSAMA JRADI
3
• 3 major trials have demonstrated significant superiority of maintenance, utilizing lenalidomide in this setting.
ASCO and EHA 2010 re-defined the Meaning of Maintenance Treatment in Multiple Myeloma
4
Is Longer Treatment Better?
5
EHA 2010 – Yes, longer treatment is better in patients after autologous transplant!
EHA 2010 – Yes longer treatment is better in elderly patients not eligible for transplant!
Lenalidomide Maintenance after Autologous Transplantation for Myeloma:
First Interim analysis of a prospective randomized study of the Intergroupe
Francophone du Myélome
(IFM 2005-02 trial)
By Michel Attal, Gerald Marit, Denis Caillot, Thierry Facon, Philippe Moreau, Cyrille Hulin, Claire Mathiot, Hervé Avet-Loiseau, and Jean-Luc Harousseau.
for the IFM
IFM 2005-02: Study design
Patients < 65 years, with non-progressive disease, 6 months after ASCT in first line
Arm B=Lenalidomide
(N=307)10-15 mg/d until relapse
Primary end-point: PFS.Secondary end-points: CR rate, TTP, OS, feasibility of long-term lenalidomide….
Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trialN= 614 patients, from 78 centers, enrolled between 7/2006 and 8/2008
ASCT = autologous stem cell transplant. IFM = Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome.
Consolidation:Lenalidomide alone 25 mg/day p.o.
days 1-21 of every 28 days for 2 months
Randomization: stratified according to Beta-2m, del13, VGPR
Arm A=Placebo(N=307)
10-15 mg/d until relapse
IFM 2005 02 Trial: Patient characteristics Arm A (placebo)
N=307Arm B (Len)
N=307
• Age (y) 55 55
• Sex (M/F) 59% / 41% 55% / 45%
• ISSIIIIII
36%25%39%
30%24%46%
• Beta-2 m (≤3 / >3) 33% / 67% 30% / 70%
• Del 13 (present /eval) 40% 42%
• t(4-14) (present /eval) 7% 11%
• Del 17 (present /eval) 5% 7%
IFM 2005-02 : PFS from randomization
. Arm AN=307
Arm BN=307 P
Progression or Death 143 (47%) 77 (25%)
Median PFS (m) 24 (21-27) NA
3-year post rando PFS(i.e. 4-year post diag) 34% 68%
Hazard Ratio 1 0.46 < 10-7
IFM 2005-02 : PFS from randomization
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Placebo Revlimid
p<10-7
P < 10-7
Rev
Placebo
PFS according to Response Pre-Consolidation
HR= 0.37 - CI 95% [0.25-0.58] HR= 0.54 - CI 95% [0.37-0.78]
PR or SD VGPR or CR
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Placebo Revlimid
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Placebo Revlimid
p<10-5 p=0.001
Grade 3-4 Adverse Events during Maintenance
AE (grade 4) Arm A Arm B Anemia 0% 3% (2%)Thrombocytopenia 3% 8% (3%)Neutropenia 6% (1%) 31% (7%)Febrile Neutropenia 0% 0.1%Infections 4% 8%DVT 0.3% 0.6%Skin disorders 1% 4%Fatigue 0.6% 2%Peripheral Neuropathy 0.3% 0.4%Neoplasia 0.9% 1%
Definitive Discontinuation for SAE: placebo = 4% vs lenalidomide = 6% (NS)
IFM 2005-02: First Interim Analysis (Cut off date 4th September 2009)
Maintenance therapy with Lenalidomide:• Is well tolerated:
Low discontinuation rate due to SAE (A=4%vs B=6%, NS)No increased incidence of DVT or peripheral neuropathy
• Is superior to placebo: 54% reduction risk of progression (p < 10-7)In all stratified subgroups (VGPR, ß2m, del 13)
A longer follow-up is required to appreciate the impact of Lenalidomide on OS (Final analysis: 8/2010)
14
Lenalidomide
Treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM with MPR followed by R maintenance
15
16
Secondary Comparison MPR-R vs. MPR
Addition of MPR arm per EMEA advice
MPM: 0.18 mg/kg, days 1-4P: 2 mg/kg, days 1-4PBO: days 1-21
Primary Comparison MPR-R vs. MP
MPRM: 0.18 mg/kg, days 1-4P: 2 mg/kg, days 1-4R: 10 mg/day po, days 1-21
Placebo
Placebo
Phase III Study Schema
M, melphalan; P, prednisone; R, lenalidomide; PBO, placebo.
MPR-RM: 0.18 mg/kg, days 1-4P: 2 mg/kg, days 1-4R: 10 mg/day po, days 1-21
RA
ND
OM
ISAT
ION
Double-Blind Treatment Phase
Diseaseprogression
LenalidomideContinued Tx
Lenalidomide (25 mg/day)
+/- dexamethasone
Open-Label Extension/Follow-Up Phase
N=459, 82 centers in Europe, Australia
Stratified by age (≤ 75 vs. > 75 years) and stage (ISS 1,2 vs. 3)
10 mg/day,days 1-21
Cycles (28-day) 1-9 Cycles 10+
17
MPR-R N = 152
MPR N = 153
MPN = 154
Median age, years (range) 71(65-87)
71(65-86)
72(65-91)
Age distribution > 75 years
24% 24% 25%
ISS Stage I / II / III 18 / 33 / 49% 21 / 31 / 48% 18 / 31 / 51%
Median BM plasma cells 35% 38% 35%
• 459 patients randomised between Feb 2007 and Sept 2008– 180 patients ongoing (MPR-R: 73; MPR: 54; MP: 53)
ISS, International Staging System
Patient Characteristics
18
Best Response
Best Overall Responsea MPR-R N = 152
MPR N = 153
MP N = 154
P Value(MPR-R vs. MP)
ORR 77% 67% 50% <0.001
CRb 16% 13% 4% <0.001
≥ VGPRc 32% 33% 12% <0.001
PR 45% 34% 37% ---
Progressive Disease 0% 1% 0% ---
Median time to first response, months 2 1.9 3 <0.001
1. Bladé J et al. Br J Haematol. 1998;102:1115-1123.
a. As measured using EBMT criteria1
b. Immunofixation negative with or without bone marrow confirmationc. VGPR: >90% reduction in M-protein
19
Progression-Free SurvivalSecond Interim Analysis
58% Reduced Risk in PFS
HR 0.423 95% CI [0.330, 0.755]Logrank P<0.001
MPR-RMP
Median PFS
Not reached13.0 months
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
25
50
75
100
PFS Time (months)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
25
50
75
100
PFS Time (months)
Patie
nts
with
out E
vent
(%)
Median follow up: 21 mos
22
Primary Analysis MPR-R vs. MP
MPRM: 0.18 mg/kg, days 1-4P: 2 mg/kg, days 1-4R: 10 mg/day po, days 1-21
Placebo
MPR-R vs. MPR Secondary Comparison
M, melphalan; P, prednisone; R, lenalidomide; PBO, placebo.
MPR-RM: 0.18 mg/kg, days 1-4P: 2 mg/kg, days 1-4R: 10 mg/day po, days 1-21
RA
ND
OM
ISAT
ION
Double-Blind Treatment Phase
Diseaseprogression
LenalidomideContinued Tx
10 mg/day,days 1-21
Cycles (28-day) 1-9 Cycles 10+
Secondary Comparison MPR-R vs. MPR
Addition of MPR arm per EMEA advice
23
MPR-R vs. MPR Landmark PFS Analysis After Cycle 9
69% Reduced Risk in PFS
No. at Risk
MPR-R 75 40 17 3 1
MPR 81 21 8 1 1
HR 0.31495% CI [0.126, 0.476]Logrank P<0.001
0 5 10 15 200
25
50
75
100
PFS Time (months)
Pat
ient
s w
ithou
t Eve
nt (%
)
MPR-RMPR
24
Grade 3/4 AEs After Cycle 9 (Continuous Lenalidomide)
DVT, deep vein thrombosis
MPR-R N = 75
MPN = 94
Anemia 0% 5%Thrombocytopenia 3% 1%Neutropenia 1% 0%DVT 3% 0%Rash 0% 0%Fatigue 1% 0%Peripheral neuropathy 0% 0%
• Overall toxicity in maintenance phase is rather low: Grade 3/4 < 5%
25
Conclusions MPR-R in Elderly NDMM
• Continuous lenalidomide is superior to regimens of limited duration
• MPR-R is superior to MP– Higher and more rapid responses– 50% reduced risk of progression
• Favorable safety profile– Grade 4 neutropenia: 36% (febrile neutropenia: <7%)– No Grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy (Grade 2: 1% )– Low discontinuation due to AE: 16%
• MPR-R is a new standard treatment option for elderly patients
26