Bortezomib,cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone versus lenalidomide,cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients at first relapse

Bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens are well-established therapies in multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite their extensive use, head-to-head comparisons have never been performed. Therefore, we compared bortezomib and lenalidomide in fixed-duration therapies. In this open-label, phase III study, we randomized MM patients at first relapse to receive either nine cycles of bortezomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (VCD) or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (RCD). The primary endpoint was achievement of a very good partial response (VGPR) or better at six weeks after nine treatment cycles. From March 2011 to February 2015, 155 patients were randomized. VGPR or better was achieved by 12 patients (15%) in the VCD arm and 14 patients (18%) in the RCD arm (P = 0·70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16·3 (95% CI: 12·1–22·4) with VCD and 18·6 months (95% CI: 14·7–25·5) with RCD, and the two-year overall survival (OS) was 75% (95% CI: 66–86%) and 74% (95% CI: 64–85%) respectively. In subgroup analyses, no differences in PFS were observed in bortezomib- and lenalidomide-naïve patients, nor in patients who received a bortezomib-based regimen in first line. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profiles of both drugs. Bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments were equally effective in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS in MM patients at first relapse.     

Upfront lower dose lenalidomide is less toxic and does not compromise efficacy for vulnerable patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: final analysis of the phase II RevLite study

The combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone is an established treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Increasingly, treatment attenuation is advocated for frail/elderly patients to minimize toxicity even though there have been no prospective studies to demonstrate whether lenalidomide dose attenuation impacts on response and survival outcome. This prospective multicentre phase II study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lower dose lenalidomide (15 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg) in 149 eligible patients with relapsed/refractory MM aged over 59 years and/or with renal impairment. The overall response rate was 71% (complete response 15%). Median (range) progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8·9 (6·9–11·5) and 30·5 (20·0–36·2) months, respectively. Upon formal statistical comparison of these endpoints to that of a matched cohort of patients from the pivotal phase III MM009/MM010 studies who received standard‐dose lenalidomide (25 mg) and high‐dose dexamethasone (40 mg) no difference was seen in PFS (P = 0·34) and OS (P = 0·21). Importantly, grade 3–4 toxicities were reduced with low‐dose lenalidomide, mainly lower neutropenia (29% vs. 41%), infections (23% vs. 31%) and venous thromboembolism (3% vs. 13%). This study supports a strategy of lenalidomide dose reduction at the outset for at‐risk patients, and prospectively confirms that such an approach reduces adverse events while not compromising patient response or survival outcomes.     

High expression of cereblon (CRBN) is associated with improved clinical response in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone

Cereblon (CRBN) has recently been identified as a target for immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and its downregulation has been linked to resistance to lenalidomide. Here, we studied CRBN expression by real time polymerase chain reaction in 49 bone marrow samples of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Median CRBN expression was 3·45 in patients who achieved complete response, and 3·75, 2·01, 0·78, and 0·70 in those with very good partial response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease respectively. CRBN expression levels correlated significantly with response to lenalidomide treatment (r = 0·48; P < 0·001). Among established prognostic parameters, only beta‐2‐microglobulin correlated with cereblon (r = 0·66; P < 0·001). A close association of CRBN with interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) (P < 0·001) and with CTNNB1 (P < 0·001) was found. Overall, a statistically significant association between baseline CRBN expression and response in MM patients treated with lenalidomide is shown. CRBN expression is closely associated with IRF4, which is an important target of IMiD therapy.     

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment failure

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted in early treatment lines need effective therapies. In cohort A of the phase 2 MM-014 trial, we examined the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment failure in patients with RRMM and two prior lines of therapy. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1 to 21 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The intention-to-treat population comprised 56 patients; all received prior lenalidomide (87·5% lenalidomide refractory) and 39 (69·6%) received prior bortezomib. ORR was 32·1% (28·2% in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median PFS was 12·2 months (7·9 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median OS was 41·7 months (38·6 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (25·0%), pneumonia (14·3%) and fatigue (14·3%). These findings support earlier sequencing of pomalidomide-based therapy in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with RRMM, including those who have become refractory to lenalidomide. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01946477.     

Carfilzomib,lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma categorised by age: secondary analysis from the phase 3 ASPIRE study

A primary analysis of the ASPIRE study found that the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS ) compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM ). This post hoc analysis examined outcomes from ASPIRE in patients categorised by age. In the carfilzomib group, 103/396 patients were ≥70 years old, and in the control group, 115/396 patients were ≥70 years old. Median PFS for patients <70 years old was 28·6 months for the carfilzomib group versus 17·6 months for the control group [hazard ratio (HR ), 0·701]. Median PFS for patients ≥70 years old was 23·8 months for the carfilzomib group versus 16·0 months for the control group (HR , 0·753). For patients <70 years the overall response rate (ORR ) was 86·0% (carfilzomib group) and 66·9% (control group); for patients ≥70 years old the ORR was 90·3% (carfilzomib group) and 66·1% (control group). Within the carfilzomib group, grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events occurred more frequently among patients ≥70 years old compared with patients <70 years old. Carfilzomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone has a favourable benefit‐risk profile for patients with RMM , including elderly patients ≥70 years old. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01080391.     

(Bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)- vs (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)- vs (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We searched electronic and printed sources for relevant articles published. Inclusion criteria was as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCT) of (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide) vs (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Two reviewers independently assessed potentially eligible studies and extracted relevant data. We retrieved five RCT studies including a total of 1,200 patients. Using the random-effects model to pool the five RCT with a statistically significant heterogeneity (P?=?0.03; X ²?=?10.69; df?=?4; I ²?=?63?%), the weighted risk ratios of a complete response (CR) for (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens was 1.81 (P?=?0.005; 95?% CI: 1.20–2.73). When we excluded the study by Cavo et al. (Lancet 376:2075–2085, 2010), the pooled risk ratio for CR was 1.59 (P?<?0.0001, 95 %CI: 1.29–1.96) with no statistically significant heterogeneity (P?=?0.54; X ²?=?2.14; df?=?3; I ²?=?0?%) among four RCT under the fixed effects mode. The pooled odds ratio for the main grade III/IV adverse events (the peripheral neuropathy, thrombotic events, and infections) were 1.76 (P?=?0.32; 95?% CI: 0.58–5.31), 0.92 (P?=?0.76, 95 %CI: 0.52–1.61), and 1.05 (P?=?0.82, 95?% CI: 0.70–1.57), respectively. Our analysis showed (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma improved CR but did not increase the risk of major adverse events (the peripheral neuropathy, thrombotic events, and infections).     

A phase 2 study of modified lenalidomide,bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma

We sought a regimen that incorporates optimal novel agents and balances efficacy with toxicity in transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Our study evaluated modified lenalidomide‐bortezomib‐dexamethasone (RVD lite) in this population and was administered over a 35‐day cycle. Lenalidomide 15 mg was given orally on days 1–21; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² weekly subcutaneously on days 1, 8, 15 and 22; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally was given on the day of and day after bortezomib for 9 cycles followed by 6 cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR); secondary objectives included safety, progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Fifty‐three eligible patients were screened between April 2013 and May 2015; 50 received at least one dose of therapy. Median age at study entry was 73 years (range 65–91). The ORR was 86% and 66% of patients achieved a very good partial response or better. Median PFS was 35·1 months (95% confidence interval 30·9–not reached) and median OS was not reached at a median follow‐up of 30 months. Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 31 (62%) patients with only 1 patient experiencing grade 3 symptoms. RVD lite is a well‐tolerated and highly effective regimen, with robust PFS and OS, in the transplant‐ineligible MM population.     

Endothelial stress products and coagulation markers in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone: an observational study

In this prospective study of patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, relationships between markers of endothelial stress and drug administration and incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) were assessed. Of 33 enrolled patients, laboratory and treatment data were available for 32 patients. Of these, 23 received pulsed dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1–4, 9–12 and 17–21 of each 28‐day cycle) and 9 received weekly dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 21 of each cycle). The overall incidence of VTE was 9%. A decreasing trend in markers values was observed with intercellular adhesion molecule (P = 0·05), fibrinogen (P = 0·008), plasminogen activator inhibitor‐1 (P < 0·001), homocysteine (P = 0·002) and P–selectin (P < 0·001) during therapy. Compared with weekly dexamethasone, pulsed dexamethasone was associated with significantly greater variation in mean adjusted relative values of fibrinogen, P‐selectin and vascular endothelial growth factor (P < 0·001 for all comparisons), although there was no apparent association with VTE incidence. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone affects endothelial stress marker levels in patients with advanced MM. The higher variation seen with pulsed dexamethasone suggests greater endothelial stress with this approach.     

Long‐term outcomes of primary systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis in patients treated upfront with bortezomib or lenalidomide and the importance of risk adapted strategies

Bortezomib and lenalidomide are increasingly used in patients with AL amyloidosis, but long term data on their use as primary therapy in AL amyloidosis are lacking while early mortality remains significant. Thus, we analyzed the long term outcomes of 85 consecutive unselected patients, which received primary therapy with bortezomib or lenalidomide and we prospectively evaluated a risk adapted strategy based on bortezomib/dexamethasone to reduce early mortality. Twenty‐six patients received full‐dose bortezomib/dexamethasone, 36 patients lenalidomide with oral cyclophosphamide and low‐dose dexamethasone and 23 patients received bortezomib/dexamethasone at a dose and schedule adjusted to the risk of early death. On intent to treat, 67% of patients achieved a hematologic response (24% hemCRs) and 34% an organ response; both were more frequent with bortezomib. An early death occurred in 20%: in 36% of those treated with full‐dose bortezomib/dexamethasone, in 22% of lenalidomide‐treated patients but only in 4.5% of patients treated with risk‐adapted bortezomib/dexamethasone. Activity of full vs. adjusted dose bortezomib/dexamethasone was similar; twice weekly vs. weekly administration of bortezomib also had similar activity. After a median follow up of 57 months, median survival is 47 months and is similar for patients treated with bortezomib vs. lenalidomide‐based regimens. However, risk adjusted‐bortezomib/dexamethasone was associated with improved 1‐year survival vs. full‐dose bortezomib/dexamethasone or lenalidomide‐based therapy (81% vs. 56% vs. 53%, respectively). In conclusion, risk‐adapted bortezomib/dexamethasone may reduce early mortality and preserve activity while long term follow up indicates that remissions obtained with lenalidomide or bortezomib may be durable, even without consolidation with alkylators.Am. J. Hematol. 90:E60–E65, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: ELOQUENT‐2 follow‐up and post‐hoc analyses on progression‐free survival and tumour growth

The randomized phase III ELOQUENT‐2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab + lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 30% versus Ld (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70). Median time from diagnosis was 3·5 years. We present extended 3‐year follow‐up data. Endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and interim overall survival (OS). Exploratory post‐hoc analyses included impact of time from diagnosis and prior lines of therapy on PFS, and serum M‐protein dynamic modelling. ORR was 79% (ELd) and 66% (Ld) (P = 0·0002). ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 27% versus Ld (HR 0·73; P = 0·0014). Interim OS demonstrated a trend in favour of ELd (P = 0·0257); 1‐, 2‐ and 3‐year rates with ELd versus Ld were: 91% versus 83%, 73% versus 69% and 60% versus 53%. In patients with ≥ median time from diagnosis and one prior therapy, ELd resulted in a 53% reduction in the risk of progression/death versus Ld (HR 0·47). Serum M‐protein dynamic modelling showed slower tumour regrowth with ELd. Adverse events were comparable between arms. ELd provided a durable and clinically relevant improvement in efficacy, with minimal incremental toxicity.     

Bortezomib‐Cyclophosphamide‐Dexamethasone (VCD) versus Bortezomib‐Thalidomide‐Dexamethasone (VTD) ‐based regimens as induction therapies in newly diagnosed transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: a meta‐analysis

Three‐drug induction regimens have become the standard of care in newly diagnosed transplant‐eligible multiple myeloma patients. Two frequently used protocols are bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) and bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD). Comparisons between the two are lacking. The present study aimed to identify the differences in response rate and toxicity between the two regimens. Databases were searched using the terms ‘VTD’ or ‘VCD’ and ‘induction regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma’. Prospective trials evaluating initial response in transplant eligible patients were included. The main outcome measures were response rates and adverse events. Eight clinical trials were eligible for analysis. Overall 672 patients were treated with either VCD (n = 157) or VTD (n = 515) as induction therapy. Patients treated with VTD presented with a significantly higher complete/near complete response (34% vs. 6%, P = 0·002) as well as a higher very good partial response rate or better, following induction therapy (62% vs. 27%, P < 0·0001). Although grade 3–4 neurotoxicity was more frequent during VTD therapy (11% vs. 6%, P = 0·057), a higher incidence of overall grade 3–4 adverse events was found in the VCD‐treated patients (74% vs. 51%, P < 0·001). VTD induction therapy may be superior in achieving deeper response rate following induction therapy, and is better tolerated.     

Clarithromycin (Biaxin)‐lenalidomide‐low‐dose dexamethasone (BiRd) versus lenalidomide‐low‐dose dexamethasone (Rd) for newly diagnosed myeloma

The objective of this case‐matched study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide/low‐dose dexamethasone (BiRd) vs. lenalidomide/low‐dose dexamethasone (Rd) for newly diagnosed myeloma. Data from 72 patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital‐Cornell Medical Center were retrospectively compared with an equal number of matched pair mates selected among patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd. Case matching was blinded and was performed according to age, gender, and transplant status. On intention‐to‐treat analysis, complete response (45.8% vs. 13.9%, P < 0.001) and very‐good‐partial‐response or better (73.6% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher with BiRd. Time‐to‐progression (median 48.3 vs. 27.5 months, P = 0.071), and progression‐free survival (median 48.3 vs. 27.5 months, P = 0.044) were higher with BiRd. There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd (3‐year OS: 89.7% vs. 73.0%, P = 0.170). Main grade 3–4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.012). Infections (16.7% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.129) were higher with Rd. Results of this case‐matchedanalysis suggest that there is significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. Randomized phase III trials are needed to confirm these results. Am. J. Hematol., 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A phase II trial of cyclophosphamide,lenalidomide and dexamethasone in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis

Immune-modulatory drugs are active in immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis and the addition of alkylating agents can potentiate their action. In this phase II prospective trial we used cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the treatment of 21 patients who were refractory (n=13, 62%) or relapsed (n=8, 38%) after prior treatment including melphalan in all cases, bortezomib in 4 and thalidomide in 6. Median number of cycles administered was 4 (range 2–9 cycles). Severe adverse events were observed in 57% of patients, most common being neutropenia (29%). The hematologic response rate was 62%, with one complete response and 5 very good partial responses. Overall median survival was three years. The achievement of CR/VGPR was associated with a significant survival advantage. The combination of cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone is an effective treatment for relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis, and good quality hematologic response should be the aim of treatment in this setting.(clinicaltrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00607581","term_id":"NCT00607581"}}NCT00607581)     

Phase II study of bortezomib,cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone as induction therapy in multiple myeloma: DSMM XI trial

We assessed the safety and efficacy of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) induction therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. A total of 414 patients received three 21‐day cycles of VCD prior to autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT). Most common grade ≥3 adverse events were leucopenia (31·4%) and thrombocytopenia (6·8%). The overall response rate (ORR) by investigator‐based assessment was 85·4%. Most patients (74%) underwent successful central laboratory‐based molecular cytogenetic analysis. No clinically relevant differences in ORR post‐induction were seen between patients with or without high‐risk cytogenetic abnormalities (86·2% vs. 84·3%). Further follow‐up data are available for 113 patients receiving ASCT who were included in a prospective consolidation trial (median follow‐up, 55·5 months); median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 35·3 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. In patients with high‐risk versus standard‐risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 19·9 vs. 43·6 months (P < 0·0001), and median OS was 54·7 months versus not reached (P = 0·0022). VCD is an effective and tolerable induction regimen; results suggest that VCD induces high response rates independently of cytogenetic risk status, but after long‐term follow‐up, cytogenetic high risk is associated with markedly reduced PFS and OS post‐ASCT.     

Comparison of venous thromboembolism incidence in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib,lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD) or carfilzomib,lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) with aspirin or rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies across different regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Limited data exist on the use of direct oral anticoagulants as thromboprophylaxis in the setting of haematologic malignancies, specifically multiple myeloma. In this retrospective study of 305 NDMM patients, VTE rates in those treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) + aspirin (ASA), bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD) + ASA, and KRD + rivaroxaban were statistically significant, 16·1%, 4·8%, and 4·8%, respectively. The findings confirm a higher incidence of VTE when using KRD induction compared to RVD induction and reveal that the use of low-dose rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis can mitigate this risk without an observable increase in bleeding rates.     

Bendamustine in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone is a viable salvage option in myeloma relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide

Treatment options are limited in myeloma relapsed or refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide (double-relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; DRMM). Bendamustine is an antitumour agent that has efficacy in relapsed myeloma. We retrospectively analysed data from 30 DRMM patients who received a combination of bendamustine, thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) in 28-day treatment cycles. Bendamustine was administered with a cumulative dose of up to 200 mg/m². Thalidomide (50–150 mg) was given daily as tolerated, and dexamethasone was given at an equivalent dose of up to 160 mg per cycle. A median of 5 (2–9) treatment cycles were administered per patient. Twenty-six patients (87 %) achieved stable disease or better. At a median follow-up time of 12.1 (2.3–21.5) months, median (95 % CI) progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.0 (2.6–5.3) months and 7.2 (5.2–9.2) months, respectively. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological: anaemia (n?=?8, 34.8 %), neutropenia (n?=?16, 69.6 %) and thrombocytopenia (n?=?10, 43.5 %). Non-haematological toxicities included pain (n?=?3, 13.0 %), infection (n?=?7, 30.4 %) and sensory neuropathy (n?=?1, 4.3 %). We propose that BTD is a viable salvage treatment option for DRMM patients.     

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone: a retrospective study in newly diagnosed elderly myeloma

Background: The goal of this retrospective study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of lenalidomide–dexamethasone (len/dex) vs. melphalan–prednisone–lenalidomide (MPR) as upfront therapy for newly diagnosed elderly patients with myeloma. Methods: Data from 51 patients enrolled in an Italian phase I/II trial and treated with MPR were analyzed and compared with data from 38 patients, seen at the Mayo Clinic, treated with len/dex and enrolled in phase II/III trials. Results: On intention‐to‐treat analysis, time to progression (median: 24.7 vs. 27.5 months in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively, P = 0.903), progression‐free survival (median: 24.7 vs. 27.5 months in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively, P = 0.926), and overall survival (2‐yr overall survival: 86.2% in MPR vs. 89.1% in len/dex, P = 0.730) were not significantly different between the two groups. Results were confirmed when the analysis was restricted to MPR and len/dex matched pair mates. Hematologic grade 3–4 toxicities were more common with MPR (neutropenia: 66.7% vs. 21.1%, P < 0.001; thrombocytopenia: 31.4% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001). Grade 3–4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.132), thrombotic events (13.2% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.279), and fatigue (10.5% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.395) were more common with len/dex. Conclusions: Results show that both MPR and len/dex are efficacious regimens for elderly patients with myeloma. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.     

Continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Asia: subanalysis of the FIRST trial

The phase 3 FIRST (Frontline Investigation of REVLIMID + Dexamethasone Versus Standard Thalidomide) trial demonstrated that lenalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone (Rd) until disease progression (Rd continuous) is an effective treatment option for transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Given genetic differences between Asian and Western populations, this subanalysis of the FIRST trial examined the safety and efficacy of Rd (given continuously or for 18 cycles [Rd18]) and MPT (melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide) in 114 Asian patients from Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan. Efficacy and safety with Rd continuous in Asian patients were consistent with those in the overall study population. The overall response rates were 77·8% for Rd continuous, 57·5% for MPT and 65·8% for Rd18. The risk of progression or death was reduced by 39% with Rd continuous versus MPT and by 35% with Rd continuous versus Rd18. Rd continuous improved the 3‐year survival rate compared with MPT (70·2% vs. 56·4%) and Rd18 (58·1%). Common grade 3/4 adverse events in the Rd continuous and MPT arms were neutropenia (25·0% vs. 43·6%), infection (19·4% vs. 28·2%) and anaemia (19·4% vs. 15·4%), respectively. Thromboembolic event rates were low, and no second primary malignancies were observed. Rd continuous is safe and effective in transplant‐ineligible Asian patients with NDMM.     

Lenalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible patients of all ages in the randomized,phase III,Myeloma XI trial

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n=2,042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before autologous stem-cell transplantation to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation, eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96; P=0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.93; P=0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.42-1.15) and ultra-high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n=451) or observation (n=377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; P<0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.     

Salvage therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with advanced AL amyloidosis refractory to melphalan,bortezomib, and thalidomide

The increasing number of effective agents allows rescue therapy of patients with light-chain (AL) amyloidosis refractory to ≥2 previous treatments. Lenalidomide is effective in this disease and its toxicity profile encourages its use in salvage regimens. All the patients with AL amyloidosis refractory to both melphalan and bortezomib referred to our center between July 2007 and July 2009 were treated with the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Twenty-four consecutive patients were enrolled. Seventy-nine percent were also refractory to thalidomide. Two patients died before evaluation of response, and 50% experienced severe adverse events. Survival was significantly shorter in subjects with troponin I >0.1 ng/mL and in patients diagnosed <18 months before treatment initiation. Hematologic response was observed in 41% of patients and prolonged survival (median 10 months vs. not reached, P = 0.005) independently from troponin I concentration and from pre-treatment disease duration. Salvage therapy beyond second line of treatment can improve survival in AL amyloidosis and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a valuable option in this setting.