Lenalidomide in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Clinical Update EHA 2010 DR. OUSSAMA JRADI
description
Transcript of Lenalidomide in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Clinical Update EHA 2010 DR. OUSSAMA JRADI
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