Prognostic or predictive value of circulating cytokines and angiogenic factors for initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Several new drugs are approved for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but no validated biomarkers are available for the prediction of a clinical outcome. We aimed to establish whether pretreatment blood and bone marrow plasma concentrations of major cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) of patients from a phase 3 trial of a MM treatment could have a prognostic and predictive value in terms of response to therapy and progression-free and overall survival and whether these patients could be stratified for their prognosis. METHODS: Blood and bone marrow plasma levels of Ang-2, FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, PDGF-ß, IL-8, TNF-α, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 were determined at diagnosis in MM patients enrolled in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These levels were correlated both reciprocally and with the type of therapy and patients' characteristics and with a group of non-MM patients as controls. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the blood and bone marrow plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines. A cutoff for each CAF was established. The therapeutic response of patients with blood plasma levels of CAFs lower than the cutoff was better than the response of those with higher levels in terms of percentage of responding patients and quality of response. CONCLUSION: FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, and PDGF-ß plasma levels at diagnosis have predictive significance for response to treatment. The stratification of patients based on the levels of CAFs at diagnosis and their variations after therapy is useful to characterize different risk groups concerning outcome and response to therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial information can be found at the following link: NCT01063179.

Continuous therapy in standard- and high-risk newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adapted therapy is a common strategy in curable hematologic malignancies: standard-risk patients receive less intensive treatment, whereas high-risk patients require a more intensive approach. This model cannot be applied in multiple myeloma (MM), which is still incurable. Continuous treatment (CT) is a key strategy for MM treatment, since it improves duration of remission. However, the role of CT according to standard- or high-risk baseline prognosis remains an open question. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials (GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and RV-MM-PI-209) that randomized patients to CT vs fixed-duration therapy (FDT). RESULTS: In the overall patient population (n = 550), CT improved progression-free survival1 (PFS1) (HR 0.54), PFS2 (HR 0.61) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.71) vs FDT. CT improved PFS1 both in R-ISS I (HR 0.49) and R-ISS II/III patients (HR 0.55). Four-year PFS1 was 38% in R-ISS II/III patients receiving CT and 25% in R-ISS I patients receiving FDT, with similar trends for PFS2 and OS. High-risk patients benefited more from proteasome-inhibitor plus immunomodulatory-based CT than immunomodulatory alone. CONCLUSION: Good prognosis patients receiving FDT lose their prognostic advantage over high-risk patients receiving CT and high-risk patients may benefit from more intensive maintenance including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators.

Treatment Intensification With Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Lenalidomide Maintenance Improves Survival Outcomes of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in Complete Response.

BACKGROUND: High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with novel agents are the best options for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, increasing the rate of complete response (CR) and prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Indeed, the achievement of a CR is a predictor of long-term survival among transplant-eligible patients. However, it is unclear whether patients reaching a CR after induction treatment could receive less intense consolidation or avoid maintenance therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed CR patients treated in 2 phase III trials, GIMEMA-RV-MM-PI-209 and RV-MM-EMN-441, to compare HDT-ASCT with an R-Alk (lenalidomide, alkylator) regimen as consolidation, and lenalidomide (R) maintenance with no maintenance. The primary endpoints were PFS, second PFS (PFS2), and OS from consolidation and maintenance (_m). RESULTS: Overall, the data from 166 patients in CR were analyzed, 95 in the HDT-ASCT group and 71 in the R-Alk group. The CR patients who received HDT-ASCT had a better PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P = .01), PFS2 (HR, 0.46; P = .02), and OS (HR, 0.42; P = .03) compared with patients randomized to R-Alk. The survival benefit with HDT-ASCT was confirmed among all the subgroups, according to age, International Staging System (ISS stage, cytogenetic profile, and receipt of maintenance therapy. CR patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had a better PFS_m (4 years: 54% vs. 19%; HR, 0.43; P = .02) compared with those who received no maintenance. However, no difference was observed in terms of PFS2_m (4 years: 72% vs. 58%; HR, 0.83; P = .67) and OS_m (4 years: 79% vs. 72%; HR, 0.82; P = .73) with maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION: Even in CR patients, outcomes were improved by an intensified approach with HDT-ASCT consolidation and lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy.

Maintenance in myeloma patients achieving complete response after upfront therapy: a pooled analysis.

PURPOSE: Maintenance demonstrated to improve survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients and the achievement of complete response (CR) is a strong predictor of survival. Nevertheless, the role of maintenance according to response after induction/consolidation has not been investigated so far. To evaluate the impact of maintenance according to response, we pooled together and retrospectively analyzed data from 955 NDMM patients enrolled in two trials (GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and RV-MM-PI-209). METHODS: Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS)1, PFS2 and overall survival (OS) of CR patients randomized to maintenance and no maintenance. Secondary endpoints were PFS1, PFS2 and OS in very good partial response/partial response (VGPR/PR) patients. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients obtained CR after induction/consolidation, 118 received maintenance and 95 no maintenance. In patients achieving CR, maintenance significantly improved PFS1 (HR 0.50, P < 0.001), PFS2 (HR 0.58, P 0.02) and OS (HR 0.51, P 0.02) compared with no maintenance; the advantage was maintained across all the analyzed subgroups according to age, International Staging System (ISS) stage, cytogenetic profile and treatment. Similar features were seen in VGPR/PR patients. CONCLUSION: Maintenance prolonged survival in CR and in VGPR/PR patients. The benefit in CR patients suggests the importance of continuing treatment in patients with chemo-sensitive disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The two source studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: identification numbers NCT01063179 and NCT00551928.

Triplet vs doublet lenalidomide-containing regimens for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196.

Continuous Therapy Versus Fixed Duration of Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Continuous therapy (CT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death), but chemotherapy-resistant relapse may negatively impact overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death) may represent an additional tool to estimate outcome. This study evaluates the benefit of novel agent-based CT versus fixed duration of therapy (FDT) in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. METHODS: We included patients enrolled onto three phase III trials that randomly assigned patients to novel agent-based CT versus FDT. Primary analyses were restricted to the intent-to-treat population eligible for CT (patients progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment). Primary end points were PFS1, PFS2, and OS. All hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were adjusted for several potential confounders using Cox models. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of the three trials, 604 patients were randomly assigned to CT and 614 were assigned to FDT. Median follow-up was 52 months. In the intent-to-treat CT population, CT (n = 417), compared with FDT (n = 410), significantly improved PFS1 (median, 32 v 16 months, respectively; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.56; P < .001), PFS2 (median, 55 v 40 months, respectively; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75; P < .001), and OS (4-year OS, 69% v 60%, respectively; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; P = .003). CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis, CT significantly improved PFS1, PFS2, and OS. The improvement in PFS2 suggests that the benefit reported during first remission is not cancelled by a shorter second remission. PFS2 is a valuable end point to estimate long-term clinical benefit and should be included in future trials.

mTOR pathway activation in multiple myeloma cell lines and primary tumour cells: pomalidomide enhances cytoplasmic-nuclear shuttling of mTOR protein.

mTOR is a protein kinase that plays a central role in regulating critical cellular processes. We evaluated the activation and cellular localization of the mTOR pathway in multiple myeloma (MM) and analyzed the role of pomalidomide in regulating mTOR. By immunohistochemistry cytoplasmic p-mTOR stained positive in 57 out 101 (57.6%) cases with a nuclear p-mTOR localization in 14 out 101 samples (13.8%). In the 70 MM samples analyzed for the entire pathway, p-mTOR expression significantly correlated with p-AKT, p-P70S6K, and p-4E-BP1 suggesting that the AKT/mTOR pathway is activated in a subset of MM patients. Immunofluorescence assays demonstrated that mTOR protein is distributed throughout the cytoplasm and the nucleus at baseline in MM cell lines and in plasma cells of 13 MM patients and that pomalidomide facilitated the shift of the mTOR protein in the nucleus. By western blotting, treatment with pomalidomide increased nuclear mTOR and p-mTOR expression levels in the nucleus with a concomitant decrease of the cytoplasmic fractions while does not seem to affect significantly AKT phosphorylation status. In MM cells the anti-myeloma activity of pomalidomide may be mediated by the regulation of the mTOR pathway.

Multiple myeloma: is a shift toward continuous therapy needed to move forward?

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 1% of all cancers and 13% of all hematologic malignancies. Melphalan-prednisone plus melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide or melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib are considered the standards of care for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with MM (older than 65 years). In newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with MM (younger than 65 years), a novel agent-based induction followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation, is the standard approach. The availability of novel agents has considerably increased the treatment options of this disease, but almost all patients relapse after achieving a maximal response to first-line therapy. New drugs and new treatment approaches are urgently needed to improve outcome in MM patients Continuous therapy can be a valid option to keep the patient symptom-free and to prolong progression-free survival and overall survival.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and improved survival.

PURPOSE: Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance). RESULTS: In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P < .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients. CONCLUSION: Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.