Ixazomib-based induction regimens plus ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the phase II, multi-arm, randomized UNITO-EMN10 trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mina R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8651653 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ixazomib-based induction regimens plus ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the phase II, multi-arm, randomized UNITO-EMN10 trial.
Mina Roberto R Falcone Antonietta Pia AP Bringhen Sara S Liberati Anna Marina AM Pescosta Norbert N Petrucci Maria Teresa MT Ciccone Giovannino G Capra Andrea A Patriarca Francesca F Rota-Scalabrini Delia D Bonello Francesca F Musolino Caterina C Cea Michele M Cea Michele M Zambello Renato R Tacchetti Paola P Belotti Angelo A Cellini Claudia C Paris Laura L Grasso Mariella M Aquino Sara S De Paoli Lorenzo L De Sabbata Giovanni G Ballanti Stelvio S Offidani Massimo M Boccadoro Mario M Monaco Federico F Corradini Paolo P Larocca Alessandra A
Blood cancer journal 20211207 12
Similar Datasets
Project description:Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.
| S-EPMC8462404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This phase I/II dose-escalation study investigated the all-oral ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone regimen, followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, in elderly, transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Primary phase I objectives were to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone. The primary phase II objective was to determine the complete plus very good partial response rate. In phase I, patients were enrolled to 4 arms investigating weekly or twice-weekly ixazomib (13 28-day cycles or nine 42-day cycles) plus melphalan-prednisone. In phase II, an expansion cohort was enrolled at the recommended phase II ixazomib dose. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 26 received the recommended phase II dose (ixazomib 4.0 mg [days 1, 8, 15] plus melphalan-prednisone 60 mg/m2 [days 1-4], 28-day cycles). Of the 61 enrolled patients, 36 (13 of 26 in the recommended phase II dose cohort) received single-agent ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15; 28-day cycles). In phase I, 10/38 patients reported dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including grade 3 and/or 4 neutropenia (n=6) and thrombocytopenia (n=4). Complete plus very good partial response rate was 48% (48% at recommended phase II dose), including 28% (22%) complete response or better; responses deepened during maintenance in 34% (33%) of evaluable patients. After median follow up of 43.6 months, median progression-free survival was 22.1 months. Adverse events were mainly hematologic events, gastrointestinal events, and peripheral neuropathy. This study demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and activity of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone induction and single-agent ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. clinicaltrials.gov identifier 01335685.
| S-EPMC6119151 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10445424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10-5) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status.
| S-EPMC8979809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.MethodsProgression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.ResultsA total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.ConclusionsThese comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.
| S-EPMC9056460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Triplet combinations containing a proteasome inhibitor are a standard of care in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We examined the long-term efficacy and safety of the all-oral combination of weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance in NDMM patients. Of 65 enrolled patients, 53 received ixazomib 4?mg (days 1, 8, and 15) plus lenalidomide 25?mg (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40?mg (days 1, 8, 15, and 22) for up to twelve 28-day induction cycles. Twenty-three patients discontinued induction for stem cell transplantation (SCT). In the remaining 42 patients, overall response rate was 80%, including 63% ?very good partial response (VGPR) and 32% complete responses. At a median follow-up of 56 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 35.4 months in the total population. Twenty-five patients received ixazomib maintenance; eight deepened their response (76% ?VGPR), and median PFS was 37.2 months in this subgroup. Nine of 42 patients who did not proceed to SCT (14% of total population) had an adverse event requiring discontinuation. Ixazomib (median???96%) and lenalidomide (median 88-94%) relative dose intensities were maintained throughout treatment. Weekly IRd, followed by ixazomib maintenance, was highly active with acceptable toxicity, enabling long-term administration with no evidence of cumulative toxicities.
| S-EPMC6755968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this phase 2 multicenter study, we evaluated the incorporation of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) into a carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) regimen for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Transplant-eligible patients with NDMM received 4 cycles of KRd induction, ASCT, 4 cycles of KRd consolidation, and 10 cycles of KRd maintenance. The primary end point was rate of stringent complete response (sCR) after 8 cycles of KRd with a predefined threshold of ≥50% to support further study. Seventy-six patients were enrolled with a median age of 59 years (range, 40-76 years), and 35.5% had high-risk cytogenetics. The primary end point was met, with an sCR rate of 60% after 8 cycles. Depth of response improved over time. On intent-to-treat (ITT), the sCR rate reached 76%. The rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity using modified ITT was 70% according to next-generation sequencing (<10-5 sensitivity). After median follow-up of 56 months, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 72% and 84% for ITT, 85% and 91% for MRD-negative patients, and 57% and 72% for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. For high-risk patients who were MRD negative, 5-year rates were 77% and 81%. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (34%), lymphopenia (32%), infection (22%), and cardiac events (3%). There was no grade 3 to 4 peripheral neuropathy. Patients with NDMM treated with KRd with ASCT achieved high rates of sCR and MRD-negative disease at the end of KRd consolidation. Extended KRd maintenance after consolidation contributed to deepening of responses and likely to prolonged PFS and OS. Safety and tolerability were manageable. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01816971.
| S-EPMC7714092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrail elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) have inferior survival and less benefit from high-dose therapies. This prospective study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) of induction treatment of ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (IRd) and ixazomib/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/dexamethasone (IDd) followed by ixazomib/dexamethasone (Id) maintenance therapy in frail, elderly patients with NDMM.MethodsFrom July 2019 to December 2021, this non-randomized concurrent controlled clinical study enrolled 120 NDMM patients aged ≥65 years with frailty defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score or Mayo geriatric scoring system. The enrolled patients received 6-8 cycles of IRd or IDd followed by Id maintenance therapy for a minimum of 2 years at the discretion of physicians based on patient's clinical characteristics (chiCTR1900024917).FindingsThe median age was 71 years and 55% of the patients were males. The overall response rate (ORR) was 82% and 77%, complete response (CR) rate was 25% and 12% for IRd and IDd groups, respectively. The difference in ORR of the Idd group minus the IRd group was -5.36% (95% CI: -18.9% to 8.19%), indicating that the ORR of the IDd group was neither inferior nor non-inferior to the IRd group. After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6 and 13.9 months, OS was not reached and 29.2 months in IRd and IDd groups, respectively. 28 and 33 patients discontinued induction therapy, 20 and 19 discontinued maintenance therapy in IRd and IDd groups, respectively. Cumulative Grade 3 or higher hematological adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10 of the 60 patients (17%) and non-hematological AEs occurred in 15 of the 60 patients (25%) in the IRd group, while 13 of the 60 patients (22%) and 21 of the 60 patients (35%) in the IDd group. Patients were observed with clinically significant improvement in QoL when compared with that at baseline in both IRd and IDd groups by evaluation per cycle (P < 0.0001).InterpretationThe results demonstrated that compared with IRd regimen, IDd regimen showed no significant advantage, but the survival of the IDd group was shorter than that of the IRd group, indicating an all-oral outpatient triplet regimen with IRd, which has low toxicity and has improved QoL, could be the viable first-line treatment option for frail NDMM patients.FundingThe Young Elite Scientist sponsorship program by bast of Beijing Association for Science and Technology (No. BYESS2023116) and Beijing Medical Award Foundation (No. YXJL-2018-0539-0073).
| S-EPMC10839574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Obtain clinical consensus on factors impacting first-line prescribing for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM).Materials & methods: A double-blinded, modified Delphi panel was employed. USA-based hematologists/oncologists who treat TIE patients with NDMM were selected as expert panelists.Results: Consensus was reached that patient frailty, performance status, comorbidities, treatment efficacy, and adverse event profile affect first-line prescribing. All panelists agreed it is important to use the most efficacious treatment first; 88% of panelists considered daratumumab-containing regimens the most efficacious. Panelists agreed treatment should be continued until progression while benefits outweigh risk.Conclusion: Findings reinforce the importance of using the most efficacious regimen upfront for TIE NDMM, and nearly all panelists considered daratumumab-containing regimens the most efficacious treatment.
| S-EPMC11485956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBecause patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences.Patients and methodsWe used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial.ResultsUsing D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case.ConclusionOur simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.
| S-EPMC10166176 | biostudies-literature