Maintenance in myeloma patients achieving complete response after upfront therapy: a pooled analysis
- 545 Downloads
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).
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.
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.
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.
The two source studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: identification numbers NCT01063179 and NCT00551928.
KeywordsMultiple myeloma (MM) Maintenance therapy Newly diagnosed Complete response (CR) Prognosis
The authors thank the patients who participated in the source trials, the nurses Manuela Grasso and Luca Merlone, the data managers Jessica Mastrovito and Elena Tigano, the editorial assistants Giorgio Schirripa and Ugo Panzani.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
FDR has received honoraria from Celgene, BMS, and Janssen; FP has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, BMS; CN has served on the Advisory Board for Celgene; TC has received consultancy fees from Takeda and served on the advisory board for Jannsen, Celgene, BMS, Amgen; PM has received Honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and Celgene; PC has received honoraria from Celgene; MO has received honoraria from Celgene; AP is currently a Takeda employee; MTP has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, Amgen, Takeda; MB has received research funding from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi; and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi. FG has served on the advisory board for Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Mundipharma, Janssen; and received honoraria from Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, BMS. All the other authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and RV-MM-PI-209 source studies were approved by the ethics committee of the coordinating site A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino (Torino, Italy): Comitato Etico Interaziendale A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino—A.O. Ordine Mauriziano—ASL Città di Torino. All procedures performed in both source studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in both source studies.
- Altekruse S, Kosary C, Krapcho M et al (2010) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007. In: Natl. Cancer Inst.-Bethesda, MD 2010. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2007/. Accessed 31 July 2017
- Durie BGM, Hoering A, Abidi MH et al (2017) Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 389:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- European Medicines Agency (2012) Appendix 1 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. Methodological consideration for using progression-free survival (PFS) or disease-free survival (DFS) in confirmatory trials. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/01/WC500137126.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2017
- Jackson GH, Davies FE, Pawlyn C et al (2016a) Lenalidomide is a highly effective maintenance therapy in myeloma patients of all ages; results of the phase III myeloma XI study. Blood 128:abst. 1143Google Scholar
- Jackson GH, Davies FE, Pawlyn C et al (2016b) Response Adapted induction treatment improves outcomes for myeloma patients; results of the phase III myeloma XI study. Blood 128:abstr. 244Google Scholar
- Mateos M-V, Richardson PG, Schlag R et al (2010) Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J Clin Oncol 28:2259–2266. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0638 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Paiva B, Vidriales M-B, Cerveró J et al (2008) Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 112:4017–4023. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-05-159624 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Paiva B, Gutiérrez NC, Rosiñol L et al (2012) High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood 119:687–691. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-07-370460 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Rossi D et al (2010) Bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone–thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib–thalidomide compared with bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 28:5101–5109. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8216 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Larocca A et al (2014a) 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. J Clin Oncol 32:634–640. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.0023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar