Superiority of VTD over TD incorporated into ASCT for Superiority of
by user
Comments
Transcript
Superiority of VTD over TD incorporated into ASCT for Superiority of
Superiority of VTD over TD incorporated into ASCT for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Michele Cavo Bologna University School of Medicine Seràgnoli Institute of Hematology and Medical Oncology CAV07005.PPT - 78 STUDY BACKGROUND • Primary goals of novel agents incorporated into induction regimens in preparation for ASCT are the following: – to increase the rate of CR/VGPR – to not interfere with adequate PBSC collection – to t be b low l t i (allowing toxic ( ll i mostt off the th patients ti t to t receive i ASCT) • In 2005 we firstly y p provided demonstration of superior p rate of response with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) in comparison with VAD as induction therapy before ASCT (Blood 2005) • TD has emerged as the most commonly used induction therapy for MM in US, although the rate of CR has been unsatisfactory (10%) CAV07005.PPT - 79 STUDY DESIGN RANDOMIZATION INDUCTION • VEL-THAL-DEX INDUCTION • THAL-DEX PBSC COLLECTION • CTX TRANSPLANTATION • MEL 200 • MEL 200 CONSOLIDATION • VEL-THAL-DEX CONSOLIDATION • THAL-DEX MAINTENANCE • DEX CAV07005.PPT - 80 TREATMENT SCHEMA INDUCTION CONSOLIDATION Th Three 21-d 21 d cycles l T Two 35-d 35 d cycles l • Bort B t1 1.3 3 mg/s.m. / d 1, 4, 8, 11/cycle • Bort 1 1.3 3 mg/s mg/s.m. m d 1, 8, 15, 22/cycle • Thal 100200 mg/d through g d 1 to 63 • Thal 100 mg/d through g d 1 to 70 • Dex 320 mg/cycle • Dex 320 mg/cycle CAV07005.PPT - 81 STUDY END POINTS Primary • CR+nCR with VTD vs TD as induction therapy py – 80% power to detect a 10-15% difference in CR+nCR rate Secondary • CR+nCR after ASCTs and consolidation therapy in VTD and d TD arms • Clinical outcomes (PFS, OS) • Toxicity (adverse events) RECRUITMENT TARGET: 450 pts (225 per arm) CAV07005.PPT - 82 VTD vs TD incorporated into double ASCT for MM STUDY PERIOD: PERIOD Ma 2006 – April 2008 May N° enrolled pts N° ® to t VTD N° ® to TD 474 236 238 INTERIM ANALYSIS: N° evaluable l bl pts t (after 1st ASCT) N° ® to VTD N° ® to TD N 460 226 234 CAV07005.PPT - 83 BASELINE PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS VTD (n=226) TD (n=234) P value 567 (34-66) 567 (23-65) 0.425 Males (%) 60 60 0.68 ISS (%) I II + III 46 54 44 56 0.91 0.97 2-m (mg/L) 3 82 5 (0 3.82.5 (0.2-15.7) 2-15 7) 3 92 1 (1 3.92.1 (1.2-12.8) 2-12 8) 0 79 0.79 Albumin (g/L) 3.80.6 (1.9-5.4) 3.94.0 (1.3-5.2) 0.81 Creatinine (mg/dL) 1.00.3 (0.3 (0.3-2.1) 2.1) 1.00.3 (0.4 (0.4-2.3) 2.3) 0.75 Genetic abnorm.* del(13q) pos (%) t(4;14) pos (%) del(17p) pos (%) 47 19 7 46 20 8 0.71 0 84 0.84 0.78 Age (years) * evaluated in 92% of pts CAV07005.PPT - 84 RESPONSE TO INDUCTION THERAPY VTD ( 226) (n=226) TD ( 234) (n=234) P value CR (%) 21 6 <0.001 CR+nCR (%) 32 12 <0.001 VGPR (%) 62 29 <0 001 <0.001 PR (%) 94 79 <0.001 Progression (%) 0 4.7 0.001 EBMT criteria (with added nCR and VGPR categories) CAV07005.PPT - 85 SUPERIOR nCR RATE WITH VTD ACROSS SUBGROUPS STANDARD POOR PROGNOSTIC VARIABLES VTD (n=226) (n 226) TD (n=234) (n 234) P value PC 50% 31 13 <0.001 LDH >190 (U/L) 33 9 <0 001 <0.001 Plts <150 (x109/L) 35 4 0.009 Hb <10 10 (g/dl) 24 4 0.002 23.5 6 0.03 20 10 0.004 ISS 3 CRP 8 ((mg/L) g ) CAV07005.PPT - 86 SUPERIOR nCR RATE WITH VTD ACROSS SUBGROUPS CYTOGENETIC ABNORMALITIES BY FISH VTD (n=210) TD (n=219) P value del(13q) pos CR + nCR (%) VGPR ((%)) 39 73 12 25 <0.001 <0.001 t(4;14) pos CR + nCR (%) VGPR (%) 40 81 8.5 2 25.5 <0.001 <0.001 0 001 del(17p) pos CR + nCR (%) VGPR (%) 27 73 0 6 0.03 0 03 <0.001 CAV07005.PPT - 87 RESPONSE TO FIRST ASCT VTD (n=226) TD (n=234) P value CR (%) 43 23 <0 001 <0.001 CR + nCR ((%)) 55 32 <0.001 VGPR (%) 76 58 <0.001 EBMT criteria (with added nCR and VGPR categories) CAV07005.PPT - 88 SUPERIORITY OF VTD TO TD AFTER SECOND ASCT AND CONSOLIDATION THERAPY SECOND ASCT* ASCT VTD > TD P value CONSOLIDATION* CONSOLIDATION VTD > TD P value C + nCR CR C 0.004 C + nCR CR C 0.001 CR 0.03 CR 0.005 VGPR 0.001 VGPR 0.001 * Patients who discontinued treatment or went off study due to relapse/ progression, i toxicity, t i it death d th or any other th reason were included i l d d in i the th analysis l i CAV07005.PPT - 89 GRADE 3-4 NONHEMATOLOGIC ADVERSE EVENTS (INDUCTION THERAPY) ADVERSE EVENT (AE) VTD (n=226) TD (n=234) P value SERIOUS AE (%) 15 12 0.21 Peripheral neuropathy (%) 9.1 2.1 <0.001 Skin rash (%) 7.9 1.2 <0.001 DVT (%) 39 3.9 55 5.5 0 42 0.42 Infection(s) [excluding HZ] (%) 2.6 4.2 0.34 Constipation (%) 2.6 2.5 0.95 Liver toxicity (%) 1.7 2.5 0.55 1 0 0 61 0.61 Herpes Zoster infection CAV07005.PPT - 90 OUTCOME OF PATIENTS WITH GRADE 3 PN WHILE ON VTD AS INDUCTION THERAPY Pts who remained on therapy (%) 95 RESPONSE RATE (%) nCR VGPR PR 38 67 91 CAV07005.PPT - 91 DISCONTINUATION OF INDUCTION THERAPY DISCONTINUED ((%)) Toxicity (%) Progression (%) Other (%) Early y deaths ((%)) VTD (n=226) 4.4* 3.1 0 1.3 TD (n=234) 10.2* 2.1 4.7 3.4 0.4 0.9 * P value = 0.01 CAV07005.PPT - 92 PFS AND OS BY STUDY RANDOMIZATION (VTD vs TD) PFS OS 2-yr rates VTD (n=226) 90% TD (n=234) 80% 2-yr rates VTD (n=226) 96% TD (n=234) 91% P=0.009 months P=0.2 months Median follow-up for VTD and TD: 15 months CAV07005.PPT - 93 CONCLUSIONS • In comparison p with TD,, three 21-d cycles y ((63 days) y ) of VTD as induction therapy significantly increased the ≥nCR/VGPR rates up to values previously y seen with single or double ASCT preceded by conventional treatment • Superiority of VTD to TD was maintained across all subgroups, as identified according to standard prognostic variables and cytogenetic abnormalities CAV07005.PPT - 94 CONCLUSIONS • Benefit with VTD vs TD as induction therapy t translated l t d into i t – significantly higher ≥nCR/VGPR rates after • 1st ASCT • 2nd ASCT • consolidation – Significantly improved TTP and PFS • Effective combinations of novel induction agents, such as VTD, can have a remarkable impact on preand post-ASCT outcomes CAV07005.PPT - 95 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PARTICIPATING CENTERS Alessandria Ancona Ascoli Piceno Avellino Bari Bergamo Bologna Bolzano Brescia Brindisi Cagliari Campobasso Catania Cesena Cosenza Cremona Cuneo Fi Firenze Foggia Forlì Genova Lecce Messina Milano Modena Napoli Padova Palermo Parma Pavia Perugia Pesaro Pescara Piacenza Potenza Ravenna Reggio Calabria Reggio Emilia Rimini Roma Salerno Sassari Siena Torino Treviso Trieste Udine Varese Vicenza CAV07005.PPT - 96 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Michele Baccarani Myeloma Research Unit Patrizia Tosi Elena Zamagni Paola Tacchetti Giulia Perrone Michela Ceccolini Annamaria Brioli Maria Caterina Pallotti Lucia Pantani Alessandro Petrucci Lab of Molecular Biology Carolina Terragna Sandra Durante Giovanni Martinelli Lab of Cytogenetics Nicoletta Testoni Giulia Marzocchi Statistical Analysis Mauro Fiacchini Antonio de Vivo Data Management Katia Vitali Valeria Andreani Francesca Miselli CAV07005.PPT - 97