All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
2020-04-07T13:06:07.000Z

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone for the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with high-risk multiple myeloma

Apr 7, 2020
Share:

Bookmark this article

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and adverse cytogenetic abnormalities (CA), such as del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) have high risk of relapse and death.1 This month, the MM Hub is exploring the theme of improvements in the frontline treatment of MM; here we present the results of a pooled data analysis of two phase I/II studies, IST-CAR-561 (NCT01857115) and IST-CAR-506 (NCT01346787), using carfilzomib (K), cyclophosphamide (C), and dexamethasone (d; KCd) for the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with MM.2

Carfilzomib is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor, approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency for use in combination with dexamethasone or with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM. This pooled analysis, published in Haematologica by Roberto Mina et al., aimed to compare the outcomes of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) with standard-risk (SR) vs high-risk (HiR) CAs after treatment with KCd followed by K maintenance.2

Study design and patient characteristics2

  • The phase I/II IST-CAR-561 (N = 63) and phase II IST-CAR-506 (N = 58) studies enrolled patients with NDMM > 65 years or younger but ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant
  • Treatment
    • Nine 28-day cycles of KCd followed by K maintenance
    • Dosing schedule
      • K = 70 mg/m2 once weekly in the IST-CAR-561 study
      • K = 36 mg/m2 twice weekly in the IST-CAR-506 study
      • C = 300 mg on Days 1,8, and 15 in both studies
      • d = 40 mg on Days 1,8,15, and 22 in both studies
    • Endpoints
      • Response to therapy
      • Progression-free survival (PFS)
      • PFS-2 (PFS from enrollment to second relapse/progression, or death, or date the patient was last known to be in remission)
      • Overall survival (OS)
    • Cytogenetic abnormalities, such as t(4;14), t(11;14), t(14;16), del13, and del17p, were detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis
    • Patients included in the high-risk group had at least one of these CAs: del17p, t(4;14), or t(14;16) as per revised International Stating System (ISS) criteria
    • Of the 121 patients enrolled in these studies, 94 had cytogenetic data available:
      • SR, 61% (n = 57)
      • HiR, 39% (n = 37)
        • del17p, 23% (n = 22)
        • t(4;14), 13% (n = 12)
        • t(14;16), 4% (n = 4)
      • Patient characteristics at baseline were similar between the two groups, with a median age of 72 years (range, 60–86) and no significant differences in age, sex, ISS stage, and frailty score
      • Ninety-two patients started the induction phase (SR, n = 56; HiR, n = 36) and 70 started the maintenance phase (SR, n = 42; HiR, n = 28)
      • Median duration of treatment
        • SR group, 16.9 months
        • HiR group, 14.6 months

Results2

Patient outcomes, after a median follow-up of 38 months, are reported in Table 1. No statistically significant differences were observed in response and survival rates between patients with SR and HiR MM.

Table 1. Patient outcomes2

CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PFS-2, PFS from enrollment to second relapse/progression, or death, or date the patient was last known to be in remission

 

Parameter

Standard risk

(n = 57)

High risk

(n = 37)

p value

After induction

ORR

CR

 

86%

19%

 

92%

22%

 

0.52

0.80

After induction and maintenance

ORR

CR

 

 

88%

23%

 

 

95%

24%

 

 

0.47

1.00

Median PFS, months

HR (95% CI)

NR

 

27.8

0.81 (0.44─1.48)

0.50

3-year PFS

52%

43%

0.50

Median PFS-2

HR (95% CI)

NR

44.1

0.67 (0.32─1.39)

0.28

Median OS

HR (95% CI)

NR

NR

0.72 (0.34─1.52)

0.38

3-year OS

78%

73%

0.38

No statistically significant differences were observed between PFS, PFS-2, and OS in patients with del17p vs without del17p:

  • PFS: 35 vs7 months (HR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.47–1.82; p = 0.82)
  • PFS-2: 44.1 months vs NR (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64; p = 0.65)
  • OS: 47.5 months vs NR (HR 1.17; 95% CI, 0.52–2.62; p = 0.70)

Conclusion2

  • No significant differences were observed in terms of response (PFS and OS) between the standard- and the high-risk group
  • Similar PFS, PFS-2, and OS rates were observed between patients with or without del17p
  • The small sample size represents a limitation of the study
  • Altogether, these results showed that a K-based induction regimen followed by K maintenance improved the poor prognosis of HiR patients similar to that of SR patients; further investigation into K-based induction for HiR patients with NDMM is warranted
  1. Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised International Staging System for multiple myeloma: A report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863-9. DOI: 1200/JCO.2015.61.2267

  2. Mina R, Bonello F, Petrucci MT, et al. Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies. Haematologica. 2020;105(4):243428. DOI: 3324/haematol.2019.243428

Your opinion matters

As a result of this content, I commit to reviewing the CARTITUDE clinical program to guide my understanding of cilta-cel in clinical practice.
19 votes - 11 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox