TRANSLATE

The mm 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 mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm 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.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

Efficacy and feasibility of dose/schedule-adjusted Rd-R in elderly, intermediate-fit patients

By Sheetal Bhurke

Share:

May 11, 2021


Combination treatments such as lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rd) and bortezomib + melphalan + prednisone (VMP) were considered until recently the standard treatment options for elderly patients not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Today, both regimens are preferably administered in combination with daratumumab, an anti-CD38 antibody.

Continuous Rd demonstrated to be effective and safe in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM); however, the evidence on its safety in patients aged >75 years is limited. Older patients are more susceptible to adverse events (AEs) due to prolonged use of steroids, the presence of comorbidities, and functional impairment. Several trials have shown that patients either discontinued continuous Rd or had their doses reduced. Continuous Rd led to AEs and affected the quality of life of patients with MM; therefore, an adapted treatment strategy is required for such patients.

In a randomized controlled trial published in Blood, Larocca and colleagues1 investigated the efficacy and feasibility of reduced dose Rd + lenalidomide (Rd-R) in patients with NDMM, and their findings are summarized here.

Study design

This was a phase III randomized controlled multicenter trial (NCT02215980), which included patients aged >65 years and ≤80 years who were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation and classified as intermediate-fit as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score.

  • The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as discontinuation of lenalidomide, disease progression, death, or the occurrence of Grade 4 hematologic AEs or Grade 3–4 non-hematologic AEs, including second primary malignancy.
  • Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate, and incidence of dose reductions and drug discontinuation.

Patients randomized to continuous Rd or Rd-R received nine 28-day induction cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg per day for 21 days) + dexamethasone (20 mg on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22) followed by lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg per day for 21 days). Patients allocated to continuous Rd received 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg per day for 21 days) + dexamethasone (20 mg on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22).

Results

Baseline characteristics

The median age was 75 years, 23% of all patients had an International Staging System score of III, and 21% had high-risk chromosomal abnormalities. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics*

ADL, activity of daily living; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; ECOG PS, European Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status; IADL, instrumental ADL; ISS, International Staging System; Rd, continuous lenalidomide + dexamethasone; Rd-R, lenalidomide + dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
*Adapted from Larocca et al.1
At least one among del17, or t(14;16) or t(4;14).

Characteristic, %

Rd-R (n = 101)

Rd (n = 98)

Median age, years (range)
              70–80 years

75 (73–77)
48

76 (74–79)
57

Male

52

50

ECOG-PS
              0
              1
              2


37
52
11


37
53
10

Creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min

36

49

ISS score
              I
              II
              III


32
47
21


38
37
25

High-risk cytogenetics

19

23

Intermediate-fit
              For age
              For geriatric impairment
                            CCI ≥2
                            ADL ≤4
                            IADL ≤5


48

23
9
21


57

18
12
13

Efficacy

  • The median EFS was 10.4 months and 6.9 months in the Rd-R and Rd arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.95; p = 0.02). EFS was maintained in the Rd-R arm beyond Cycle 9; the median EFS in the Rd‑R and Rd arms was 19.8 months and 10.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.93; p = 0.03).
  • No difference was observed for EFS in patients considered intermediate-fit for age compared with intermediate-fit for comorbidities or functional impairments (median EFS, 8.1 months vs 7.6 months; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68–1.28; p = 0.67).
  • The median PFS was 20.2 months in the Rd-R arm compared with 18.3 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55–1.1; p = 0.16).
  • Median OS was not reached, and the 3-year OS was 74% in the Rd-R arm and 63% in the Rd arm (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37–1.03; p = 0.06).
  • Best response was similar across both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% in the Rd-R arm compared with 68% in the Rd arm (p = 0.15) (Table 2).
  • A PFS benefit favoring Rd-R was observed in standard-risk patients (HR, 0.62; 95% CI. 0.39–1.00), but not in high-risk patients (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.47–2.55).

Table 2. Best response rates for patients in the Rd-R and Rd arms*

CR, complete response; nCR, near complete response; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; Rd, continuous lenalidomide + dexamethasone; Rd-R, lenalidomide + dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide maintenance; sCR, stringent complete response; SD, stable disease; VGPR, very good partial response.
*Adapted from Larocca et al.1
Immunofixation negative, bone marrow examination not performed.

Best response, %

Rd-R (n = 101)

Rd (n = 98)

ORR
              sCR
             
CR
              nCR
              VGPR
              PR

78
4
1
19
28
27

68
1
15
22
30
39

≥VGPR

51

39

SD

12

17

PD

0

6

Not evaluable

10

8

Safety

After a median duration of lenalidomide treatment of 17.3 months with Rd-R (interquartile range [IQR], 7.2–34.7) and 12.8 months with continuous Rd (IQR, 4.5–30.3 months), the median accumulated dose administered of lenalidomide was higher in the Rd-R arm compared with the Rd arm (5,798 mg vs 5,408 mg).

As presented in Table 3, no statistically significant differences were reported between arms in terms of safety:

  • In total, 26% of patients in the Rd-R arm and 20% in the Rd arm reported Grade ≥3 hematologic AEs (p = 0.40), with the most common AE being neutropenia.
  • In addition, 33% of patients in the Rd-R arm and 43% in the Rd arm reported Grade ≥3 non‑hematologic AEs (p = 0.15), and the most common AEs were infections, constitutional, dermatologic, and central nervous system toxicities.
  • After nine cycles, the 2-year cumulative incidence of Grade ≥3 hematologic AEs was 16% in the Rd-R arm compared with 13% in the Rd arm, and 10% vs 17% for non-hematologic AEs, respectively.

However, the rate of patients needing a dose reduction or drug discontinuation was higher in the Rd arm for both lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Hence, patients could experience AEs requiring dose adjustments even after nine cycles of treatment.

Table 3. Grade ≥3 AEs, drug discontinuation, and dose reduction in the Rd-R and Rd arms*

AE, adverse event; Rd, continuous lenalidomide + dexamethasone; Rd-R, lenalidomide + dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide maintenance; SPM, second primary malignancy.
*Adapted from Larocca et al.1

Incident, %

Rd-R (n = 101)

Rd (n = 98)

Grade ≥3 AEs

Hematologic
              ≥1 event
              Neutropenia
              Anemia
              Thrombocytopenia


26
21
9
4


20
18
3
2

Non-hematologic
              ≥1 event
              Infection
              Constitutional
              Dermatologic
              Gastrointestinal
              Nervous
              Vascular
              Cardiologic
              SPM


33
10
3
7
5
2
2
2
2


43
12
12
3
5
6
4
2
2

Drug discontinuation and dose reduction

≥1 lenalidomide dose reduction

45

62

Lenalidomide discontinuation for AEs

24

30

Dexamethasone dose reduction

17

31

Dexamethasone discontinuation for AEs

14

34

Conclusion

The study demonstrated the efficacy and feasibility of switching to reduced lenalidomide maintenance without dexamethasone after nine cycles of Rd, providing similar outcomes to standard treatment. The findings from this study may help to improve and optimize the treatment of elderly patients who may be at a greater risk of treatment toxicity and poor survival due to their age or comorbidities.

This approach for the treatment of NDMM should be evaluated further with newer combinations including CD38 antibodies, along with frailty-adjusted strategies in ongoing and future clinical trials.

References

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

The content was clear and easy to understand

The content addressed the learning objectives

The content was relevant to my practice

I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content