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 moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
Lenalidomide, an immunomodulator, is commonly prescribed for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and is associated with improved survival outcomes.1 Lenalidomide maintenance therapy is the standard of care for patients with MM who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT); however, more information is needed on the optimal duration of treatment.2
Time-limited lenalidomide maintenance therapy may be as effective as treatment until progression.2 Despite the improved survival outcomes, data have emerged showing an association between treatment with lenalidomide and the development of second primary malignancies (SPM) in patients with MM.1,3
The phase III UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Myeloma XI randomized controlled trial, which has been extensively covered by the Multiple Myeloma Hub, investigated lenalidomide as an induction and maintenance therapy in patients with MM. Several presentations at the 64th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition discussed data from the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial. Below, we summarize presentations by Pawlyn2 investigating the optimal duration of lenalidomide maintenance therapy following auto-HSCT in patients with MM and by Jones3 on the association between lenalidomide treatment and the development of SPM. We also summarize key findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis of SPM in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with lenalidomide by Saleem et al.1 published in The Lancet Hematology.
Median PFS and median time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy (PFS2) were longer in the lenalidomide group. The PFS benefit was observed in both SR and HiR/UHiR patients and in both measurable residual disease (MRD) positive and negative patients (Table 1).
Table 1. Median PFS and PFS2*
Cl, confidence interval; HiR, high risk; HR, hazard ratio; MRD, measurable residual disease; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; PFS2, time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy; SR, standard risk; UHiR, ultra-high risk. |
||||
Outcome, months |
Lenalidomide |
Observation |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Median PFS |
64 |
32 |
0.52 (0.45–0.61) |
<0.001 |
SR patients |
67 |
36 |
0.40 (0.28–0.58) |
<0.0001 |
HiR/UHiR patients |
38 |
21 |
0.50 (0.35–0.70) |
<0.0011 |
MRD-negative patients |
59 |
44 |
0.72 (0.55–0.95) |
0.022 |
MRD-positive patients |
47 |
18 |
0.37 (0.27–0.50) |
<0.0001 |
Median PFS2 |
NE |
61 |
0.66 (0.54–0.81) |
<0.0001 |
Lenalidomide improved PFS and PFS2 when compared with the observation group at the 2-, 3- and 4-year intervals, but not at the 5-year interval (Table 2).
Table 2. PFS and PFS2 at 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year intervals*
Cl, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; PFS2, time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy. |
||||
Outcome, months |
Lenalidomide |
Observation |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
PFS |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
61 |
29 |
0.51 (0.40–0.66) |
<0.0001 |
3-year interval |
51 |
31 |
0.47 (0.33–0.67) |
<0.0001 |
4-year interval |
39 |
NE |
0.56 (0.33–0.695) |
<0.031 |
5-year interval |
NE |
NE |
0.83 (0.36–1.95) |
0.672 |
PFS2 |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
NE |
55 |
0.70 (0.54–0.91) |
<0.007 |
3-year interval |
NE |
46 |
0.65 (0.47–0.92) |
0.014 |
4-year interval |
NE |
39 |
0.54 (0.33–0.88) |
0.014 |
5-year interval |
NE |
NE |
0.64 (0.29–1.40) |
0.265 |
In patients categorized as SR, lenalidomide was associated with improved PFS when compared with the observational group at the 2-year and 3-year intervals, whilst in patients categorized as HiR/UHiR the benefit was only observed at the 2-year interval. In MRD-negative patients, PFS was higher in the lenalidomide group than in the observation group at the 2-year interval, with the benefit maintained through the 3- and 4-year intervals in MRD-positive patients (Table 3).
Table 3. PFS over time by risk group and MRD status*
Cl, confidence interval; HiR, high risk; HR, hazard ratio; MRD, measurable residual disease; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; SR, standard risk; UHiR, ultra-high risk. |
||||
PFS, months |
Lenalidomide |
Observation |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
SR |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
53 |
29 |
0.44 (0.26–0.74) |
<0.002 |
3-year interval |
NE |
28 |
0.46 (0.25–0.88) |
0.019 |
4-year interval |
NE |
31 |
0.71 (0.29–1.75) |
0.462 |
5-year interval |
NE |
19 |
0.46 (0.13–1.62) |
0.227 |
HiR/UHiR |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
48 |
20 |
0.44 (0.24–0.80) |
0.008 |
3-year interval |
NE |
21 |
0.59 (0.21–1.65) |
0.314 |
4-year interval |
NE |
NE |
0.54 (0.14–2.09) |
0.372 |
MRD negative |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
53 |
33 |
0.63 (0.43–0.94) |
0.025 |
3-year interval |
NE |
31 |
0.65 (0.36–1.15) |
0.140 |
4-year interval |
NE |
NE |
0.68 (0.27–1.69) |
0.403 |
5-year interval |
NE |
NE |
0.43 (0.11–1.72) |
0.232 |
MRD positive |
|
|
|
|
2-year interval |
61 |
20 |
0.34 (0.19–0.59) |
<0.0001 |
3-year interval |
49 |
16 |
0.26 (0.11–0.58) |
0.001 |
4-year interval |
37 |
6 |
0.14 (0.04–0.48) |
0.002 |
No evidence of cumulative hematologic toxicity was identified.
This study suggests that, following auto-HSCT, continuing lenalidomide maintenance therapy beyond 4–5 years may continue to provide a PFS benefit. In patients who are MRD negative, continuing lenalidomide maintenance therapy for ≥3 years can continue to improve PFS.
This analysis included 4,358 patients with newly diagnosed MM in the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial, which compared cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, and bortezomib induction combinations, and lenalidomide with or without vorinostat maintenance therapy or active observation. Patients eligible for transplant received high-dose melphalan and auto-HSCT. The median follow-up was 68 months.4
Within the transplant-eligible group:
Table 4. Rates of secondary malignancy in the group eligible for transplant*
SPM, second primary malignancy. |
|||
Incidence of SPM, % |
Lenalidomide |
Active observation |
p value |
---|---|---|---|
7-year cumulative incidences of SPM |
12.2 |
5.8 |
0.006 |
Type of SPM, % |
Lenalidomide |
Active observation |
p value |
Hematologic malignancies |
2.6 |
0.4 |
— |
Solid tumors |
3.1 |
2.7 |
— |
Non-melanoma skin cancers |
2.5 |
0.2 |
— |
Within the group not eligible for transplant:
Table 5. Rates of secondary malignancy in the groups not eligible for transplant*
SPM, second primary malignancy. |
|||
Incidence of SPM, % |
Lenalidomide |
Active observation |
p value |
---|---|---|---|
5-year cumulative incidences of SPM |
17.1 |
10 |
0.10 |
Type of SPM, % |
Lenalidomide |
Active observation |
p value |
Hematologic malignancies |
1 |
1 |
— |
Solid tumors |
8 |
5 |
— |
Non-melanoma skin cancers |
8 |
4 |
— |
Lenalidomide maintenance improved overall survival in both patients eligible for transplant and patients not eligible for transplant patients. Death due to MM was higher in patients who received active observation than in patients who received lenalidomide maintenance, while non-MM deaths were comparable between the groups. Deaths due to SPM were low in the group eligible for transplant, while the highest rate of death due to SPM was observed in patients not eligible for transplant who received lenalidomide maintenance (6.1%).4
Overall, there was a higher cumulative incidence of SPM in patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance and in particular, patients who received lenalidomide at induction and maintenance, possibly due to a cumulative dose effect.
This analysis suggested that SPM induced by lenalidomide occurs exclusively in patients with MM.
Lenalidomide is an effective treatment for patients with MM and is associated with improved survival outcomes versus observation. Lenalidomide maintenance beyond 3 years is associated with improved PFS; however, the benefit may diminish between 4 years and 5 years.2 Further studies with long-term follow up are warranted to determine optimal lenalidomide maintenance duration.
While the benefits of lenalidomide have been demonstrated, there is an association between receiving lenalidomide treatment and the development of SPM in patients with MM.1,3 Patients should be monitored for signs and symptoms of SPM to improve diagnosis and intervention. Risk factors such as age should also be considered.3
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