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

Results from the OPTIMISMM phase III trial: Pomalidomide for lenalidomide-refractory patients

By Iqra Farooq

Share:

May 24, 2019


Treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging, with the management of patients refractory to initial treatments particularly difficult. Lenalidomide is the preferred option for patients with newly diagnosed MM, and as such, patients refractory to this drug present a treatment challenge.

Paul Richardson from the Jerome Lipper MM Center, Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteHarvard Medical School, Boston, US, and colleagues, conducted an open-label, randomized, phase III trial (NCT 01734928) to investigate the efficacy and safety of the triplet combination pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd).

The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response (OR), duration of response, and safety. Exploratory endpoints were time to response, PFS after next-line treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and subgroup efficacy.

Patient characteristics

  • N = 559; n = 281 assigned to PVd; n = 278 assigned to Vd
  • All patients had prior treatment with lenalidomide, n = 391 (70%) were lenalidomide-refractory
  • Patients were eligible if they met the following conditions:
    • Measurable disease based on serum, >5 g/dL or urine protein levels, >200 mg/24 hours
    • Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0—2
    • At least two or more cycles of lenalidomide treatment
  • Baseline characteristics were well-balanced:
    • Cytogenic profile by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)
      • PVd: standard risk, 137 (49%), high risk, 61 (22%)
      • Vd: standard risk, 132 (47%), high risk, 49 (18%)
    • > 3 lines of treatment: PVd arm, 19%; Vd arm, 21%

Treatment schedule

  • Treatment cycles of 21 days until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity
  • IV or SC bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2):
    • Cycles 1—8: administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11
    • Cycle 9+: administered on days 1 and 8
  • Oral dexamethasone (20 mg if aged < 75 years, otherwise 10 mg)
    • Cycles 1—8: administered on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12
    • Cycle 9+: administered on days 1, 2, 8 and 9
  • Oral pomalidomide (for those patients assigned the drug)
    • 4 mg on days 1—14 of each cycle

Results

  • PVd, n = 278 received allocated intervention (n = 93 still receiving treatment)
    • Majority of patients (39%) stopped treatment due to disease progression
    • There were 87 study withdrawals due to death
  • Vd, n = 270 received allocated intervention (n = 45 still receiving treatment)
    • Majority of patients (49%) stopped treatment due to disease progression
    • There were 89 study withdrawals due to death
  • At median follow-up of 15.9 months (range, 9.9—21.7):
    • PVd: n = 154 (55%) had disease progression or death
    • Vd, n = 162 (58%) had disease progression or death
  • PFS was significantly improved with PVd (median 11.2 months; 95% CI, 9.66—13.73) vs Vd (median 7.1 months; 95% CI, 5.88—8.48; HR 0.61, p <0.0001)

Key findings

Table 2: Key comparisons between PVd, and Vd

 

PVd % (n = 281)

Vd % (n = 278)

Overall response

82.2

50.0

Stringent complete response

3.2

0.7

Complete response

12.5

3.2

Very good partial response

37.0

14.4

Partial response

29.5

31.7

Stable disease

11.4

38.1

Progressive disease

3.9

5.8

Not accessible

2.5

6.1

  • The most common grade III or IV treatment emergent side effects were (PVd vs Vd):
    • Neutropenia (42% vs 9%)
    • Infections (31% vs 18%)
    • Thrombocytopenia (28% vs 29%)

Conclusion

Patients with relapsed or refractory MM who previously received lenalidomide showed significantly better PFS when treated with PVd, compared to Vd. As such, data from the OPTIMISMM trial supports the use of a triplet pomalidomide-based treatment regimen after lenalidomide treatment failure for the management of relapsed/refractory MM.

References