1 / 23

Lenalidomide Maintenance after Autologous Transplantation for Myeloma:

Lenalidomide Maintenance after Autologous Transplantation for Myeloma: First Interim analysis of a prospective randomized study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM 2005-02 trial)

gafna
Download Presentation

Lenalidomide Maintenance after Autologous Transplantation for Myeloma:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lenalidomide Maintenance after Autologous Transplantation for Myeloma: First Interim analysis of a prospective randomized study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM 2005-02 trial) By Michel Attal, Gerald Marit, Denis Caillot, Thierry Facon, Philippe Moreau, Cyrille Hulin, Claire Mathiot, Hervé Avet-Loiseau, and Jean-Luc Harousseau. for the IFM

  2. IFM 2005-02 Protocol High dose therapy is a standard treatment for young patients with myeloma. However, a residual disease, responsible for relapse, is always present after single or double transplantation. Effective maintenance treatment would be required However……!

  3. Maintenance TT for Myeloma Chemotherapy: NO ! (SWOG: Arch Intern Med 75; Alexanian: Blood 78; Belch: Br J Cancer 88) Interferon: NO ! Mandelli, N Engl J Med 1990: Yes Barlogie, JCO 2006 (US Intergroup): No Corticosteroids: NO ! Berenson, Blood 2002: Yes (survival and duration of response) ShusTik, JCO 2004: No survival improvement Alexanian, Am J hematol 2000: IFN = Corticoïdes Thalidomide …..

  4. Maintenance therapy with thalidomide after ASCT * CR + VGPR rates. Barlogie B, et al. Blood 2008. Attal M, et al. Blood. 2006 Spencer A, et al. J clin Oncol. 2009

  5. IFM 99 02 : EFS According to del 13 Del 13 - Del 13 + Thal + Thal + Thal - (n = 391) NS P = 0.001 Thal - Thal -

  6. IFM 99 02 : EFS According to Response at Random Response at Random < 90% Response at Random ≥ 90% Thal + Thal + Thal - Thal - NS P < 0.0003 Thal - (n = 391) Consolidation rather than maintenance Explanation: 68% of PN responsible for short duration of TT ?

  7. IFM 2005-02 Protocol: Rationale • Lenalidomide was an attractive candidate: • Oral agent • Active among patients who had failed HDT, • Without neurological complications, • Effective and safe when administered for a long time

  8. IFM 2005-02: Study design Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial N= 614 patients, from 78 centers, enrolled between 7/2006 and 8/2008 Patients < 65 years, with non-progressive disease,  6 months after ASCT in first line Randomization: stratified according to Beta-2m, del13, VGPR Consolidation: Lenalidomidealone 25 mg/day p.o. days 1-21 of every 28 days for 2 months Arm A= Placebo (N=307) until relapse Arm B= Lenalidomide (N=307) 10-15 mg/d until relapse Primary end-point: PFS. Secondary end-points: CR rate, TTP, OS, feasibility of long-term lenalidomide…. ASCT = autologous stem cell transplant. IFM = Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome.

  9. The IFM 2005 02 trial: First Interim Analysis • Primary endpoint: PFS • Powered to show a improvement in 4-year PFS: 37.5% vs 50% • 572 / 614 patients received consolidation • According to the first amendment (9/2006) • Responses and progressions confirmed by Medical Monitor • First interim analysis: 12/2009, • Cut off date: 4th september 2009 , • Median follow up: 24 mo post random, 34 mo post diagnostic • DMC suggested to unblind the study • Significant difference of PFS in favour of arm B • Patients will continue treatment in their initial treatment arm

  10. IFM 2005 02 Trial: Patient characteristics

  11. IFM 2005 02 Trial: Patient characteristics

  12. IFM 2005 02 : Responsea during consolidation (n= 572) a IMW Criteria b Mc Nemar test

  13. IFM 2005 02 : Best Responsea (N=614) a IMW Criteria

  14. IFM 2005-02 : PFS from randomization .

  15. IFM 2005-02 : PFS from randomization Rev Placebo P < 10-7

  16. PFS according to Response Pre-Consolidation VGPR or CR PR or SD Rev Rev Placebo Placebo p<10-5 p=0.001 HR= 0.37 - CI 95% [0.25-0.58] HR= 0.54 - CI 95% [0.37-0.78]

  17. PFS according to initial ß2-m ß2-m  3 mg/l ß2-m > 3 mg/l Rev Rev Placebo Placebo p<10-5 p=0,0002 HR= 0.38 - CI 95% [0.23-0.65] HR= 0.50 - CI 95% [0.36-0.69]

  18. PFS according to cytogenetic With del 13 Without del 13 Rev Rev Placebo Placebo p=0.0001 p=0.003 HR= 0.45 - CI 95% [0.30-0.67] HR= 0.53 - CI 95% [0.35-0.81]

  19. PFS according to induction regimen VAD VD Rev Rev Placebo Placebo p=0.0001 p=0.0005 HR= 0.47 - CI 95% [0.32-0.69] HR= 0.47 - CI 95% [0.30-0.72]

  20. IFM 2005 02 : Prognostic factors for PFS

  21. Grade 3-4 Adverse Events during Maintenance Definitive Discontinuation for SAE: placebo = 4% vs lenalidomide = 6% (NS)

  22. IFM 2005-02 : OS from randomization .

  23. IFM 2005-02: First Interim Analysis (Cut off date 4th September 2009) • Maintenance therapy with Lenalidomide: • Is well tolerated: • Low discontinuation rate due to SAE (A=4%vs B=6%, NS) • No increased incidence of DVT or peripheral neuropathy • Is superior to placebo: • 54% reduction risk of progression (p < 10-7) • In all stratified subgroups (VGPR, ß2m, del 13) • A longer follow-up is required to appreciate the impact of Lenalidomide on OS (Final analysis: 8/2010)

More Related