PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial, Phase II, Multicenter Study
PubMed
38490927
DOI
10.1016/j.clml.2024.02.012
PII: S2152-2650(24)00091-0
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Catheter, Central venous, Melphalan, Peripheral venous,
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Phenylalanine analogs & derivatives administration & dosage pharmacokinetics MeSH
- Infusions, Intravenous MeSH
- Administration, Intravenous MeSH
- Cross-Over Studies * MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local drug therapy MeSH
- Melphalan administration & dosage therapeutic use analogs & derivatives MeSH
- Multiple Myeloma * drug therapy pathology MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Clinical Trial, Phase II MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Phenylalanine MeSH
- Melphalan MeSH
- melflufen MeSH Browser
BACKGROUND: Melflufen, a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, rapidly enters tumor cells and metabolizes to melphalan. In previous studies, melflufen was administered via central venous catheter (CVC). However, administration by peripheral venous catheter (PVC) may be preferable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PORT was a two-period, phase 2 crossover study of CVC versus PVC melflufen administration in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Adults with ≥ 2 prior therapies refractory to/intolerant of an immunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to weekly oral dexamethasone plus melflufen (40 mg) via CVC or PVC infusion on day 1 of 28-day cycle 1. In cycle 2, patients continued dexamethasone and crossed over to the other melflufen administration route. In cycle 3, all patients received melflufen until progression; PVC or CVC routes were allowed based upon investigator decision. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during and after melflufen infusion. Primary endpoints were melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-∞)) and frequency and severity of PVC-related local reactions. RESULTS: The 90% CIs for adjusted geometric mean ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters following CVC versus PVC administration were within the 0.8-1.25 bioequivalence range (Cmax 0.946 [90% CI: 0.849, 1.053]; AUC(0-t) 0.952 [90% CI: 0.861, 1.053]; AUC(0-∞) 0.955 [90% CI: 0.863, 1.058]). In both arms, adverse events were primarily hematological and similar; no phlebitis or local infusion-related reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: Melflufen PVC and CVC administrations are bioequivalent based on melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters. Melflufen via PVC was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or new safety signals and may represent an alternative route of administration.
City Clinical Hospital 4 of Dnipro Dnipro Ukraine
Department of Internal Medicine and Hematology Semmelweis University Budapest Hungary
Department of Internal Medicine Hematology and Oncology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Hematology Clinic University Hospital St Marina Medical University Varna Bulgaria
Oncopeptides AB Stockholm Sweden
Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Hematological Diseases Sofia Bulgaria
References provided by Crossref.org