n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

• MeSH
• dexamethason terapeutické užití   MeSH
• doba přežití bez progrese choroby MeSH
• lenalidomid terapeutické užití   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• melfalan terapeutické užití   MeSH
• mnohočetný myelom * diagnóza   farmakoterapie   MeSH
• prednison terapeutické užití   MeSH
• přežití bez známek nemoci MeSH
• protokoly protinádorové kombinované chemoterapie terapeutické užití   MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• udržovací chemoterapie MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• Názvy látek
• dexamethason MeSH
• lenalidomid MeSH
• melfalan MeSH
• prednison MeSH

: We conducted a pooled analysis of two phase III trials, RV-MM-EMN-441 and EMN01, to compare maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone vs. lenalidomide in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible and -ineligible myeloma patients. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival, progression-free survival 2 and overall survival with both regimens. A secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of duration of maintenance on overall survival and on outcome after relapse. A total of 625 patients (lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n = 315; lenalidomide arm, n = 310) were analyzed. The median follow-up was 58 months. Median progression-free survival (25 vs. 19 months; p = 0.08), progression-free survival 2 (56 vs. 49 months; p = 0.9) and overall survival (73 months vs. NR; p = 0.08) were not significantly different between the two arms. Toxicity profiles of lenalidomide-prednisone and lenalidomide were similar, with the exception of neutropenia that was higher in the lenalidomide arm (grade ≥ 3: 9% vs. 19%, p < 0.001), without an increase in the rate of infections. Overall survival (median NR vs. 49 months, p < 0.001), progression-free survival from relapse (median 35 vs. 24 months, p = 0.004) and overall survival from relapse (median not reached vs. 41 months, p = 0.002) were significantly longer in patients continuing maintenance for ≥2 years. We showed that the addition of prednisone at 25 or 50 mg every other day (eod) to lenalidomide maintenance did not induce any significant advantage.

• Klíčová slova
• lenalidomide, maintenance, multiple myeloma, newly diagnosed, prednisone,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

IMPORTANCE: Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the superiority of one regimen over the other, owing to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons. OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare the effectiveness of different maintenance regimens in NDMM via a network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We performed 2 independent searches in PubMed and Cochrane databases, and then we identified all the records registered after 1999 and on or before November 20, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: By blinded review, we identified prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating novel agent-based maintenance in patients with NDMM; the included studies compared at least 2 maintenance approaches; comparators included placebo and no maintenance. From 364 screened records, 11 studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We followed (independent extraction) the guidelines provided by the PRISMA Report and the EQUATOR Network. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis (NMA). To allow comparison of all treatments, no maintenance was selected as common comparator and the effect of placebo was assumed to be the same as no treatment. The best option was identified by a Bayesian consistency model based on hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI), probability of being the best treatment (PbBT), and median ranking distribution (MedR). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eleven trials and 8 treatments including a total of 5073 participants were included. By PFS analysis, lenalidomide-based regimens (lenalidomide-prednisone, lenalidomide alone) were identified as the most effective options (HR, 0.39 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.53] and 0.47 [95% CrI, 0.39-0.55], respectively; MedR, 1 and 2; overall PbBT, 74%). Four treatments (thalidomide-interferon, thalidomide-bortezomib, bortezomib-prednisone, thalidomide alone) showed an HR in favor of maintenance. By OS analysis, lenalidomide alone was identified as the best option (HR, 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.16; MedR, 2; PbBT, 38%), followed by bortezomib-thalidomide and bortezomib-prednisone. Similar features were noticed in the restricted network including transplant trials, in the sensitivity analysis, and in most of the prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on PFS and OS results of this NMA, lenalidomide maintenance appears to be the best treatment option, by synthesizing the available evidence of novel agent-based maintenance in the past 20 years.

• MeSH
• klinické zkoušky, fáze III jako téma MeSH
• lenalidomid aplikace a dávkování   MeSH
• mnohočetný myelom diagnóza   farmakoterapie   MeSH
• přežití bez známek nemoci MeSH
• protokoly protinádorové kombinované chemoterapie terapeutické užití   MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma MeSH
• udržovací chemoterapie metody   MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• síťová metaanalýza MeSH
• systematický přehled MeSH
• Názvy látek
• lenalidomid MeSH

Melphalan at a dose of 200 mg/m2 is standard conditioning prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma, but a dose of 140 mg/m2 is often used in clinical practice in patients perceived to be at risk of excess toxicity. To determine whether melphalan 200 mg/m2 and melphalan 140 mg/m2 are equally effective and tolerable in clinically relevant patient subgroups we analyzed 1964 first single autologous transplantation episodes using a series of Cox proportional-hazards models. Overall survival, progression-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, hematopoietic recovery and second primary malignancy rates were not significantly different between the melphalan 140 mg/m2 (n=245) and melphalan 200 mg/m2 (n=1719) groups. Multivariable subgroup analysis showed that disease status at transplantation interacted with overall survival, progression-free survival, and cumulative incidence of relapse, with a significant advantage associated with melphalan 200 mg/m2 in patients transplanted in less than partial response (adjusted hazard ratios for melphalan 200 mg/m2versus melphalan 140 mg/m2: 0.5, 0.54, and 0.56). In contrast, transplantation in very good partial or complete response significantly favored melphalan 140 mg/m2 for overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.02). Age, renal function, prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, gender, or Karnofsky score did not interact with overall/progression-free survival or relapse rate in the melphalan dose groups. There were no significant survival or relapse rate differences between melphalan 200 mg/m2 and melphalan 140 mg/m2 patients with high-risk or standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities. In conclusion, remission status at the time of transplantation may favor the use of melphalan 200 mg/m2 or melphalan 140 mg/m2 for key transplant outcomes (NCT01362972).

• MeSH
• analýza přežití MeSH
• autologní transplantace metody   MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• melfalan aplikace a dávkování   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• mnohočetný myelom terapie   MeSH
• příprava pacienta k transplantaci metody   MeSH
• recidiva MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• transplantace hematopoetických kmenových buněk metody   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• vztah mezi dávkou a účinkem léčiva MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• klinické zkoušky MeSH
• Názvy látek
• melfalan MeSH

Survival of myeloma patients has greatly improved with the use of autologous stem cell transplantation and novel agents, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Compared to bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens alone, the addition of high-dose melphalan followed by autologous transplantation significantly improves progression-free survival, although an overall survival benefit was not observed in all trials. Moreover, follow up of recent trials is still too short to show any difference in survival. In the light of these findings, novel agent-based induction followed by autologous transplantation is considered the standard upfront treatment for eligible patients (level of evidence: 1A). Post-transplant consolidation and maintenance treatment can further improve patient outcome (1A). The availability of several novel agents has led to the development of multiple combination regimens such as salvage treatment options. In this context, the role of salvage autologous transplantation and allotransplant has not been extensively evaluated. In the case of prolonged remission after upfront autologous transplantation, another autologous transplantation at relapse can be considered (2B). Patients who experience early relapse and/or have high-risk features have a poor prognosis and may be considered as candidates for clinical trials that, in young and fit patients, may also include an allograft in combination with novel agents (2B). Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of novel cellular therapies, such as inclusion of antibody-based triplets and quadruplets, and chimeric antigen receptor-T cells. Despite encouraging preliminary results, longer follow up and larger patient numbers are needed before the clinical use of these novel therapies can be widely recommended.

• MeSH
• autologní transplantace metody   MeSH
• imunoterapie adoptivní metody   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mnohočetný myelom terapie   MeSH
• směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma MeSH
• transplantace hematopoetických kmenových buněk metody   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• záchranná terapie přístrojové vybavení   metody   MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• přehledy MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Evropa MeSH

In newly diagnosed myeloma patients, upfront autologous transplant (ASCT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1) compared with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (CC+R). Salvage ASCT at first relapse may still effectively rescue patients who did not receive upfront ASCT. To evaluate the long-term benefit of upfront ASCT vs CC+R and the impact of salvage ASCT in patients who received upfront CC+R, we conducted a pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials (RV-MM-209 and EMN-441). Primary endpoints were PFS1, progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), overall survival (OS). A total of 268 patients were randomized to 2 courses of melphalan 200 mg/m2 and ASCT (MEL200-ASCT) and 261 to CC+R. Median follow-up was 46 months. MEL200-ASCT significantly improved PFS1 (median: 42 vs 24 months, HR 0.53; P<0.001), PFS2 (4 years: 71 vs 54%, HR 0.53, P<0.001) and OS (4 years: 84 vs 70%, HR 0.51, P<0.001) compared with CC+R. The advantage was noticed in good and bad prognosis patients. Only 53% of patients relapsing from CC+R received ASCT at first relapse. Upfront ASCT significantly reduced the risk of death (HR 0.51; P=0.007) in comparison with salvage ASCT. In conclusion, these data confirm the role of upfront ASCT as the standard approach for all young myeloma patients.

• MeSH
• aplikace orální MeSH
• autologní transplantace MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• klinické zkoušky, fáze III jako téma MeSH
• lenalidomid MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mnohočetný myelom mortalita   terapie   MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• thalidomid analogy a deriváty   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• transplantace kmenových buněk * MeSH
• záchranná terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH
• Názvy látek
• lenalidomid MeSH
• thalidomid MeSH