Literature DB >> 26802176

Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma.

Sonja Zweegman1, Bronno van der Holt2, Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist3, Morten Salomo4, Gerard M J Bos5, Mark-David Levin6, Heleen Visser-Wisselaar2, Markus Hansson7, Annette W G van der Velden8, Wendy Deenik9, Astrid Gruber10, Juleon L L M Coenen11, Torben Plesner12, Saskia K Klein13, Bea C Tanis14, Damian L Szatkowski15, Rolf E Brouwer16, Matthijs Westerman17, M Rineke B L Leys18, Harm A M Sinnige19, Einar Haukås20, Klaas G van der Hem21, Marc F Durian22, E Vera J M Mattijssen23, Niels W C J van de Donk1, Marian J P L Stevens-Kroef24, Pieter Sonneveld25, Anders Waage26.   

Abstract

The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Long-term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy, showed promising results without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 patients between nine 4-week cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial was undertaken by Dutch-Belgium Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and the Nordic Myeloma Study Group (the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T, and 319 received MPR-R. After a median follow-up of 36 months, PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-23 months) vs 23 months (95% CI, 19-27 months) with MPR-R (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). Response rates were similar, with at least a very good partial response of 47% and 45%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grades 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64% vs 27%. Neuropathy of at least grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm: 16% vs 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 vs 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance vs myelosuppression with MPR.
© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26802176     DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-11-679415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood        ISSN: 0006-4971            Impact factor:   22.113


  39 in total

Review 1.  Approach to the treatment of the older, unfit patient with myeloma from diagnosis to relapse: perspectives of a US hematologist and a geriatric hematologist.

Authors:  Tanya M Wildes; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2018-11-30

Review 2.  Evolution of Treatment Paradigms in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Radowan A Elnair; Sarah A Holstein
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Preclinical efficacy of daratumumab in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  Karen L Bride; Tiffaney L Vincent; Soo-Yeon Im; Richard Aplenc; David M Barrett; William L Carroll; Robin Carson; Yunfeng Dai; Meenakshi Devidas; Kimberly P Dunsmore; Tori Fuller; Tina Glisovic-Aplenc; Terzah M Horton; Stephen P Hunger; Mignon L Loh; Shannon L Maude; Elizabeth A Raetz; Stuart S Winter; Stephan A Grupp; Michelle L Hermiston; Brent L Wood; David T Teachey
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 4.  Managing multiple myeloma in elderly patients.

Authors:  Evan Diamond; Oscar B Lahoud; Heather Landau
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-08-28

Review 5.  Management of multiple myeloma in the newly diagnosed patient.

Authors:  María-Victoria Mateos; Jesús F San Miguel
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2017-12-08

6.  Venous thromboembolism risk with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens despite thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rajshekhar Chakraborty; Irbaz Bin Riaz; Saad Ullah Malik; Naimisha Marneni; Alex Mejia Garcia; Faiz Anwer; Alok A Khorana; S Vincent Rajkumar; Shaji Kumar; M Hassan Murad; Zhen Wang; Safi U Khan; Navneet S Majhail
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Therapy for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: Guidelines From the Mayo Stratification for Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy.

Authors:  David Dingli; Sikander Ailawadhi; P Leif Bergsagel; Francis K Buadi; Angela Dispenzieri; Rafael Fonseca; Morie A Gertz; Wilson I Gonsalves; Susan R Hayman; Prashant Kapoor; Taxiarchis Kourelis; Shaji K Kumar; Robert A Kyle; Martha Q Lacy; Nelson Leung; Yi Lin; John A Lust; Joseph R Mikhael; Craig B Reeder; Vivek Roy; Stephen J Russell; Taimur Sher; A Keith Stewart; Rahma Warsame; Stephen R Zeldenrust; S Vincent Rajkumar; Asher A Chanan Khan
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Approach to the Older Adult With Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Roberto Mina; Sara Bringhen; Tanya M Wildes; Sonja Zweegman; Ashley E Rosko
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2019-05-17

Review 9.  The pharmacologic management of multiple myeloma in older adults.

Authors:  Jessica L Dempsey; Andrew Johns; Ashley E Rosko; Hillard M Lazarus
Journal:  Expert Opin Pharmacother       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.889

Review 10.  Update on the role of lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Sarah A Holstein; Vera J Suman; Philip L McCarthy
Journal:  Ther Adv Hematol       Date:  2018-05-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.