Abstract

Abstract 1964

Background:

Thalidomide (thal), lenalidomide (len) and pomalidomide (pom) have been shown to have considerable efficacy in patients with newly diagnosed as well as relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). They are often used as initial therapy in patients proceeding to stem cell transplant (SCT), and based on the initial response, are usually considered for salvage therapy during their disease course. However, the retreatment efficacy of these compounds is unknown. We conducted this study to ascertain the degree of response that can be obtained by retreatment with immunomodulatory compounds.

Patients and Method:

410 patients with newly diagnosed MM who received either thalidomide-dexamethasone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone were studied. Of these, 183 patients received thalidomide, lenalidomide or pomalidomide (with or without dexamethasone) as one of the salvage regimens following relapse, and form the study group. We included all patients who received the repeat immunomodulatory therapy as salvage treatment at any time during the MM disease course.

Results:

The median (range) age of the MM patient group was 60 (29-80) years; 117 (64%) were male. Thalidomide and lenalidomide were used as initial therapy in 106 (58%) and 77 (42%) patients, respectively. Patients received a median of 2 treatments (range, 1–6) prior to salvage therapy; bortezomib was used as one of the salvage treatment (prior to the repeat immunomodulatory therapy) in 41 (22%) patients. An autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 118 (64%) patients after the initial immunomodulatory therapy. Almost one half (89; 49%) of the patients went off the first line therapy to undergo a SCT; whereas drug toxicity (26; 14%) and disease progression (21; 11%) were other causes requiring a treatment change. The compound used for salvage therapy was thalidomide, lenalidomide or pomalidomide in 40 (22%), 129 (70%) and 14 (8%) patients, respectively. The responses to salvage therapy based on the initial therapy and the salvage regimen are as shown in Table 1 . Overall, 67 (37%) patients achieved a partial response or better and 73 (40%) patients achieved less than a partial response (stable and progressive disease) to repeat immunomodulatory therapy, while the remaining 43 (23%) had non evaluable disease response.

Conclusions:

Retreatment with an immunomodulatory therapy, especially a different compound, was associated with excellent response rates. Lowest response rates were seen in patients retreated with thalidomide after having received lenalidomide as their initial therapy after the diagnosis of MM. This information is valuable in deciding on the choice of repeat therapy with immunomodulatory compounds in patients with relapsed disease.

Table 1:
Response to 1st line IMiD therapySecondary response to IMiD according to initial IMiD response
L-P* N=7L-L* N=55L-T* N=15T-P* N =10T-L* N=71T-T* N=25
≥VGPR(%) 4 PR (100) 5≥VGPR (38)3 PR (23)3 <PR (23) 1 PR (20)3 <PR (60) 1≥VGPR(33)1 PR (33)1 <PR (33) 1≥VGPR(22)1 PR (11)3 <PR (33) 1 PR (25)3 <PR (75) 
PR (%) 1 PR (33)1 <PR (33) 4 ≥VGPR(11)8 PR (23)13 <PR (37) 1≥VGPR(25)3 <PR (75) 3≥VGPR(75)1 PR (25) 4≥VGPR(11)7 PR (18)19 <PR (50) 5 PR (38)6 <PR (46) 
< PR (%) 2≥VGPR (29)4 <PR (57) 1 PR(17)3 <PR (50) 2 PR (67)1 <PR (33) 1≥VGPR(4)9 PR (36)5 <PR (14) 5 <PR (63) 
ORR (>PR) 83% 52% 25% 80% 46% 30% 
Response to 1st line IMiD therapySecondary response to IMiD according to initial IMiD response
L-P* N=7L-L* N=55L-T* N=15T-P* N =10T-L* N=71T-T* N=25
≥VGPR(%) 4 PR (100) 5≥VGPR (38)3 PR (23)3 <PR (23) 1 PR (20)3 <PR (60) 1≥VGPR(33)1 PR (33)1 <PR (33) 1≥VGPR(22)1 PR (11)3 <PR (33) 1 PR (25)3 <PR (75) 
PR (%) 1 PR (33)1 <PR (33) 4 ≥VGPR(11)8 PR (23)13 <PR (37) 1≥VGPR(25)3 <PR (75) 3≥VGPR(75)1 PR (25) 4≥VGPR(11)7 PR (18)19 <PR (50) 5 PR (38)6 <PR (46) 
< PR (%) 2≥VGPR (29)4 <PR (57) 1 PR(17)3 <PR (50) 2 PR (67)1 <PR (33) 1≥VGPR(4)9 PR (36)5 <PR (14) 5 <PR (63) 
ORR (>PR) 83% 52% 25% 80% 46% 30% 

T: thalidomide; L: lenalidomide; P: pomalidomide; ≥VGPR: very good partial response; PR: partial response; ORR: overall response rate.

≥VGPR includes patients with complete response and VGPR.

< PR includes patients with stable and progressive disease.

*

Primary – salvage IMiD combination.

Patients with non-evaluable disease response (not included in the table) have been used for calculating the percentage.

Disclosures:

Dispenzieri:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Honoraria. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding.

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.