the impact of thalidomide maintenance therapy varies according to biological risk grouping
DESCRIPTION
The Impact of Thalidomide Maintenance Therapy Varies According to Biological Risk Grouping. Annamaria Brioli. Fiona M Ross 3 , Martin Kaiser 1 , Charlotte Pawlyn 1 , Ping Wu 1 , Walter M Gregory 4 , Roger Owen 5 , Graham H Jackson 6 , Michele Cavo 2 , Faith E Davies 1 , Gareth J Morgan 1. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
in partnership with
The Impact of Thalidomide Maintenance Therapy The Impact of Thalidomide Maintenance Therapy Varies According to Biological Risk GroupingVaries According to Biological Risk Grouping
Annamaria BrioliAnnamaria Brioli
Fiona M Ross3, Martin Kaiser1, Charlotte Pawlyn1, Ping Wu1, Walter M Gregory4, Roger Owen5, Graham H Jackson6, Michele Cavo2, Faith E Davies1, Gareth J Morgan1
Abstract presented at the 54th ASHAbstract presented at the 54th ASH®® Annual Meeting and Exposition Annual Meeting and ExpositionAtlanta, December 8-11 2012Atlanta, December 8-11 2012
1Haemato-Oncology Research Unit, Division of Molecular Pathology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; 2Seràgnoli Institute of Hematology, Bologna University School of Medicine, Italy; 3Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, University of Southampton, Salisbury, UK; 4Clinical Trials
Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 5St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK; 6Haematology Department, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
UKMF Spring Day UKMF Spring Day 1313thth March 2013 March 2013
Study BackgroundMaintenance therapy can modify residual disease behaviour
delaying or preventing relapsesdecreasing post relapse survival
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
10
PresentationPRVGPRCR
sCR
Cure
Tum
our b
ulk
Relapse
Time to progression
Induction Maintenance
Clonal extinction and cure
Relapse
Relapse
Relapse
Time
Time to progression
The impact of maintenance may vary according to the underlying biology of the disease
Genetic alterations, such as t(4;14), del(17p) and +1q, can be used to define different biological behaviours1, 2
The presence of co-segregating adverse FISH lesion defines a group of patients with more aggressive disease3
1. Avet-Loiseau H, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(16):1949-52. 2. Fonseca R, et al. Leukemia 2009;23(12):2210-213. Boyd K, et al. Leukemia 2012;26(2):349-55
PFS OS
Study Background
Study BackgroundThalidomide maintenance
Studies have shown conflicting results: improvement of tumor response1-3 vs no improvement4 improvement of progression-free survival (PFS)1-2,5-6 vs no change3
survival benefit1,6-7 vs no advantage3,5
higher benefit in lower2,4 vs higher risk biological groups9
impaired quality of life10
6. Barlogie B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1021-307. Brinker BT, et al. Cancer. 2006;106:2171-808. Barlogie B, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1209-149. Barlogie B,et al. Blood 2008; 112:3115-312110. Hicks LK, et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34:442-52.
1. Spencer A, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1788-93.2. Attal M, et al. Blood. 2006;108:3289-943. Sahebi F, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;37:825-94. Morgan GJ, et al. Blood 2012: 119:7-155. Lockhorst HM, et al. Blood. 2010;115:1113-20
Evaluate the impact of thalidomide maintenance on biological risk groups defined by co-segregating FISH lesion
Study Design
MP
CTDa
NoMaintenance
Thalidomide Maintenance
Ran
dom
izat
ion
Induction1-3
Older, less fit
• Thalidomide maintenance = 50 mg/day × 4 weeks, increasing thereafter to 100 mg/day if well tolerated, until disease progression
CVAD
CTD
Younger, fitter
HDM200 mg/m2
1. Morgan GJ, et al. Lancet. 2010;376:1989-99.2. Morgan GJ, et al. Haematologica. 2012: 97(3):442-50.
3. Morgan GJ, et al. Blood. 2011;118:1231-8.4. Morgan GJ, et al. Blood. 2012: 119:7-15.
CTD, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone; CTDa, CTD attenuated (low-intensity); CVAD, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide; HDM, high-dose melphalan; MP, melphalan and prednisone.
Maintenance4
Median time on maintenance treatment:
7 months
MRC Myeloma IX trial
MRC Myeloma IX trial
Study accrual 2003-2007
N° pts enrolledN° entered maintenanceN° ® thalidomideN° ® no maintenance
1960818408410
Cutoff date February 2012
Median follow-up -from beginning of therapy-from beginning of maintenance
5.9 years5.4 years
Thalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance
PFS and OS according to maintenance randomization
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
PFS OS
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p<0.001
Median PFS:23.0 m vs 15.3 m
p=0.397
Median OS:59.1 m vs 57.6 m
MRC Myeloma IX trial
Evaluable patients
881 patients entered maintenance
369 patients with complete:IgH@del 17(p13)+1(q32)
182 thalidomide maintenance
187 no maintenance
Median time from initiation of trial to maintenance randomization: 8.3 months
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Patients’ characteristics
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Response rate pre maintenance randomization
60% of patients in each maintenance arm had received ASCT50% of patients in each maintenance arm had received Zoledronic acid
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Presence of genetic alterations
SRSR HRHR UHRUHR
Each lesion was considered whether present in isolation or plus an additional adverse lesion (+(1)(q21) and del(17)(p13) for IGH translocations, +(1)(q21), del(17)(p13) and t(4;14) for hyperdiploidy).
FISH based risk groups:Standard risk: no adverse FISH lesionHigh risk: presence of one of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del17(p13), +1(q32)Ultra high risk: presence of two or more between t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del17(p13), +1(q32)
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
FISH based risk groupsPFS
p=0.004
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Standard risk FISH
p=0.475
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
p=0.840
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
High risk FISH
Ultra-high risk FISH
Median PFS:29.6 m vs 20.3 m
Median PFS:11.3 m vs 13.4 m
Median PFS:6.5 m vs 6.3 m
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p=0.431Thal
maintenanceNo
maintenance
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p=0.039
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Months from maintenance randomization
p=0.975
surv
ival
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
FISH based risk groupsOS
Standard risk FISH High risk FISH
Ultra-high risk FISH
Median OS:NR in both arms
Median OS:23.5 m vs 42.4 m
Median PFS:34.7 m vs NR
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Translocation defined risk groupsPFS
No t(4;14) t(4;14) t(4;14)+1Thal
maintenance
Nomaintenance
p=0.069 p=0.280 p=0.813
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
No t(11;14) t(11;14) t(11;14)+1
p=0.163 p=0.455 p=0.362
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
surv
ival
surv
ival
surv
ival
surv
ival
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
Months from maintenance randomization
Months from maintenance randomization
Months from maintenance randomization
Months from maintenance randomization
Median PFS:22.1 m vs 16.1 m
Median PFS:24.6 m vs 7.1 m
Median PFS:5.3 m vs 6.0 m
Median PFS:22.1 m vs 14.7 m
Median PFS:18.9 m vs 18.8 m
Median PFS:11.7 m vs 12.1 m
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Translocation defined risk groupsOS
p=0.182
p=0.940
p=0.128
Thal maintenance
No t(11;14) t(11;14) t(11;14)+1Thal
maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
No t(4;14) t(4;14) t(4;14)+1Thal
maintenanceThal
maintenance
Nomaintenance
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
p=0.106
p=0.762p=0.987
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Nomaintenance
Nomaintenance
Median OS:54.6 m vs NR
Median OS:NR vs 36.1 m
Median OS:31.1 m vs 42.4 m
Median OS:54.6 m vs NR
Median OS:NR in both arm
Median OS:29..6 m vs NR
Hyperdiploidy defined risk groupsPFS
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p=0.003
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Hyperdiploidy alone
p=0.417
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
No Hyperdiploidy
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
p=0.142
Hyperdiploidy+1
Median PFS:14.0 m vs 13.3 m
Median PFS:36.7 m vs 22.7 m
Median PFS:8.7 m vs 11.1 m
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Hyperdiploidy defined risk groupsOS
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p=0.958
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Hyperdiploidy alone
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
p=0.258
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Months from maintenance randomization
surv
ival
Thal maintenance
Nomaintenance
Hyperdiploidy+1
No Hyperdiploidy
p=0.056
Median OS:48.8 m vs NR
Median OS:NR in both arm
Median OS:30.0 m vs 54.7 m
Brioli A. et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2013 [Epub ahead of print]
Conclusions
The association of multiple FISH adverse genetic lesions has an additive effect
Maintenance thalidomide: prolongs PFS of both transplant eligible and non eligible patientsprolongs PFS in patients with low biological risk disease (hyperdiploidy and standard risk FISH)
AknowledgmentsUniversity of BirminghamMT Drayson
K Walker
A Adkins
N Newnham
Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, SalisburyF Ross
L Chieccio
LTHT, LeedsG Cook
S Feyler
D Bowen
HMDS, LeedsRG OwenAC RawstronR de TuteM DewarS Denman
ICR, LondonFE DaviesM JennerB WalkerD JohnsonD GonzalezN DickensK BoydP LeoneL BritoA AvridromouC PawlynM KaiserL MelchorEveryone else from the Morgan and Davies Teams
MRC Leukaemia Trial Steering CommitteeMRC Leukaemia Data Monitoring and Ethics CommitteeNCRI Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies GroupUK Myeloma Forum Clinical Trials CommitteeMyeloma UK
FundingMedical Research CouncilPharmion Novartis Chugai Pharma Bayer Schering PharmaOrthoBiotech CelgeneKay Kendall Leukaemia Fund
Chief InvestigatorsJA ChildGJ MorganGH Jackson
CTRU, LeedsK CocksW GregoryA SzubertS BellN Navarro CoyF HeatleyP BestJ CarderM MatoukD EmsellA DaviesD Phillips
Aknowledgments
Nottingham City Hospital Western General Hospital, Edinburgh Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Leeds General Infirmary Birmingham Heartlands Hospital Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Hull Royal Infirmary Royal Liverpool University Hospital Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust Ninewells Hospital, Dundee University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff Torbay Hospital, Torquay Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Worcester Royal Infirmary St James's University Hospital, Leeds Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Derbyshire Royal Infirmary Christie Hospital, Manchester Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro Southampton General Hospital Blackpool Victoria Hospital James Cook University Hospital Colchester General Hospital Glan Clwyd Hospital Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital James Paget Hospital, Great Yarmouth Royal United Hospital, Bath St Helier Hospital, Carshalton The Great Western Hospital, Swindon Gloucestershire Royal Hospital Singleton Hospital, Swansea New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor Monklands General Hospital, Airdrie Eastbourne District General Hospital Sandwell General Hospital Wycombe General Hospital Hillingdon Hospital, Uxbridge Lincoln County Hospital Chesterfield & N Derbyshire Royal Kings Mill Hospital, Sutton-in-Ashfield Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn Kent and Canterbury Hospital University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London Cheltenham General Hospital Western Infirmary, Glasgow Southern General Hospital, Glasgow Hereford County Hospital Glasgow Royal Infirmary Darent Valley Hospital Salisbury District Hospital Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport Trafford General Hospital, Manchester Bristol Haematology & Oncology Centre Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield St Richard’s Hospital, Chichester Oldchurch Hospital, Romford Darlington Memorial Hospital Pembury Hospital Taunton and Somerset Hospital Diana Princess of Wales Hospital, Grimsby Warwick Hospital Walsgrave Hospital Bradford Royal Infirmary Southend General Hospital The Royal Bournemouth Hospital Manchester Royal Infirmary Whiston Hospital, Prescot Derriford Hospital Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead Worthing Hospital Scarborough General Hospital Countess of Chester Hospital Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Hope Hospital, Manchester Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow Rotherham General Hospital Poole Hospital Princess Royal University Hospital Milton Keynes General Hospital Barnsley District Hospital North Devon District Hospital Kingston Hospital Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley Borders General Hospital Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham King George Hospital, Ilford Conquest Hospital, St Leonard's on Sea Pilgrim Hospital, Boston Dorset County Hospital Southmead Hospital, Bristol Royal Surrey County Hospital University Hospital of North Tees George Eliot Hospital Southport and Formby District General Hospital North Tyneside General Hospital Epsom General Hospital Grantham and District Hospital Harrogate District Hospital Basildon Hospital Doncaster Royal Infirmary Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil Prince Philip Hospital Royal Bolton Hospital Central Middlesex Hospital Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow Arrowe Park Hospital Ipswich Hospital South Tyneside District Hospital Mid Staffordshire General Hospital Mayday Hospital Forth Valley West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust
Patients and staff from 121 participating institutions in the UK