Lenalidomide Maintenance Therapy In Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Trials

Abstract

Abstract Background Conflicting results have emerged, especially with respect to the impact on overall survival (OS), from trials evaluating lenalidomide maintenance (LM) therapy after induction therapy alone or post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing outcome data from LM trials to evaluate role of lenalidomide as maintenance strategy in MM. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases and abstracts through June 2013 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LM vs. placebo/no maintenance. Single arm studies were excluded. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model for clinical endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), OS, response rate (RR) and adverse events (AEs), including second primary malignancies (SPMs). Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 2. We assessed between-study heterogeneity with the Cochran Q test and quantified its extent with the I2 statistic. Results Overall, five RCTs, with data extractable from four phase III trials (3 publications and 1 abstract) were identified (n= 1935). All studies were RCTs with an adequate randomization. MRC MM XI study was excluded from analyses as survival data are not available. Two placebo controlled trials (IFM 05-02, CALGB 100104) addressed the role of LM post-ASCT, one placebo-controlled trial (MM-015) studied LM therapy in the non-transplant setting and the remaining trial (RV-MM-PI209) had a 2 X 2 design comprising of both ASCT and non-transplant randomized arms followed by a second randomization of LM versus no maintenance. There was no heterogeneity for estimate of PFS results (Cochran Q, p=0.68; I2=0%), but considerable heterogeneity for estimate of OS (Cochran Q, p=0.09; I2= 55%), among the studies. There was significant prolongation of both PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.41–0.58, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95, p=0.013) with LM vs. placebo/no maintenance (Figure 1). Best response during maintenance was reported only in 2 studies and odds of responding (very good partial response or better) were not significantly different with LM (OR 1.28, p=0.3). Grade 3-4 AEs data were available from 3 trials for calculation of pooled OR with LM compared with placebo. We observed a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of SPMs with LM (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31–3.04; p=0.001). Patients on LM were more likely to have grade 3-4 AEs than placebo: neutropenia (OR 4.9, p<0.001), thrombocytopenia (OR 2.7, p<0.001), fatigue (OR 2.3, p=0.01) and venous thromboembolism (OR 3.2, p=0.02). Odds of discontinuing treatment were also significantly higher in patients on lenalidomide (OR 2.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates significant improvement in PFS and modest improvement in OS with LM. There is an increased risk of grade 3-4 adverse effects, including SPMs with LM. Substantial heterogeneity for estimate of OS among protocols is a limitation of this analysis. Lack of uniform access to lenalidomide upon disease progression in the placebo/no maintenance arms of the constituent studies should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate effect estimates for OS in this meta-analysis. OS: Cochran Q p=0.09, I2=55%, substantial heterogeneity PFS: Cochran Q p=0.68, I2=0%, minimal heterogeneity Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Onyx: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.