Advances in Therapy

, Volume 28, Supplement 8, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Continued treatment with lenalidomide in multiple myeloma

Review
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Lenalidomide is a more potent and better tolerated immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) as compared to thalidomide, the first-in-class IMiD. The mechanism of action of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma (MM) includes direct antitumor, immunomodulatory, and regulatory effects on the plasma cell-bone marrow niche interaction. Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone has shown a significantly higher efficacy as compared to dexamethasone alone in the treatment of relapsed or refractory MM in terms of overall response (OR) rate, complete response (CR) rate, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Dosing, duration, and overall benefit of dexamethasone combination remains to be elucidated in ad-hoc trials, which may impact the tolerability and efficacy of the recommended schedule of lenalidomide rescue treatment. Depth of response achieved with lenalidomide and dexamethasone is associated with improvements in response duration, TTP, and OS, regardless of when the response is achieved. Although the probability of achieving a CR or very good partial response (VGPR) decreases over time, patients who are able to tolerate treatment in the absence of disease progression continue to experience benefits. However, optimal duration of rescue treatment from the time-point of best response has not been formally established. Recent data from phase 3 clinical trials also suggest the benefit of single-agent lenalidomide as maintenance after first-line treatment, and of lenalidomide combination therapy with conventional chemotherapy or new agents as induction treatment, in both autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) eligible and ineligible MM patients. Concerns about second primary neoplasms have been recently raised, and need further investigation. Taken together, these facts open new clinical settings in which lenalidomide therapy may benefit MM patients and deepen IMiD knowledge, especially in the continued rescue treatment and maintenance settings. Further study is warranted to optimize treatment with IMiDs.

Keywords

continued treatment dexamethasone lenalidomide multiple myeloma response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1860–1873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kristinsson SY, Landgren O, Dickman PW, Derolf AR, Bjorkholm M. Patterns of survival in multiple myeloma: a population-based study of patients diagnosed in Sweden from 1973 to 2003. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1993–1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood. 2008;111:2516–2520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheskin J. Thalidomide in the treatment of lepra reactions. Clin Pharm Ther. 1965;6:303–306.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low-dose dexamethasone as therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5008–5014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia. 2010;24:1934–1939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lacy MQ, Allred JB, Gerz MA, et al. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in myeloma refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide: comparison of 2 dosing strategies in dual-refractory disease. Blood. 2011;118:2970–2975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quach H, Ritchie D, Stewart AK, et al. Mechanism of action of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDS) in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2010;24:22–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2123–2132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber DM, Chen C, Niesvizky R, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2133–2142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palumbo A, Gay F, Falco P, et al. Bortezomib as induction before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in untreated multiple myeloma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:800–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, et al. Lenalidomide, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CRd) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a phase 2 trial. American journal of hematology. 2011;86:640–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palumbo A. A phase 3 study to determine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide combined with melphalan and prednisone in patients = 65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ndmm). Haematologica. 2010;95:234. Abstract 0566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palumbo A. A phase III trial of melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide (MPR) versus melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous transplantation (MEL200) in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2010;28:8015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richardson PG, Weller E, Lonial S, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2010;116:679–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morabito F, Gentile M, Mazzone C, et al. Safety and efficacy of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in untreated multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment. Blood. 2010. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosinol L, Cibeira MT, Martinez J, et al. Thalidomide/dexamethasone (TD) vs. bortezomib (Velcadeamethasone (VTD) vs. VBMCP/VBAD/Velcadese III PETHEMA/Gem Trial. Blood. 2008;112. Abstract 654.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paiva B, Vidriales MB, Cerveró J, et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2008;112:4017–4023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ladetto M, Pagliano G, Ferrero S, et al. Major tumor shrinking and persistent molecular remissions after consolidation with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with autografted myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2077–2084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paiva B, Martinez-Lopez J, Vidriales MB, et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1627–1633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jourdan M, Tarte K, Legouffe E, Brochier J, Rossi JF, Klein B. Tumor necrosis factor is a survival and proliferation factor for human myeloma cells. Eur Cytokine Netw. 1999;10:65–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hideshima T, Chauhan D, Schlossman R, Richardson P, Anderson KC. The role of tumor necrosis factor alpha in the pathophysiology of human multiple myeloma: therapeutic applications. Oncogene. 2001;20:4519–4527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corral LG, Haslett PA, Muller GW, et al. Differential cytokine modulation and T cell activation by two distinct classes of thalidomide analogues that are potent inhibitors of TNF-alpha. J Immun. 1999;163:380–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muller GW, Corral LG, Shire MG, et al. Structural modifications of thalidomide produce analogs with enhanced tumor necrosis factor inhibitory activity. J Med Chem. 1996;39:3238–3240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schafer PH, Gandhi AK, Loveland MA, et al. Enhancement of cytokine production and AP-1 transcriptional activity in T cells by thalidomide-related immunomodulatory drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003;305:1222–1232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bartlett JB, Dredge K, Dalgleish AG. The evolution of thalidomide and its IMiD derivatives as anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:314–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reddy N, Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Deeb G, et al. Immunomodulatory drugs stimulate natural killer-cell function, alter cytokine production by dendritic cells, and inhibit angiogenesis enhancing the anti-tumour activity of rituximab in vivo. Br J Haem. 2008;140:36–45.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davies FE, Raje E, Hideshima T, et al. Thalidomide and immunomodulatory derivatives augment natural killer cell cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2001;98:210–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chang DH, Liu N, Klimek V, et al. Enhancement of ligand-dependent activation of human natural killer T cells by lenalidomide: therapeutic implications. Blood. 2006;108:618–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu L, Adams M, Carter T, et al. Lenalidomide enhances natural killer cell and monocyte-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity of rituximab-treated CD20+ tumor cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2008:14;4650–4657.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hayashi T, Hideshima T, Akiyama M, et al. Molecular mechanisms whereby immunomodulatory drugs activate natural killer cells: clinical application. Br J Haematol. 2005;128:192–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tai YT, Li XF, Catley L, et al. Immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (CC-5013, IMiD3) augments anti-CD40 SGN-40-induced cytotoxicity in human multiple myeloma: clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2005;65:11712–11720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dredge K, Marriott JB, Todryk SM, et al. Protective antitumor immunity induced by a costimulatory thalidomide analog in conjunction with whole tumor cell vaccination is mediated by increased Th1-type immunity. J Immunol. 2002;168:4914–4919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dredge K, Marriott JB, Macdonald CD, et al. Novel thalidomide analogues display anti-angiogenic activity independently of immunomodulatory effects. Br J Cancer. 2002;87:1166–1172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Geitz H, Handt S, Zwingenberger K. Thalidomide selectively modulates the density of cell surface molecules involved in the adhesion cascade. Immunopharmacology. 1996;31:213–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Payvandi F, Wu L, Haley M, et al. Immunomodulatory drugs inhibit expression of cyclooxygenase-2 from TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, and LPS-stimulated human PBMC in a partially IL-10-dependent manner. Cell Immunol. 2004;230:81–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Breitkreutz I, Raab MS. Vallet S, et al. Lenalidomide inhibits osteoclastogenesis, survival factors and bone-remodeling markers in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2008;22:1925–1932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mitsiades N, Mitsiades CS, Poulaki V, et al. Apoptotic signaling induced by immunomodulatory thalidomide analogs in human multiple myeloma cells: therapeutic implications. Blood. 2002;99:4525–4530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang CY, Mayo MW, Korneluk RG, Goeddel DV, Baldwin ASJ. NF-kappaB antiapoptosis: induction of TRAF1 and TRAF2 and c-IAP1 and c-IAP2 to suppress caspase-8 activation. Science. 1998;281:1680–1683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mitsiades N, Mitsiades CS, Poulaki V, Anderson KC, Treon SP. Intracellular regulation of tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand-induced apoptosis in human multiple myeloma cells. Blood. 2002;99:2162–2171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kreuz S, Siegmund D, Scheurich P, Wajant H. NF-kappaB inducers upregulate cFLIP, a cycloheximide-sensitive inhibitor of death receptor signaling. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21:3964–3973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chu ZL, McKinsey TA, Liu L, Gentry JJ, Malim MH, Ballard DW. Suppression of tumor necrosis factor-induced cell death by inhibitor of apoptosis c-IAP2 is under NF-kappaB control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:10057–10062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gandhi AK, Kang J, Capone L, et al. Dexamethasone synergizes with lenalidomide to inhibit multiple myeloma tumor growth, but reduces lenalidomide-induced immunomodulation of T and NK cell function. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2010;10:155–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schafer PH, Gandhi AK, Zhang LH, et al. Opposing effects of dexamethasone on lenalidomide activity in multiple myeloma: additive/synergistic effects on anti-proliferative activity on myeloma cells and antagonistic effects on immune function. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2008;112:2761.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hideshima T, Chauhan D, Shima Y, et al. Thalidomide and its analogs overcome drug resistance of human multiple myeloma cells to conventional therapy. Blood. 2000;96:2943–2950.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Français du Myélome. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harousseau JL, Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, et al. Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy: long-term analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5720–5726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martínez-López J, et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5775–5782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Durie BGM, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20:1467–1473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martinez-Lopez J, Blade J, Mateos MV, et al. Long-term prognostic significance of response in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2011;118:529–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gay F, Larocca A, Wijermans P, et al. Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients. Blood. 2011;117:3025–3031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Niesvizky R, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV, et al. The relationship between quality of response and clinical benefit for patients treated on the bortezomib arm of the international, randomized, phase 3 APEX trial in relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2008;143:46–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Caravita T, et al. Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:825–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Facon T, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al. Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007;370:1209–1218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hulin C, Virion J, Leleu X, et al. Comparison of melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MP-T) to melphalan-prednisone (MP) in patients 75 years of age or older with untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Preliminary results of the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled IFM 01-01 trial. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2007;25:8001.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:906–917.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Alegre A, Aguado B, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide is effective as salvage therapy in refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma: analysis of the Spanish Compassionate Use Registry in advanced patients. Int J Hematol. 2011;93:351–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Corradini P, Cavo M, Lokhorst H, et al. Molecular remission after myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation predicts a better relapse-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2003;102:1927–1929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2007;92:50–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1121–1128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:2068–2076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dimopoulos MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009;23:2147–2152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Long-term results of response to therapy, time to progression, and survival with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in newly diagnosed myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:1179–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Niesvizky R, Javabalan DS, Christos PJ, et al. BiRD (Biaxin [clarithromycin]/Revlimid [lenalidomide]/dexamethasone) combination therapy results in high complete- and overall-response rates in treatment-naive symptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;111:1101–1109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Attal M, Lauwers VC, Marit G, et al. Maintenance treatment with lenalidomide after transplantation for MYELOMA: final analysis of the IFM 2005-02. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2010;116:310.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    McCarthy PL, Owzar K, Anderson KC, et al. Phase III intergroup study of lenalidomide versus placebo maintenance therapy following single autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for multiple myeloma: CALGB 100104. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2010;116:37.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dimopoulos MA. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN plus DEX) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients (pts) and risk of second primary malignancies (SPM): Analysis of MM-009/010. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:8009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rossi AC, Mark TM, Jayabalan D, et al. Incidence of second primary malignancies (SPM) after 6-years follow-up of continuous lenalidomide in first-line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:8008.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Palumbo AP. Incidence of second primary malignancy (SPM) in melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide combination followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients (pts) age 65 or older. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:8007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Harousseau JL, Dimopoulos MA, Wang M, et al. The quality of response to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2010;95:1738–1744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    San-Miguel JF, Dimopoulos MA, Stadmauer EA, et al. Effects of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment duration on survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Clin Lymphoma, Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11:38–43.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Miguel JFS, Dimopoulos M, Weber D, et al. Dexamethasone dose adjustments seem to result in better efficacy and improved tolerability in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who are treated with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (MM009/010 Sub-Analysis). ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2007;110:2712.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency concludes that benefit-risk balance of Revlimid remains positive. (2011). Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/public_health_alerts/2011/09/human_pha_detail_000042.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d126. Last accessed October 26, 2011.
  74. 74.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Safety alerts for human medical products — Revlimid (lenalidomide): ongoing safety review — increased risk of developing new malignancies. (2011). Available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm250606.htm. Last accessed October 26, 2011.
  75. 75.
    Richardson PG, et al. A randomized phase 2 study of lenalidomide therapy for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108:3458–3464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Richardson P, Blood E, Mitsiades CS, et al. Safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:772–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Palumbo A, Gay F. How to treat elderly patients with multiple myeloma: combination of therapy or sequencing. Hematology. 2009:566–577.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    San-Miguel JF, Mateos MV. How to treat a newly diagnosed young patient with multiple myeloma. Hematology. 2009;555–565.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HematologyHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, SevillaSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations