Clinical Outcomes of Non-Traditional Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Regimens in Multiple Myeloma
Authors: Streeter Shawn O. , Nadeem Omar , Richardson Paul G. , Laubach Jacob P. , Mo Clifton C. , Noonan Kimberly , McKenney Mary , Flaherty Tina , Dalton Virginia , Aktas-Samur Anil , Leblebjian Houry 
Published: November 2020

Introduction

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is a standard first-line regimen for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and is associated with high response rates and improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to traditional chemotherapy regimens. Traditional (RVD Classic, RVD Lite) and non-traditional (RVD Premium Lite, RVD Ultra Lite) variations of the RVD regimen are utilized at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and have not been fully evaluated in terms of safety and tolerability. RVD Premium Lite is administered in a 28-day cycle with weekly bortezomib; whereas, RVD Ultra Lite administers three weekly doses of bortezomib instead of four (Table 1). These two regimens have not been fully evaluated in terms of safety, tolerability, and efficacy. Selection is based on provider preference in addition to flexibility of dosing schedule. The regimens also allow for convenience of weekly dosing while keeping dose intensity. This retrospective, descriptive analysis is the first study to explore the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of four different RVD regimens used at DFCI.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, descriptive analysis identified 90 newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma treated at DFCI main campus for &gt;2 cycles of an RVD-based regimen in the front-line setting. We reviewed patients started on treatment from January 2017 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if treated primarily at an outside institution or satellite campus.

Results

A total of 90 patients were included between January 2017 to December 2019, and median age was 69.5 years (range 44-87). Most patients had either standard-risk or unknown cytogenetics. Of the 44 patients with available International Staging System (ISS) information, the majority were R-ISS/ISS I or II. The most common M-protein type at diagnosis was IgG (56.7%), followed by light chain restricted disease (25.6%). In terms of traditional and non-traditional RVD regimens, most patients received RVD Classic (33.3%) or RVD Ultra Lite (32.2%), followed by RVD Lite (23.3%) and RVD Premium Lite (11.1%). Patients in RVD Lite and RVD Ultra Lite groups were of older age when compared to the RVD Classic group (P&lt;0.001).

Lenalidomide dosing delays and reductions trended higher in the RVD Classic regimen at 14.3%, followed by RVD Ultra Lite at 12.3%. Bortezomib dosing delays and reductions were similar between the RVD Lite and RVD Classic regimens at 11.8% and 11.2%, respectively. Overall, combined lenalidomide and bortezomib dosing delays/reductions trended higher in the RVD Classic (14.3%/11.2%) and RVD Lite (11.0%/11.8%) compared to RVD Ultra Lite (12.3%/9%) and RVD Premium Lite (10.8%/9.6%).

The most common toxicities noted with all variations of the RVD regimen were peripheral neuropathy, cutaneous toxicity, infection, diarrhea, and constipation. The highest rates of adverse events among all RVD regimens were infection and peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy was slightly higher in the RVD Premium Lite and RVD Classic regimen at 8.43% and 8.70%, respectively, compared to RVD Lite and RVD Ultra Lite at 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively. No significant difference in toxicities were seen when regimens were compared (p=0.1369).

Intolerance leading to therapy change trended higher in the RVD Lite group at 23.8%, followed by RVD Classic and RVD Ultra Lite at 16.7% and 10.3%, respectively. Nineteen percent of patients in the RVD Lite group had minimal response or progression leading to therapy change, which was highest among all RVD regimens. Rate of transplant was highest in the RVD Classic group at 36.7%, followed by RVD Premium Lite at 20%. There was no significant difference in intolerance, minimal response or progression, maintenance, continued induction or planned change, transplant, and death between regimens (p=0.089). In terms of progression-free survival, no differences were seen between the groups (p=0.36).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current investigation allowed us to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of traditional and non-traditional variations of the RVD regimen in multiple myeloma used at our institution. There are minimal differences between each regimen when toxicities are managed appropriately.

Disclosures

Richardson: Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Mo:Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.