Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30559051›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2019

Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

Graham H Jackson, Faith E Davies, Charlotte Pawlyn, David A Cairns, Alina Striha, Corinne Collett, Anna Hockaday, John R Jones, Bhuvan Kishore, Mamta Garg and 12 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

187 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

127 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Graham H JacksonNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Electronic address: graham.jackson@newcastle.ac.uk.
Faith E DaviesThe Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Charlotte PawlynThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David A CairnsClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Alina StrihaClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Corinne CollettClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Anna HockadayClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
John R JonesThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bhuvan KishoreHeart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Mamta GargLeicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.
Cathy D WilliamsCentre for Clinical Haematology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Kamaraj KarunanithiUniversity Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Jindriska LindsayEast Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury, UK.
Matthew W JennerUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Gordon CookClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Section of Experimental Haematology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Nigel H RussellCentre for Clinical Haematology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Martin F KaiserThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mark T DraysonClinical Immunology Service, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Roger G OwenHaematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Walter M GregoryClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Gareth J MorganThe Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
UK NCRI Haemato-oncology Clinical Studies Group

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy have improved progression-free survival, primarily following autologous stem-cell transplantation. A beneficial effect of lenalidomide maintenance therapy on overall survival in this setting has been inconsistent between individual studies. Minimal data are available on the effect of maintenance lenalidomide in more aggressive disease states, such as patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance versus observation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including cytogenetic risk and transplantation status subgroup analyses.

methodsThe Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial with three randomisation stages done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (allocation by transplantation eligibility status); intensification treatment (allocation by response to induction therapy); and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to maintenance treatment. Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol and had achieved at least a minimal response to protocol treatment, including lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 from Jan 13, 2011, to Jun 27, 2013, and 2:1 from Jun 28, 2013, to Aug 11, 2017) to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation, and stratified by allocated induction and intensification treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment.

findingsBetween Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 11, 2017, 1917 patients were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial. 1137 patients were assigned to lenalidomide maintenance and 834 patients to observation. After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 18-50), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 36-42) with lenalidomide and 20 months (18-22) with observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·41-0·53]; p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 78·6% (95% Cl 75·6-81·6) in the lenalidomide group and 75·8% (72·4-79·2) in the observation group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·73-1·05]; p=0·15). Progression-free survival was improved with lenalidomide compared with observation across all prespecified subgroups. On prespecified subgroup analyses by transplantation status, 3-year overall survival in transplantation-eligible patients was 87·5% (95% Cl 84·3-90·7) in the lenalidomide group and 80·2% (76·0-84·4) in the observation group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·93]; p=0·014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66·8% (61·6-72·1) in the lenalidomide group and 69·8% (64·4-75·2) in the observation group (1·02 [0·80-1·29]; p=0·88). By cytogenetic risk group, in standard-risk patients, 3-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 80·0-90·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 81·3% (74·2-86·7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65·8-81·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 63·7% (52·8-72·7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62·9% (46·0-75·8) compared with 43·5% (22·2-63·1). Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking lenalidomide were haematological, including neutropenia (362 [33%] patients), thrombocytopenia (72 [7%] patients), and anaemia (42 [4%] patients). Serious adverse events were reported in 494 (45%) of 1097 patients receiving lenalidomide compared with 150 (17%) of 874 patients on observation. The most common serious adverse events were infections in both the lenalidomide group and the observation group. 460 deaths occurred during maintenance treatment, 234 (21%) in the lenalidomide group and 226 (27%) in the observation group, and no deaths in the lenalidomide group were deemed treatment related.

interpretationMaintenance therapy with lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma compared with observation, but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial population. The manageable safety profile of this drug and the encouraging results in subgroup analyses of patients across all cytogenetic risk groups support further investigation of maintenance lenalidomide in this setting.

fundingCancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, and Myeloma UK.

Indexed as

Maintenance ChemotherapyHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisLenalidomideMultiple MyelomaProgression-Free SurvivalTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeLenalidomide

Identifiers

PMID30559051
PMCPMC6318225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.