High, sustainable MRD negativity rates with Isa-KRd in newly diagnosed high-risk multiple myeloma (CONCEPT trial)

Over the last decades numerous initiatives have been set up that aim at translating the best available medical knowledge and treatment into clinical practice. The inherent complexity of the programs and discrepancies in the terminology used make it difficult to appreciate each of them distinctly and compare their specific strengths and weaknesses. To allow comparison and stimulate dialogue between different programs, we in this paper provide an overview of the German Cancer Society certification program for multidisciplinary cancer centers that was established in 2003. In the early 2000s the German Cancer Society assessed the available information on quality of cancer care in Germany and concluded that there was a definite need for a comprehensive, transparent and evidence-based system of quality assessment and control. This prompted the development and implementation of a voluntary cancer center certification program that was promoted by scientific societies, health-care providers, and patient advocacy groups and based on guidelines of the highest quality level (S3). The certification system structures the entire process of care from prevention to screening and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer and places multidisciplinary teams at the heart of this program. Within each network of providers, the quality of care is documented using tumor-specific quality indicators. The system started with breast cancer centers in 2003 and colorectal cancer centers in 2006. In 2017, certification systems are established for the majority of cancers. Here we describe the rationale behind the certification program, its history, the development of the certification requirements, the process of data collection, and the certification process as an example for the successful implementation of a voluntary but powerful system to ensure and improve quality of cancer care. Since 2003, over 1 million patients had their primary tumors treated in a certified center. There are now over 1200 sites for different tumor entities in four countries that have been certified in accordance with the program and transparently report their results from multidisciplinary treatment for a substantial proportion of cancers. This led to a fundamental change in the structure of cancer care in Germany and neighboring countries within one decade.

PURPOSE: The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01991873 ). RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION: In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.

Despite major advances in therapy, multiple myeloma is still an incurable malignancy in the majority of patients. To increase survival, deeper remissions (i.e. CR) translating into longer PFS need to be achieved. Incorporation of new drugs (i.e. bortezomib and lenalidomide) as induction and maintenance treatment in an intensified treatment concept, including high dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), has resulted in increased CR rates, and is considered the standard of care for younger patients. Elotuzumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has given better results as lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in a phase III trial. The GMMG-HD6 trial will be the first phase III trial investigating the role of elotuzumab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD) induction/consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance within a high dose concept. GMMG-HD6 is a randomized, open, multicenter phase III trial. The planned recruitment number is 564 NDMM patients. All patients will receive 4 VRD cycles as induction and undergo peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvesting. Thereafter they will be treated with high dose melphalan therapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation followed by 2 cycles of VRD consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance. Patients in arm B1 + B2 will additionally receive elotuzumab in the induction phase, whereas patients in A2 + B2 will be treated with elotuzumab added to consolidation and maintenance. The primary endpoint of the trial is PFS. Secondary objectives and endpoints are OS, CR rates after induction therapy comparing the two arms VRD (A1 + A2) vs VRD + elotuzumab (B1 + B2), CR rates after consolidation treatment, best response to treatment during the study, time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), toxicity and quality of life. Since this is the publication of a study protocol of an ongoing study, no results can be presented. This phase III trial is designed to evaluate whether the addition of elotuzumab to an intensified treatment concept with high dose melphalan chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation and induction, consolidation and maintenance treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide is able to improve PFS compared to the same concept without elotuzumab. NCT02495922 on June 24th, 2015.