Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive ...induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196.
•Triplet lenalidomide-based regimens did not induce any advantage over doublet lenalidomide-based regimens in elderly myeloma patients.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and ...refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice.
A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05.
In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval CI 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable.
Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma ...(MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.
Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory ...multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.
In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with ...relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established.
This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs.
The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings.
The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment.
Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391 . Registered 2 March 2010.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary
Smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM) presents without MM defining symptoms. We aimed to identify patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression within 2 years using only serum parameters. In ...total, 527 patients with SMM were included and divided into a training group (287 patients from the Czech Myeloma Group CMG) and an independent validation group (240 patients from Heidelberg). The median follow‐up was 2·4 and 2·5 years, respectively. Progression to MM occurred in 51·9% of the CMG and 38·8% of the Heidelberg patients, respectively. The median risk of progression was 11·0% (CMG) and 9·7% (Heidelberg) per year, during the 5 years after diagnosis. A serum involved/uninvolved free light‐chain ratio of >30, immunoparesis, and serum monoclonal (M) protein of ≥2·3 g/dl emerged as powerful predictors of 2‐year progression rate with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2·49 (95% confidence interval CI 1·49–4·17), HR of 2·01 (95% CI 1·36–2·96) and HR of 2·00 (95% CI 1·44–2·79) (P < 0·001) in univariate Cox regression analysis, respectively. Based on this, the CMG model identified patients with SMM with a 2‐year risk of progression of 78·7% (95% CI 53·1–95·7; HR 6·8; P < 0·001, CMG) and 81·3% (95% CI 47·1–98·8; HR 38·63; P < 0·001, Heidelberg). Serum parameters in the CMG model allow identification of patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression to symptomatic MM within 2 years.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients ...treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.
Subcutaneous (SC) application of bortezomib has been recently introduced as a new application route in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We performed an analysis to compare the outcomes of ...bortezomib-based therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated using either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration.
During January 2012 through December 2013, we performed a retrospective analysis of 446 patients with MM treated with bortezomib-based regimens (either once weekly - 63% or twice weekly - 27%) in both, the first line setting, and in relapse, with separate analysis of patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. We assessed the response rates and toxicity profiles in both, IV and SC route of bortezomib administration.
The response rates in both IV and SC arm were similar with overall response rate 71.7% vs 70.7%, complete remissions in 13.9% vs 8.6%, very good partial remissions in 30.8% vs 34.5% and partial remissions in 27% vs 27.6%. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no significant differences between IV and SC group. There were no significant differences in the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN of any grade was present in 48% in the IV arm and in 41% in the SC arm. PN grade ≥ 2 was present in 20% vs 18% and PN grade ≥ 3 was present in 6% vs 4%.
We conclude that subcutaneous application of bortezomib has similar therapeutic outcomes and toxicity profile as intravenous route of application. In our cohort there was no difference in the incidence of PN, suggesting that PN is dose dependent and might be reduced by lower intensity schemes rather than by the route of administration.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We ...report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
