Proteasome inhibition has emerged as an important therapeutic strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). Since the publication of the first phase 1 trials of bortezomib 10 years ago, this first-in-class ...proteasome inhibitor (PI) has contributed substantially to the observed improvement in survival in MM patients over the past decade. Although first approved as a single agent in the relapsed setting, bortezomib is now predominantly used in combination regimens. Furthermore, the standard twice-weekly schedule may be replaced by weekly infusion, especially when bortezomib is used as part of combination regimens in frontline therapy. Indeed, bortezomib is an established component of induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Bortezomib has also been incorporated into conditioning regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation, as well as into post-ASCT consolidation therapy, and in the maintenance setting. In addition, a new route of bortezomib administration, subcutaneous infusion, has recently been approved. Recently, several new agents have been introduced into the clinic, including carfilzomib, marizomib, and MLN9708, and trials investigating these “second-generation” PIs in patients with relapsed/refractory MMs have demonstrated positive results. This review provides an overview of the role of PIs in the treatment of MM, focusing on developments over the past decade.
For patients with smoldering multiple myeloma, the standard of care is observation until symptoms develop. However, this approach does not identify high-risk patients who may benefit from early ...intervention.
In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 119 patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma to treatment or observation. Patients in the treatment group received an induction regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg per day on days 1 to 21, plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg per day on days 1 to 4 and days 12 to 15, at 4-week intervals for nine cycles), followed by a maintenance regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 10 mg per day on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle for 2 years). The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease. Secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, and safety.
After a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the treatment group than in the observation group (median not reached vs. 21 months; hazard ratio for progression, 0.18; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.09 to 0.32; P<0.001). The 3-year survival rate was also higher in the treatment group (94% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; P=0.03). A partial response or better was achieved in 79% of patients in the treatment group after the induction phase and in 90% during the maintenance phase. Toxic effects were mainly grade 2 or lower.
Early treatment for patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma delays progression to active disease and increases overall survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00480363.).
Panobinostat is a potent oral deacetylase inhibitor that alters gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms and inhibits protein degradation. It was recently approved by the FDA and EMA for use in ...combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have received ≥2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. Panobinostat was approved based on results from the phase III PANORAMA 1 trial in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, which showed that panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone significantly extended progression-free survival (median, 12.0 months) compared with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (median, 8.1 months; P < 0.0001). Additional ongoing trials are evaluating panobinostat in combination with other partners in the relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed treatment settings. This review focuses on panobinostat and its mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and clinical data in the treatment of relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.
Assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) has become standard with many tumors, but the clinical meaning of MRD in multiple myeloma (MM) remains uncertain, particularly when assessed by ...next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry. Thus, we aimed to determine the applicability and sensitivity of the flow MRD-negative criterion defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG).
In the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 trial, 458 patients with newly diagnosed MM had longitudinal assessment of MRD after six induction cycles with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), autologous transplantation, and two consolidation courses with VRD. MRD was assessed in 1,100 bone marrow samples from 397 patients; the 61 patients without MRD data discontinued treatment during induction and were considered MRD positive for intent-to-treat analysis. The median limit of detection achieved by NGF was 2.9 × 10
. Patients received maintenance (lenalidomide ± ixazomib) according to the companion PETHEMA/GEM2014MAIN trial.
Overall, 205 (45%) of 458 patients had undetectable MRD after consolidation, and only 14 of them (7%) have experienced progression thus far; seven of these 14 displayed extraosseous plasmacytomas at diagnosis and/or relapse. Using time-dependent analysis, patients with undetectable MRD had an 82% reduction in the risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.30;
< .001) and an 88% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29;
< .001). Timing of undetectable MRD (after induction
intensification) had no impact on patient survival. Attaining undetectable MRD overcame poor prognostic features at diagnosis, including high-risk cytogenetics. By contrast, patients with Revised International Staging System III status and positive MRD had dismal progression-free and overall survivals (median, 14 and 17 months, respectively). Maintenance increased the rate of undetectable MRD by 17%.
The IMWG flow MRD-negative response criterion is highly applicable and sensitive to evaluate treatment efficacy in MM.
Roadmap to cure multiple myeloma Rodriguez-Otero, Paula; Paiva, Bruno; San-Miguel, Jesús F.
Cancer treatment reviews,
November 2021, 2021-11-00, 20211101, Letnik:
100
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
•Despite significant advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma which had led to unprecedented rates of response and survival, patients still relapse, and cure remains elusive.•Circulating tumor ...cells and minimal residual disease clones are paramount in MM pathogenesis. The former is responsible for dissemination and extramedullary disease and the later represent the reservoir of clonal evolution and disease recurrence. Understand the biology of these two cell types is paramount to advance in the cure of this disease.•Complete eradication of all tumor cells is a prerequisite for cure, also in myeloma. This requires high-sensitive techniques to evaluate response to treatment both within the bone marrow compartment and outside the bone marrow.•Early detection and early intervention in high-risk smoldering myeloma may not only contribute to delay disease progression into active disease but also to increase the cure rates.•If cure is our goal, we should give best treatment options upfront for standard risk patients. For patients with high-risk disease, early rescue intervention strategies using new treatment modalities should be implemented with the goal of eradicating all tumor clones, and achieving minimal residual disease negativity.
Despite significant advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma which had led to unprecedented rates of response and survival, patients still relapse, and cure remains elusive. We propose in this review a roadmap to achieve the dream of cure for multiple myeloma based on five complementary strategies. First, to increase knowledge about disease pathogenesis with a focus on the biology of circulating tumor cells, responsible for dissemination and extramedullary disease, and minimal residual disease clones who represent the reservoir of clonal evolution and disease recurrence. Second, to consider undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD), defined by high-sensitive techniques, as the new endpoint of therapy. Third, to treat disease causation instead of symptomatology through early detection and intervention. Thereby, by treating high-risk smoldering myeloma patients early, we may not only contribute to delay disease progression into active disease but also to increase the cure rates. Fourth, to use the most active scheme in standard-risk patients if the cure is in the horizon. Fifth, to investigate experimental therapies in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk MM, implementing early rescue intervention strategies with the goal of eradicating all tumor clones, and achieving minimal residual disease negativity.
Summary Introduction of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide has substantially improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. As a ...result, these drugs have become cornerstones of current antimyeloma treatment regimens. However, after several years of clinical experience it has become apparent that peripheral neuropathy is the most common and potentially disabling non-haematological side-effect associated with thalidomide and bortezomib. Maximising treatment benefit while preserving quality of life therefore requires a careful balance between achieving optimum activity and minimising toxicity, including neuropathy, to further enhance efficacy. In this review, we discuss all aspects of drug-induced peripheral neuropathy in myeloma, with a particular focus on thalidomide and bortezomib.
The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone ...with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy.
We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression.
The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan-prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%).
Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone was superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.)
Multiple myeloma is the second most frequent hematological disease. The introduction of melphalan as high-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) for young ...patients and the availability of novel agents for young and elderly patients with multiple myeloma have dramatically changed the perspective of treatment. However, further research is necessary if we want definitively to cure the disease. Treatment goals for transplant-eligible and non-transplant-eligible patients should be to prolong survival by achieving the best possible response while ensuring quality of life. For young patients, HDT-ASCT is a standard of care for treatment, and its efficacy has been enhanced and challenged by the new drugs. For elderly patients, treatment options were once limited to alkylators, but new upfront treatment combinations based on novel agents (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs) combined or not with alkylators have significantly improved outcomes. Extended treatment of young and elderly patients improves the quality and duration of clinical responses; however, the optimal scheme, appropriate doses, and duration of long-term therapy have not yet been fully determined. This review summarizes progress in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, addressing critical questions such as the optimal induction, early vs late ASCT, consolidation and/or maintenance for young patients, and how we can choose the best treatment option for non-transplant-eligible patients.
Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase ...1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better).
Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval CI, 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2).
Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).
PDF
