scholarly journals Hemibody irradiation. An effective second-line therapy in drug-resistant multiple myeloma

Cancer ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 2446-2451 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. J. Singer ◽  
J. S. Tobias ◽  
F. Giles ◽  
G. N. Rudd ◽  
G. M. Blackman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Drug Resistant ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone, or Bortezomib and Dexamethasone: An Enhanced Electronic Health Records Database Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2243-2243
Author(s):  
Ajai Chari ◽  
Brian Ung ◽  
Marc Tian ◽  
Amit Agarwal ◽  
Kejal Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: For transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), the only category 1 regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based, including triplet therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) (NCCN Myeloma v4.2018). Other doublet regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), are still a first-line option for patients with NDMM, especially for those who are elderly and/or frail. However, the latter population is either excluded or markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. Using an electronic health records (EHRs) database, we compared outcomes when either RVd or Vd were used in the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in a real-world practice setting, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two cohorts. Methods: A retrospective observational study of patients with NDMM was conducted using EHRs from a nationally representative database (Flatiron Health). The Flatiron Network database is an enhanced oncology EHR database of patients treated at 265 clinics throughout the USA. Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, ICD-9 (203.0x) or ICD-10 (C90.xx), between January 2011 and May 2018 who were treated with RVd or Vd and did not undergo stem cell transplantation were included in the analysis. The primary comparison was time to next therapy (TTNT) in the overall population and in a subset of frail patients, as determined by a composite score based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Data regarding overall and progression-free survival (PFS) were limited as patient data prior to adoption of the Flatiron Network database were incomplete. Treatment-free interval (TFI) for patients who initiated a second-line therapy was defined as time from start of first-line to start of second-line therapy minus the duration of therapy (DOT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate TTNT after adjusting for differences in patient baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 8,470 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in the database, 2,369 were treated with either RVd (n = 1,309) or Vd (n = 1,060) and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Patients treated with Vd were more likely to be older (median age 75 vs 70 years; P < 0.0001), frail (76.3% vs 65.4%; P = 0.0002), have creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (23.9% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), have a higher ECOG PS score (P = 0.0031), and have International Staging System stage III disease (45.1% vs 28.8%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in baseline neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, or in median CCI. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was lower in the Vd group (19.7% vs 26.0%; P < 0.0001). The mean DOT was longer for RVd (11.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 13.3 months) than for Vd (7.7 ± SD 9.7 months). However, the median adjusted TTNT was significantly longer with RVd than Vd (40.9 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.55; P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients initiating a new treatment was lower in the RVd group (24.8% vs 40.6%; P < 0.0001). Among those who initiated a second-line therapy, the mean TFI for RVd compared with Vd was 42.6 versus 39.3 days, respectively (P = 0.2214). Among the 735 frail patients (416 RVd and 319 Vd), the median TTNT was significantly longer with RVd (32.6 vs 17.1 months; HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.54; P < 0.0001; Figure). Similar to the overall population, there were no significant differences in TFI (54.9 vs 29.6 days, P = 0.2598) and a significantly higher proportion of Vd patients initiated a new treatment (22.1% vs 36.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world practice setting where PFS cannot be measured directly, triplet therapy with RVd significantly prolonged TTNT compared with Vd by 26.1 months in the overall patient population, and by 15.5 months in frail transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Ung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tian:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parikh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

The Outcome of Different Types of Second-Line Therapy in Multiple Myeloma Patients Relapsing After Uniform Front-Line Treatment with High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2892-2892
Author(s):  
Claudia Crippa ◽  
Samantha Ferrari ◽  
Monica Drera ◽  
Marinella Calarco ◽  
Antonio Regazzoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 2892 Poster Board II-868 Background and aim. While multiple myeloma (MM) still remains largely incurable, therapeutic options for patients with MM are expanding. However the best way to use the different effective regimens, either in combination or in sequence, during the course of MM in the single patient is still unknown. Data from controlled studies rarely report the treatments received before and after the enrollment of patients in the clinical trial, which may significantly impact on response and survival. As an example, the best treatment for patients relapsing after first-line high-dose melphalan (HD-Mel) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is not standardized. To this end we have retrospectively analyzed an uniform cohort of such patients treated at our Institution, comparing their outcome according to the type of second-line and further consolidation treatment received. Patients and methods. In 156 patients affected by MM and treated between 1997 and 2008 with HD-Mel and ASCT as first line therapy, relapse has occurred in 92 (59%). Females were 39 (42%), males 53 (58%), median age was 60 (range 34-75). As induction therapy before ASCT, 89 (97%) had received VAD regimen, and only 3 (3%) thalidomide/bortezomib-based regimen. Sixty-one patients (66%) had received a single ASCT and 31 a double ASCT (34%). A second-line therapy was given to 87/92 patients. They were subdivided in 3 subgroups according to the type of second-line treatment received: 1) thalidomide-based regimens (THAL) were given to 55 pts (63%) followed by a consolidation ASCT in 13 (24%) 2) bortezomib-based regimens (BORT) were used in 13 (15%) and subsequent ASCT in 3 of them (23%) 3) chemotherapy and/or steroids (CHEMO) were used in 19 (22%) followed by ASCT in 15 (79%). Median follow-up from diagnosis was 57 (13-145) in THAL, 39 (17-140) in BORT and 59 months (25-113) in CHEMO respectively. The baseline characteristics, including age, of the three subgroups were similar as well as the CR/VGPR and ORR rates obtained after first-line treatment (THAL 47% and 87%; BORT 69% and 100%; CHEMO 53% and 100%, respectively). The subgroups also did not differ in median duration of first response, which ranged from 13 to 15 months and median time to second treatment, which was 26 months in all subgroups. The proportion of patients receiving a double ASCT were significantly higher in BORT (69%) compared to THAL (34%) (P=0.03) and CHEMO (5%) (p=0.002), and in THAL (34%) compared to CHEMO (5%) (p=0.015). Results. After second line therapy the ORR (CR+VGPR+ PR) of the three subgroups was: THAL 60%, BORT 77% and CHEMO 58%. (p=NS). The second CR/VGPR rate was non significantly higher after BORT (46%) than after THAL (25%) or CHEMO (21%) (p=0.17). Moreover, when considering patients not undergoing second-line consolidation ASCT, the ORR was significantly better in THAL and BORT subgroups compared to CHEMO (50%, 70% and 0%, respectively p=0.03). After a median follow-up from second-line treatment of 28 months (range 1-99), the 2-y PFS was 38% after THAL (median 18 months), 34% after BORT (median 16 months) and 17% after CHEMO (median 12 months) (p=NS). The 2-y OS was 78% (median 49 months), 70% (median not reached), and 70% (median 33 month) after THAL, BORT and CHEMO, respectively (p=NS). However when considering patients not undergoing second-line consolidation ASCT, the 2-y OS was significantly better after THAL and BORT than after CHEMO (p=0.024). Conclusion. In spite of having frequently received a first-line double ASCT, BORT patients seemed to achieve responses of better quality. However, in patients relapsing after first-line HD-Mel and ASCT, the choice of THAL, BORT or CHEMO-based regimens as second-line therapy did not seem to impact on overall response rates and survival, provided that patients treated with CHEMO could be consolidated with a second ASCT. Hence newer drugs may be reserved for those patients not fit for ASCT, preserving them for effective third-line treatment in the other patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Use of Alkylating Agents Among Patients with Multiple Myeloma in a National Registry, 2006-2008.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 4941-4941
Author(s):  
Carla M Van Bennekom ◽  
Theresa E Anderson ◽  
Noopur Raje ◽  
Kenneth C Anderson ◽  
David W Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Abstract 4941 Background While alkylating agents were among the earliest treatments for multiple myeloma, newer therapies have been available for several years. Here we describe patterns of use and effectiveness of alkylators in the modern landscape of myeloma treatment, based on a nationwide registry of recently diagnosed patients. Methods The “Patient Registries at Slone: Myeloma” is a national disease-based observational registry conducted by Boston University. All patients with myeloma diagnosed within 4 months of enrollment were eligible for inclusion. Subjects enrolled by mail or over the internet; information on treatment, clinical events, and quality of life was obtained by questionnaire and from medical record review at baseline and at six-month intervals. There were 342 patients with multiple myeloma residing in 43 states who were enrolled from June 2006-October 2008 and completed at least a baseline questionnaire. The median length of follow-up was 8 months after diagnosis (range 0.5-24). Results Alkylators were used as initial treatment in 26 patients (8%), as second-line treatment in 14 (4%), and as part of a transplant regimen in 76 (22%). Patients who received alkylators as initial or second-line therapy tended to be older (median age, 69 vs. 60 years, p<0.0005), and the combined prevalence of use was 17% among patients who did not have prescription drug insurance, compared with 11% among those who did (p=0.36). The prevalence of first-line use was 12% among patients diagnosed in 2006, 9% in 2007, and 4% in 2008 (p=0.09). Further results are confined to 34 of the 40 first or second-line alkylator recipients for whom medical records were available. The regimens used are shown in the table; the majority of patients received regimens that included melphalan. The median duration of initial therapy was 3 months (range 0.5-15); 6 patients (24%) had at least a partial response. Ten patients were still on treatment at the end of follow-up; in 15 (60%), alkylator therapy was changed to another regimen (11) or stopped without new therapy during the follow-up period (4), including 3 due to insufficient response and 5 due to toxicity. The new regimens were thalidomide-based in 2 patients, bortezomib-based in 3, bortezomib+lenalidomide in 1, dexamethasone without novel agents in 2, and 3 patients went directly to autologous stem-cell transplant. Second-line therapy with alkylators was initiated due to insufficient response from the previous regimen in 2 patients, because of side effects in 5, and for cost reasons in 2. The median duration was 2 months (range 0.5-12, with 4 patients still on treatment), and 4 (44%) had a partial or better response. The immediately preceding regimen was thalidomide-based in 5 patients, lenalidomide-based in 1, and bortezomib-based in 3; the median number of previous regimens was 2 per patient (range, 1-4). The median duration of previous therapy was 4 months (range 0.5-9). Conclusions The present population-based results indicate that in the modern era of myeloma treatment, the most prevalent use of alkylating agents is as conditioning for stem cell transplants; the drugs are also still used for initial treatment, mostly in combination with novel agents, although the prevalence was low overall and continued to decline during 2006-2008. Patients who received alkylators for initial or second-line therapy were older and the agents appeared to be somewhat more commonly used among those who did not have prescription drug insurance. The data suggest that there continues to be a useful role for alkylating agents as initial therapy, particularly for myeloma patients who are not transplant candidates, and occasionally as an early replacement for novel agents that prove ineffective or excessively toxic in individual patients. With a relatively short duration of follow-up, there was little information on the use of alkylators in the relapsed setting, where their high level of anti-myeloma activity might be expected to lead to more use. Disclosures Van Bennekom: Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Anderson:Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Raje:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding.

Retreatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5935-5935
Author(s):  
Lincy S Lal ◽  
Benjamin J Chastek ◽  
Cori Blauer-Peterson ◽  
Eric M Maiese
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Line Of Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials have suggested that retreatment with multiple myeloma (MM) therapy provides clinical benefit (Mohty 2012), however, little is known about real-world utilization and outcomes of retreatment. Information from this analysis will help to better understand the real-world impact of retreatment for management of first MM relapse. Methods: A retrospective claims analysis of commercial and Medicare Advantage patients aged 18 years in the Optum Research Database. To be included, patients had to have ≥ 2 medical claims ≥ 30 days apart with an MM diagnoses (ICD-9 =203.00) between 01 Jan 2009 and 31 Dec 2013 (study period); ≥ 2 lines of therapy and no evidence of hematopoietic cell transplant during the study period and data available for 1 year prior to index date and ≥ 6 months post index date. The date of the first claim of an NCCN recommended MM treatment during the study period was considered the index date. All MM treatments identified < 30 days of the index date were considered part of first line of therapy. An algorithm was developed for identifying subsequent lines of therapy. A new line of therapy was identified when there was a switch to a new agent < 180 days of discontinuation of the prior line of therapy or retreatment with the same treatment ≥ 180 days of discontinuation with previously used agents. Additionally, patients had to be treated for relapse MM defined according to lines of therapy when 1) there was an active line of therapy ≥ 60 days long and there was a gap of ≥ 180 days from the end of the line of active therapy to the start of the next line of active therapy or 2) there was a line of therapy ≥ 180 days long and a different treatment was started, with or without a 180-day gap between discontinuation of the prior line and start of the subsequent line of therapy . The data evaluated in the analysis included baseline demographics, Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores, line of therapy, and clinical outcomes, including treatment duration and overall survival. Data were analyzed using chi-square and t-tests to compare patients with retreatment vs. treatment with a different regimen for first relapse MM (i.e. second-line therapy). Results: A total of 252 patients (mean age: 70 yrs; 48% male) were identified as having second-line treatment for relapse MM; 90 patients (35.7%) were retreated with the same regimen and 162 (64.3%) patients were treated with a different regimen. Mean Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores were equal between the two groups (p=0.585). Among the retreatment group, 48.2% were treated with monotherapy for first-line, compared to 25.2% of the different regimen group (p-value < 0.001). Dexamethasone (dex) monotherapy, bortezomib plus dex, and lenalidomide plus dex were common regimens used in retreatment, see Figure 1. Lenalidomide plus dex was also commonly used as a different regimen for second-line treatment. Additionally, dex monotherapy was significantly less likely to be used as a new therapy compared to being used as retreatment for second-line therapy (p<0.05). Conversely, bortezomib plus lenalidomide plus dex was significantly more likely to be used as a new therapy compared to being used as retreatment for second-line treatment (p<0.05). The mean length of relapse line was 161 days in the retreatment group versus 212 days in the different regimen group (p-value 0.067). The incidence rate of death was 13 events (1.43 events per 10,000 person-days of follow-up) in the retreatment group versus 22 events (1.51 events per 10,000) in the different regimen group (p=0.895). Figure 1: Second-line Treatment Regimens among Patients who Received the Same Regimen (Retreatment) vs. a Different Regimen for the Treatment of First-Relapse MM\s Conclusions: In this analysis, approximately one-third of patients were retreated with the same treatments in first-line and second-line of therapy. Patients who were retreated with the same regimen tended to have shorter duration of second-line therapy. However, risk of death did not appear to differ between the two groups. This real-world analysis suggests that retreatment in second-line may affect the time to next treatment, but may not negatively impact the overall risk of death. Reference: Mohty B, El-Cheikh J, Yakoub-Agha I, et al. Treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a focus on drug sequencing and 'retreatment' approaches in the era of novel agents. Leukemia 2012; 26: 73-85. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lal: Optum: Employment. Chastek:Optum: Employment. Blauer-Peterson:Optum: Employment. Maiese:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Employment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document