The majority of newly diagnosed myeloma patients do not fulfill the inclusion criteria in clinical phase III trials

Leukemia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 546-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias W. Klausen ◽  
Henrik Gregersen ◽  
Niels Abildgaard ◽  
Niels Frost Andersen ◽  
Ulf Christian Frølund ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1974-1974
Author(s):  
Chiara Cerrato ◽  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Gianluca Gaidano ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Several trials have shown that maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, eligible and ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); conflicting data exist about its impact on overall survival (OS). The role of maintenance in patients with a sensitive disease is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis to clarify the impact of continuous treatment in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Methods Data from newly diagnosed MM patientsenrolled in 4 phase III trials were analysed. Two trials included ASCT-eligible patients: RV-MM-209 [melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) vs melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), followed by lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance), RV-MM-EMN-441 (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs Mel200, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). Two studies enrolled elderly, ASCT-ineligible patients: GIMEMA-MM0305 (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) and EMN01 (MPR vs cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of maintenance on PFS and OS in patients who achieved CR. Univariate analyses of OS and PFS were performed. Response was considered as a time-dependent variable with a landmark point at 12 months. Lastly, a multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of maintenance and ASCT as independent variables. Results A total of 1964 patients were retrospectively analysed. Of 1503 patients who received maintenance therapy, 254 achieved a CR and 931 a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR). After a median follow-up of 41 months, a significant 5-year OS (80% vs 54%; HR 0.55, p=0.02; Figure 1) and 5-year PFS (52% vs 19%; HR 0.47, p<0.001; Figure 2) advantage was reported among CR patients who received maintenance in comparison with no maintenance. The same analysis was conducted in patients achieving a suboptimal response (VGPR or PR): the 5-year PFS advantage was confirmed in patients who received maintenance vs patients who did not (30% vs 13% HR 0.65, p<0.001); the 5-year OS was 68% vs 38% in patients who received maintenance vs no maintenance respectively (HR 0.8, p=0.2). A subgroup analysis was conducted in CR patients according to the treatment received [ASCT vs conventional chemotherapy (CC)]; the PFS benefit among patients treated with maintenance was confirmed across both the subgroups (ASCT group: HR 0.45, p=0.02; CC group: HR 0.45 P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, maintenance therapy and treatment with ASCT confirmed the favourable impact on PFS and OS in patients achieving CR. Conclusion In CR patients,maintenance therapy significantly prolongs PFS and OS. In order to optimize treatment efficacy and to prolong survival in patients with a sensitive disease, the intensification with maintenance is strongly recommended. Disclosures Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association. Gay:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Celgene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Morphosys: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Patriarca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 377-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan N. Dengiz ◽  
Paul Kershaw

AbstractAlzheimer's disease is a progressive, neurodegenerative condition characterized by deficits in cognition, inability to perform activities of daily living, and alterations in behavior. Galantamine hydrobromide is the newest acetylcholin esterase inhibitor (AChEI) approved in the United State for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. The safety and efficacy of galantamine has been demonstrated in multiple randomized, Phase III trials of > 2,600 patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Studies have found that galantamine improved or maintained performance in all domains of AD (cognition, function, behavior, and caregiver burden in the short term and slowed the decline in performance or maintained baseline performance through 12 months. The dual mechanism of action may make galantamine a reasonable treatment option for both newly diagnosed patients and patients who have not benefitted from or have poorly tolerated current therapy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e76
Author(s):  
Elias K. Mai ◽  
Thomas Hielscher ◽  
Uta Bertsch ◽  
Jana Schlenzka ◽  
Hans J. Salwender ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erlend Skaga ◽  
Marthe Andrea Skretteberg ◽  
Tom Børge Johannesen ◽  
Petter Brandal ◽  
Einar O Vik-Mo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The survival rates in population-based series of glioblastoma (GBM) differ substantially from those reported in clinical trials. This discrepancy may be attributed to that patients recruited to trials tend to be younger with better performance status. However, the proportion and characteristics of the patients in a population considered either eligible or ineligible for trials is unknown. The generalizability of trial results is therefore also uncertain. Methods Using the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Brain Tumor Database at Oslo University Hospital, we tracked all patients within a well-defined geographical area with newly diagnosed GBM during the years 2012–2017. Based on data from these registries and the medical records, the patients were evaluated for trial eligibility according to criteria employed in recent phase III trials for GBM. Results We identified 512 patients. The median survival was 11.7 months. When we selected a potential trial population at the start of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy [RT]/ temozolomide [TMZ]) by the parameters age (18–70 y), passed surgery for a supratentorial GBM, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≤2, normal hematologic, hepatic and renal function, and lack of severe comorbidity, 57% of the patients were excluded. Further filtering the patients who progressed during RT/TMZ and never completed RT/TMZ resulted in exclusion of 59% and 63% of the patients, respectively. The survival of patients potentially eligible for trials was significantly higher than of the patients not fulfilling trial eligibility criteria (P &lt; .0001). Conclusions Patients considered eligible for phase III clinical trials represent a highly selected minority of patients in a real-world GBM population.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2532
Author(s):  
Anne-Victoire Michaud-Robert ◽  
Elena Zamagni ◽  
Thomas Carlier ◽  
Clément Bailly ◽  
Bastien Jamet ◽  
...  

Background: Multiple myeloma is a hematological neoplasm characterized by a clonal proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow, and is associated with high morbidity and mortality and variable survival. Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography using 18F-deoxyfluoroglucose (FDG-PET/CT) is a promising technique for initial staging of symptomatic multiple myeloma patients. The objective of this study was to assess the prognostic value of this technique at baseline in symptomatic multiple myeloma patients included in two large European prospective studies (French and Italian). Methods: We retrospectively performed a combined harmonized analysis of 227 newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients from two separate phase III trials. All images were centrally reviewed and analyzed using visual criteria and maximal standardized uptake value. An ad-hoc approach (called modified Combat) was applied to harmonize the data and then remove the “country effect” in order to strengthen the reliability of the final conclusions. Results: Using a multivariate analysis including treatment arm, R-ISS score, presence of extra-medullary disease and bone SUVmax, only bone SUVmax (p = 0.016) was an independent prognosis factor with an OS threshold of 7.1. For PFS, treatment arm and presence of extra-medullary disease were both independent prognosis biomarkers (p = 0.022 and 0.006 respectively). Conclusions: Our results show that bone SUVmax is a simple and reliable biomarker to analyze FDG-PET/CT at baseline that strongly correlates with a poorer prognosis for MM patients.


2013 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
An-an Yin ◽  
Jin-xiang Cheng ◽  
Xiang Zhang ◽  
Bo-lin Liu

2018 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattia D’Agostino ◽  
Lorenzo De Paoli ◽  
Concetta Conticello ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Roberto Ria ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document