Trends in the Multiple Myeloma Treatment Landscape: A United States Analysis of Oscer Electronic Health Record Data 2011-2019

Introduction The treatment (tmt) for multiple myeloma (MM) is evolving with the introduction of novel immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), monoclonal antibodies (MoAB), and proteasome inhibitors (PI). As new efficacious therapies are approved, the prevalence of MM continues to increase and remains an incurable disease. There is limited real-world evidence describing these temporal changes (Song 2016, Curr Med Res Opin; Fonseca 2017, Leukemia). This study characterizes trends in MM tmts and patient (pt) survival from 2011-19 in the US-based Flatiron electronic health records (EHR) database. Methods Data analyzed were from an enhanced database of oncology EHR contained in the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records (OSCER), generated by Flatiron Health that includes additional unstructured data processing (New York, NY, March 31, 2019). OSCER represents a longitudinal, demographically and geographically diverse database with data from over 265 cancer clinics representing over 2 million active pts treated at primarily community-based hematology/oncology practices in the US. Inclusion criteria included adult pts ≥18 years (yrs) with a diagnosis of MM (ICD9: 203.x; ICD-10: C90.x) and at least two clinic visits after 2011. Pt and disease characteristics were characterized; line of therapy (LOT) (1-5), year of therapy initiation, and all tmt regimens received. Follow-up time was measured from tmt index until death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) proportions were estimated from LOT tmt index. Results A total of 9289 pts were identified. At diagnosis the median age was 69 yrs, with 54% of pts male and 68% white. The majority of pts were treated in the community setting (89%) and 11.5% presented with high risk cytogenetics (del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16)). International Staging System (ISS) data was available in 49.2% of subjects, with 16.6%, 16.1% and 16.3% stage 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Among the 91% of pts who received tmt for newly diagnosed MM, median time to tmt was 30 days. In 2017-18, triplet combination (comb) PI-IMiD-dexamethasone (dex) was the most common front (48%) and second line regimen (27%); and the use of this comb increased in both first and second lines over the study period. In contrast, the use of IMiD or PI -dex doublet regimens decreased. In third line setting, PI-IMiD-dex remained the most common comb in 2017-18 (21%) but gradually decreased over the study period with a dip in 2013-14 while MoAB-IMiD-dex combs increased from 3% to 12% (2015/16-2017/18). In second, third, and fourth line MoAB-IMiD-dex comb increased to 8%, 12%, and 14% respectively beginning in 2015 (Table 1). MM tmt regimens changed over the study period, most notably in the first and second LOTs. By 2017-18, triplets replaced doublets as the most common front line (58%) and second line (45%) therapies over the study period. Across all LOTs, triplets were the most prescribed comb in 2017-18 with 42%, 42% and 30% in third, fourth, and fifth lines. Over the study period, monotherapies decreased to 12% in frontline, but their use has remained constant in later lines (Table 2). Overall, 26% of pts received a transplant during follow-up. Approximately 34% of pts survived until the end of follow-up. With each LOT, OS deceased. Median OS of pts treated in first line was 57 months and decreased to 44 months, 32 months, and 25 months in second, third, and fourth lines respectively (Figure 1). OS of MM pts who received first line tmt appears to increase the more recently they were diagnosed. Median OS of MM pts diagnosed in 2013-14 was slightly longer compared to pts diagnosed in earlier yrs (2011-12); 60 months compared to 56 months. Median OS was not reached in 2015-16 (Figure 2). Conclusion Triplet therapies have replaced doublet therapies over time as more options became available to MM pts, especially in frontline setting; frontline monotherapies have nearly halved since the beginning of the study period. In 2015, tmt patterns begin to shift as MoAB based triplets were approved and comprised a higher proportion of the regimens in the relapsed and refractory population. Yet, the majority of pts are still receiving PI-IMiD-dex triplets. OS estimates suggest survival in front line treated pts is slowly increasing in recent yrs. These data illustrate the current tmt landscape of MM and the changes that have occurred since the introduction of novel therapies over the past 8 yrs. MM disease management continues to evolve. Disclosures Braunlin: Amgen, Inc.: Employment. Belani:Amgen, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Buchanan:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Other: Owns Amgen stock, Research Funding. Kim:Amgen, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

A New Multinational Observational Study In Multiple Myeloma: Initial Report Of The PREAMBLE Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.1964.1964 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 1964-1964

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Mehdi M. Moezi ◽

Robin Foà ◽

Gordon Cook ◽

Antonio Palumbo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Novel Therapies ◽

Employment Equity ◽

The Us ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Baseline Characteristics

Abstract Introduction The advent of novel immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) have improved clinical outcomes of multiple myeloma (MM) in the past decade. Clinical trial data have shown combination novel therapies (IMiD+PI) can provide even further improvement. The PREAMBLE (Prospective Research Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: an Observational Evaluation) is a global study designed to evaluate clinical effectiveness, healthcare resource utilization, and patient-reported outcomes associated with novel therapies for treatment of relapsed or refractory MM (R/R MM) in the real-world daily practices in the US and Europe. We describe the study design and baseline characteristics of the first 111 patients enrolled. Methods This is a prospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study of adult patients with R/R MM who received at least 1 prior therapy and initiated treatment with IMiDs, PIs, or IMiDs+PIs within 90 days prior to or 30 days after enrollment. Follow-up is up to 3 yrs after consent. Patients receive standard of care treatment as determined by the treating physician. Planned enrollment is 1000 patients in North America (NA) and Europe (EU; France, Germany, Italy, and UK). Results As of June 28, 2013, 111 patients from 63 sites in NA (n=64) and EU (n=47) have been enrolled. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Cytogenetics (by FISH) was determined in 51% (n=57) of patients; of these, 16% (n=9) were high risk with del 17p (78%) as the predominant abnormality. Baseline treatment varied by region: of the patients in NA, IMiDs were used in 44% (n=28), PIs in 36% (n=23), and IMiD+PI in 20% (n=13) versus 60% (n=28), 34% (n=16), and 6% (n=3), respectively, in EU. Of the 16% high risk patients and the 25% of patients initially diagnosed at ISS stage III, none received IMiD+PI. The percentage of patients who received only 1 prior regimen at enrollment was 46% (n=26) in the IMiD group, 41% (n=16) in the PI group, and 63% (n=10) in the IMiD+PI group while the percentage of patients who received 3 or more prior regimens was 16% (n=9) in the IMiD group, 36% (n=14) in the PI group, and 6% (n=1) in the IMiD+PI group. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment for patients receiving IMiDs was 43 months, PIs was 42 months, and IMiDs+PIs was 33 months. Conclusion PREAMBLE provides a rich data source for evaluation of clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes in patients treated for R/R MM. Initial data suggest different treatment patterns between patients in the US and in EU. Continued follow-up and larger sample size may help identify factors associated with different treatment choices and impact on clinical effectiveness, tolerability, resource utilization, and humanistic outcomes in patients treated for R/R MM. Disclosures: Vij: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaya:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Durie:Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Cella:BMS: Consultancy. Annemans:BMS: Consultancy. Su:BMS: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mukhopadhyay:BMS: Employment, Equity Ownership. Le:BMS: Employment. Petrucci:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Patterns of Total Costs of Care over Time for Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3294.3294 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3294-3294

Author(s):

Steven R Arikian ◽

Gary Binder ◽

Craig Gibson ◽

X Henry Hu ◽

Yasir Nagarwala ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Research Funding ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Monthly Total ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Line Of Therapy ◽

Over Time

Abstract Introduction. A previous study of patients (pts) with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) showed that initial high monthly total costs declined over time until returning near initial levels upon pts advancing to later lines of treatment (Tx) at disease progression (Arikian, CMRO 2015). However, the longer-term economic implications of the choice of first-line Tx, regardless of subsequent Tx regimens, have not been described. We utilized an intent-to-treat approach to further evaluate and compare the total costs of NDMM patient cohorts initiated on Lenalidomide (LEN) or Bortezomib (BORT)-based Tx and followed these patients over 54 months. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using a large US medical and pharmacy claims database, covering > 25 million commercial and Medicare lives annually. NDMM patients were defined as having ≥ 2 outpatient claims or ≥ 1 inpatient medical claim with a diagnosis of MM (ICD-9-CM code 203.0X), with the first such claim used to define the index date. Inclusion criteria required ≥ 12 months' pre-index and ≥ 6 months' post-index continuous enrollment from 2006 - 2013, and evidence of initiation of a subsequent line of therapy. Pts with claims for stem cell transplantation (SCT) or receiving concurrent LEN plus BORT as first-line Tx were excluded. The analysis focused on cohorts of NDMM pts receiving LEN or BORT-based first line Tx, who progressed to one or more subsequent lines of Tx, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy for progression. Pts receiving LEN or BORT-based first line Tx were randomly matched 1:1 on age (+/- 3 years at index), sex, baseline Charlson comorbidity score (+/- 1), and presence of renal disease. Using methods similar to those described by Gaultney(J Clin Pharm Ther, 2013), pts' average monthly costs and standard errors were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns were calculated from first line Tx initiation until the end of patient eligibility or 54 months. Results: 1,181 NDMM pts receiving LEN (N=444) or BORT-based (N=737) first line Tx with complete data available through initiation of subsequent line of Tx were identified. After matching, 856 NDMM patients remained (428 LEN, 428 BORT). Monthly total direct medical plus pharmacy costs for these pts were in excess of $12,000 at initiation. Total monthly costs declined quarterly for each cohort until the median TTNT was reached (20 months for BORT; 37 months for LEN). As increasing numbers of pts in each cohort then advanced to subsequent lines of therapy, costs of those patients began to offset continued cost declines for pts still on first line of therapy. Over the full 54 month follow-up period, total monthly costs averaged $8,324 (SE = $370.30) for pts initiated on LEN vs. $10,728 (SE = $500.55) for pts initiated on BORT (p-value <0.001). Medical costs represented 54-57% of total monthly costs for each cohort. In each cohort, the most common Tx option upon disease progression was to switch to the other regimen. Conclusions: For a matched population of NDMM pts followed continuously for 54 months, initiation on LEN- versus BORT-based Tx without SCT was associated with an average of $2,404 lower monthly direct total costs. Following initiation of first-line therapy, total monthly costs per pt declined quarterly until initiation of the next line of Tx. Cumulative costs over the 54-month period were over $120,000 lower per pt in favor of the LEN cohort, influenced by more rapid advancement to subsequent Tx in the BORT cohort, and the associated higher costs. Based on second-line Tx patterns, this analysis also suggests that a sequence of LEN in first line followed by BORT in second line is associated with lower costs over time compared to the reverse sequence. Due to the nature of retrospective claims, some underlying differences may remain between the two cohorts even after matching. Figure 1. Direct monthly costs (medical and pharmacy) for LEN- and BORT-initiated patients and savings attributed to LEN-initiated patients Figure 1. Direct monthly costs (medical and pharmacy) for LEN- and BORT-initiated patients and savings attributed to LEN-initiated patients Disclosures Arikian: Genesis Research: Consultancy. Binder:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gibson:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Hussein:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Corvino:Genesis Research LLC: Consultancy. Lee:Genesis Research LLC: Consultancy. Surinach:Genesis Research LLC: Consultancy. Kaura:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Usmani:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Health Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with the Use of Obinutuzumab-Based Regimens Are Similar to Rituximab-Based Regimens for the First-Line Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123408 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4721-4721

Author(s):

Tu My To ◽

Keith L. Dawson ◽

Anthony S Masaquel ◽

Arpamas Seetasith

Keyword(s):

Drug Treatment ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Real World ◽

Specific Drug ◽

First Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Total Cost ◽

Claims Database ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: Obinutuzumab (GA101; G), a fully humanized, glycoengineered, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, is approved in the US for the first-line (1L) treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL). Despite the superior efficacy of G plus chemotherapy (G-chemo) versus rituximab (R) plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) in patients with previously untreated FL demonstrated in the Phase III, randomized GALLIUM study (NCT01332968; Marcus et al. N Engl J Med 2017), information on healthcare resource use (HRU) and real-world costs with G in previously untreated FL patients is limited. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to examine HRU and costs for G-based and R-based therapies for the 1L treatment of FL using a US claims database. Methods: The data source for this study was the PharMetrics Plus Commercial Claims database. Adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with FL between February 1, 2015 and September 30, 2018 and who began any treatment for FL between February 1, 2016 and September 30, 2018 were included. The first FL treatment date within this selection window was denoted the index date. Patients were required to have ≥12 months of pre-index and ≥3 months of post-index continuous study enrolment, and to have at least one FL diagnosis on or during the 12-month pre-index period. Patients with FL treatment during the 12-month pre-index period were excluded in order to select only previously untreated patients. HRU and cost data during the 1L treatment period were descriptive and categorized by HRU category. Costs are in 2018 US dollars ($) and standardized as per patient per month (PPPM) costs. FL treatment determination was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Results: A total of 1584 FL patients with ≥3 months follow up were analyzed. Overall, 26 patients received G-chemo (any combination) as their 1L treatment, 208 patients received R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), 391 patients received R-Benda (bendamustine) and 17 patients received R-CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone); the remaining 942 patients received other regimens (predominantly other R combinations). Data are reported for those patients who received G-chemo, R-CHOP, R-Benda or R-CVP as 1L therapy (n=642; 281 females, 361 males). Baseline patient characteristics were similar for most variables across treatment groups. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 56.9 (9.7) years and all patients had a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of ≥2 (mean [SD]: 2.9 [1.9]). Mean (SD) patient follow-up was 14.1 (8.0) months and mean (SD) duration of 1L treatment was 7.0 (5.1) months. A summary of all-cause HRU in patients receiving 1L treatment is provided by treatment category (Figure 1A). The proportion of patients with at least one hospitalization was highest with R-CHOP (23.6%). The proportion of patients with at least one emergency room (ER) visit was highest with R-Benda (29.4%). Mean (SD) total all-cause healthcare costs PPPM during 1L treatment were comparable among G-chemo, R-CHOP and R-Benda (Figure 1B) and lowest with R-CVP ($17,874 [$13,465]). Medical costs (mean [SD]) were highest for R-Benda ($27,716 [$19,610] PPPM) and lowest for R-CVP ($17,373 [$12,908] PPPM). G-chemo was associated with the lowest pharmacy costs ($76 [$107] PPPM) (Figure 1B). Mean (SD) total cost of FL drug treatment PPPM was $16,028 ($9,942) for G-chemo, $11,684 ($6,122) for R-CHOP and $12,108 ($8,794) for R-CVP. Mean (SD) total cost of FL drug treatment PPPM was highest with R-Benda ($21,263 [$15,328]). G-specific drug costs PPPM ($9,643 [$6,071]) were similar to R-specific drug costs ($9,992 [$5,234] R-CHOP; $9,083 [$5,859] R-Benda; and $10,702 [$7,717] R-CVP). Conclusions: Our results depict real-world HRU and costs associated with G and commonly used 1L regimens for FL. In this setting, HRU and costs associated with G-chemo were comparable with R-chemo, supporting the use of G-chemo as a treatment option for patients with previously untreated FL. The study findings are limited by the small sample size of the G-chemo patient cohort (n=26) and short follow-up; to address this, an updated analysis incorporating a larger number of patients is planned. Disclosures To: Genentech, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dawson:Roche/Genentech: Equity Ownership; Genentech: Employment. Masaquel:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Seetasith:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Patient Outcomes with Proteosome Inhibitor Bortezomib in Multiple Myeloma at an English District General Hospital

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.5745.5745 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 5745-5745

Author(s):

Anil Vaikunth Kamat ◽

Tariq Shafi ◽

Raphael A. Ezekwesili

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Second Primary ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Free Survival ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Second Primary Malignancies

Abstract Bortezomib is a targeted proteosome inhibitor licensed & approved for in multiple myeloma both as first line and in relapsed setting. This is a retrospective non experimental cross sectional quantitative comparative group study using clinical case notes, laboratory & pharmacy records for patients treated with Bortezomib in 2011 & 2012. Outcomes studied included remission status, adverse events, progression free survival and overall survival at follow up. The study also looked at the comparative responses of cohort of patients administered Bortezomib through intravenous & subcutaneous route. The cohort consisted of 33 patients, 21 male, 11 female, median age 71 years, first line 10 patients, second line 23 , median number of cycles in 2011 & 2012 – first line 3 & 8 , second line 5 & 4, respectively. In 2011, 8 received intravenous treatment, 9 were switched from intravenous to subcutaneous route whilst all patients from 2012 received subcutaneous Bortezomib. The most frequently used regimen was Bortezomib Dexamethasone ( VD). The overall response rate ( ORR >/= Minor Response) was: First line 70% (7/10) ; Second line 47.8% ( 11/23); median PFS ( Figure 1) 6 months ( First line: 7 months ; Second line : 6 months) and median overall survival ( Figure 2) at follow up: 9 months ; 39.4 % ( 13/33) First line 8.5 months, Second line 11 months. Subcutaneous Bortezomib was equivalent to intravenous Bortezomib in terms of efficacy & tolerance. Of 33 patients, there were 12 dose reductions. Adverse events reported included: peripheral Neuropathy - grade 3 - 6% ( all grades 27.3%); Diarrhoea - grade 3 - 3% (all grades 6%); Nausea / Vomiting - grade 3 - 3% ( all grades 6%) and Second Primary Malignancies - 12% ( 4 of 33). Mortality at follow up was 20 patients from cohort of 33 ; causes included disease progression in 11, second primary malignancy with disease progression in 4, COPD 2, Systemic Amyloidosis 2, Tuberculosis 1 , Multiple co morbidities 1 and Asthma with mechanical failure in single patient. Second primary malignancies ( 4/33) included Prostate carcinoma ( 1), Renal Cell Carcinoma (1), Neuroendocrine tumour ( 1 ) and Unknown Primary in single patient. Beyond second line treatment, majority (14 of 23 patients; 60.9 %) did not have further active treatment. These data indicate that patient outcomes were modest compared to published data from VISTA and APEX trials. Majority of patients did not have further active treatment beyond second line which suggests the most effective treatment strategy should be used upfront as patients may not be fit to have further lines of therapy despite availability of recently introduced novel targeted agents. A higher percentage of second primary malignancies were noticed in this cohort which should be an area of further clinical research. Figure 1: Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 1:. Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2: Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2:. Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Receiving Triplet Therapy in the Connect MM® Disease Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4229.4229 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4229-4229

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Rafat Abonour ◽

Mohit Narang ◽

Jayesh Mehta ◽

Howard R. Terebelo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Triplet Regimen

Abstract Introduction: Triplet therapies are used for treatment (Tx) of both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Actual patterns and outcomes of Tx are not fully understood. Connect MM® is the first and largest multicenter, US-based, prospective observational cohort study designed to characterize Tx patterns and outcomes for pts with NDMM. This analysis describes demographic and disease characteristics of pts who received triplet Tx as an induction regimen and for whom transplant was or was not intended. The analysis explores the relationship of these factors with overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints. Patients and Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 y with NDMM within 60 days of diagnosis were eligible for enrollment regardless of disease severity, medical history, or comorbidities. Data including transplant intent (yes/no) was collected at baseline; follow-up data was collected quarterly thereafter. Based on the initial intent, 2 groups were identified: patients with intent to transplant who received transplant (TT) and pts with no intent to transplant who did not receive a transplant (NT). Triplet Tx was defined as the combination of ≥ 3 concurrent therapeutic agents in the first course of Tx (within 56 days of study entry). KM analysis adjusted for age was conducted for OS. Because decisions on use of transplant and triplet therapy are influenced by multiple factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of the triplet therapy (yes/no) to OS and was adjusted for other variables, including age, comorbidities, and ISS staging. Results: Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 pts were enrolled. This analysis was on 1436 pts: 650 pts with transplant intent and 786 pts without transplant intent. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2014, and the median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 33.8 mos. Of pts with transplant intent, 451 (69%) received transplant (TT) and 199 (31%) did not. Of pts without transplant intent, 62 (8%) received transplant and 724 (92%) did not (NT). The abstract focuses on TT and NT groups only. NT pts tended to be older and have more advanced ISS staging and higher β2-microglobulin levels than TT pts (Table). The most common triplet regimen given during the first course treatment (within 56 days) was lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). RVd was administered to 34% of the NT pts (76/225) and 59% of the TT pts (152/257). The most common non-triplet regimen was bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), which was given to 31% of NT pts (156/499) and 38% of TT pts (73/194). Within the NT group, pts given triplet Tx had a lower risk of death than those who did not receive triplet Tx (P = .0013). The multivariable analysis found triplet Tx to be associated with a 36% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.82]; P = .001). ISS disease stage (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.69]; P < .001) and history of diabetes (HR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.78]; P = .012) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Within the TT group, pts who received triplet Tx did not attain an OS benefit (P = .8993), and no baseline characteristics were significantly associated with OS. These results may be limited by other factors not considered that may have influenced physicians' choice of treatment, including the use of maintenance therapy and a short follow-up period of 33.8 months. Conclusions: Triplet Tx as a first regimen is associated with longer OS in pts without transplant intent who did not receive a transplant. RVd and Vd were the most common first Tx regimens, respectively. Continued follow-up of these pts and enrollment of an additional cohort will provide additional data with mature follow-up. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Other: Export Board Committee, Speakers Bureau. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Srinivasan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: 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.

Download Full-text

Prognostic Molecular Stratification in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma - Results of the Pomalidomide Mukseven (NCT02406222) Biomarker Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123640 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4327-4327

Author(s):

James Croft ◽

Andrew Hall ◽

Amy L Sherborne ◽

Katrina Walker ◽

Sidra Ellis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Flow Cytometry ◽

T Cell ◽

High Risk ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Unmet Need ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains challenging as durable remissions are achieved in patient sub-groups only. Identifying patients that are likely to benefit prior to or early after starting relapse treatments remains an unmet need. MUKseven is a trial specifically designed to investigate and validate biomarkers for treatment optimization in a 'real-world' RRMM population. Design In the randomized multi-center phase 2 MUKseven trial, RRMM patients (≥2 prior lines of therapy, exposed to proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide) were randomized 1:1 to cyclophosphamide (500 mg po d1, 8, 15), pomalidomide (4 mg days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg; if ≥75 years 20 mg; d1, 8, 15, 21) (CPomD) or PomD and treated until progression. All patients were asked to undergo bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) bio-sampling at baseline, cycle 1 day 14 (C1D14, on-treatment) and relapse. For biomarker discovery and validation, IGH translocations were profiled by qRT-PCR, copy number aberrations by digital MLPA (probemix D006; MRC Holland), GEP by U133plus2.0 array (Affymetrix), PD protein markers by IHC and PB T-cell subsets by flow cytometry for all patients with sufficient material. Primary endpoint was PFS, secondary endpoints included response, OS, safety/toxicity and biomarker validation. Original planned sample size was 250 patients but due to a change in UK standard of care during recruitment with pomalidomide becoming available, a decision was made to stop recruitment early. Results In total, 102 RRMM patients were randomized 1:1 between March 2016 and February 2018. Trial entry criteria were designed to include a real-world RRMM population, permitting transfusions and growth factor support. Median age at randomization was 69 years (range 42-88), 28% of patients had received ≥5 prior lines of therapy (median: 3). Median follow-up for this analysis was 13.4 months (95% CI: 12.0-17.5). 16 patients remained on trial at time of analysis (median number of cycles: 19.5; range 8-28). More patients achieved ≥PR with CPomD compared to PomD: 70.6% (95% CI: 56.2-82.5%) vs. 47.1% (CI: 32.9-61.5%) (P=0.006). Median PFS was 6.9 months (CI: 5.7-10.4) for CPomD vs. 4.6 months (CI: 3.5-7.4) for PomD, which was not significantly different as per pre-defined criteria. Follow-up for OS is ongoing and will be presented at the conference. High-risk genetic aberrations were found at following frequencies: t(4;14): 6%, t(14;16)/t(14;20): 2%, gain(1q): 45%, del(17p): 13%. Non-high risk lesions were present as follows: t(11;14): 22%, hyperdiploidy: 44%. Complete information on all high-risk genetic markers was available for 71/102 patients, of whom 12.7% had double-hit high-risk (≥2 adverse lesions), 46.5% single-hit high-risk (1 adverse lesion) and 40.8% no risk markers, as per our recent meta-analysis in NDMM (Shah V, et al., Leukemia 2018). Median PFS was significantly shorter for double-hit: 3.4 months (CI: 1.0-4.9) vs. single-hit: 5.8 months (CI: 3.7-9.0) or no hit: 14.1 months (CI: 6.9-17.3) (P=0.005) (Figure 1A). GEP was available for 48 patients and the EMC92 high-risk signature, present in 19% of tumors, was associated with significantly shorter PFS: 3.4 months (CI: 2.0-5.7) vs. 7.4 (CI: 3.9-15.1) for EMC92 standard risk (P=0.037). Pharmacodynamic (PD) profiling of cereblon and CRL4CRBN ubiquitination targets (including Aiolos, ZFP91) in BM clots collected at baseline and C1D14 is currently ongoing. Preliminary results for the first 10 patients demonstrate differential change of nuclear Aiolos (Figure 1C), with a major decrease in Aiolos H-scores in 7/10 patients from baseline to C1D14 and reconstitution at relapse. T-cell PB sub-sets were profiled at baseline and C1D14 by flow cytometry. Specific sub-sets increased with therapy from baseline to C1D14, e.g. activated (HLA-DR+) CD4+ T-cells, as reported at last ASH. CD4+ T-cell % at baseline was associated with shorter PFS in these analyses in a multi-variable Cox regression model (P=0.005). PD and T-cell biomarker results will be updated and integrated with molecular tumor characteristics and outcome. Discussion Our results demonstrate that molecular markers validated for NDMM predict treatment outcomes in RRMM, opening the potential for stratified delivery of novel treatment approaches for patients with a particularly high unmet need. Additional immunologic and PD biomarkers are currently being explored. Disclosures Croft: Celgene: Other: Travel expenses. Hall:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Karyopharm: Other: Research funding to Institution. Walker:Janssen, Celgene: Other: Research funding to Institution. Pawlyn:Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Takeda: Consultancy. Flanagan:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm: Other: Research funding to Institution. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Novartis: Other: Travel expenses; Novartis, Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Couto:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Wang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyd:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pierceall:Celgene: Employment. Thakurta:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cook:Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, GlycoMimetics, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi: Honoraria. Brown:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm: Other: Research funding to Institution. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Bosutinib, Dasatinib, Nilotinib and Ponatinib on Survival for Second Line Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3095.3095 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3095-3095

Author(s):

Bogdan Muresan ◽

Carla Mamolo ◽

Joseph C. Cappelleri ◽

Mark Shapiro ◽

Rocco J. Crescenzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Statistical Test ◽

Second Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Indirect Treatment ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Comparator Trial

Abstract Background: In clinical trials of second line and later line therapies for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), to date only single arm trials have been conducted for the available treatments (i.e. Bosutinib, Dasatinib, Nilotinib and Ponatinib). These trials included heterogeneous patient populations in terms of line of treatment, stage of disease and other patient- and disease baseline characteristics that may impact the outcomes of the treatment. This hampers any direct or indirect comparisons of these second line CML treatments in terms of efficacy measures such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In this situation (i.e. lack of common comparator), matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) can be applied. Objective: The aim of this research was to compare the efficacy (PFS and OS) of Bosutinib, Dasatinib, Nilotinib and Ponatinib in second line chronic phase CML patients by means of MAICs. Patient data are reweighted such that their medians on demographic and clinical characteristics match those of the aggregated comparator trial, in order to adjust for cross-trial differences in those baseline characteristics. Outcomes of the reweighted patient level dataset are then compared with those of the aggregated comparator trial. Methods: A systematic literature review of second-line or later CML Phase II and Phase III clinical trials identified 2 trials for Bosutinib, 11 trials for Dasatinib, 8 trials for Nilotinib and 2 trials for Ponatinib. For the MAIC, only second line chronic phase trials with three or more years of follow-up (to allow for sufficient differentiation of treatments over time) were considered, resulting in 1 trial for Bosutinib (NCT00261846), 1 trial for Dasatinib (CA180-034), 1 trial for Nilotinib (NCT00109707) and no trials for Ponatinib. To adjust for cross-trial differences, patient data from the Bosutinib trial were subject to the inclusion and exclusion criteria reported in the comparator trials, and were weighted to match all available summary baseline characteristics reported in the 1 Dasatinib trial and the 1 Nilotinib trial. The baseline characteristics considered for reweighing were as follows: age, gender, Imatinib resistant/intolerant, disease duration, and prior stem cell transplantation. After the MAICs, PFS and OS were compared based on hazard ratios (HR) derived by Cox proportional hazard (PH) regressions using the reweighed Bosutinib dataset. The Cox PH assumption was tested with log cumulative hazard plots, Schoenfeld residuals and its corresponding statistical test. In case the PH assumption did not hold, Cox regressions with time varying coefficients were tested and the relative restricted mean survival time (RMST) was estimated. Results: Comparing Bosutinib to Nilotinib resulted in HRs for PFS and OS of 2.0 (<0.01) and 1.4 (p=0.109) respectively. When compared to Dasatinib, Bosutinib showed a non-significant HR of 1.3 (p=0.30) in favor of Bosutinib for OS and a significant 1.6 HR (p<0.01) for PFS. In the PFS and OS analyses compared to Dasatinib, the PH assumption was violated based on the statistical test or almost violated according to the visual plots. Therefore, we examined the relative restricted mean survival times, which were 1.123 (p=0.02) for PFS and 1.025 (p=0.41) for OS. Discussion: After performing MAICs to adjust for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, Bosutinib appeared to have a significantly greater PFS than Nilotinib (p<0.01). Based on the relative RMST analyses, Bosutinib also appeared to have a significantly greater PFS than Dasatinib, at the p<0.05 level. For OS the findings were numerically positive in favor of Bosutinib, but not statistically significant, compared to both. However, qualitatively, Bosutinib appears to be an equally effective second line chronic phase CML therapy. The greater PFS compared to Nilotinib and Dasatinib, especially at the end of the follow up period for Bosutinib, may translate into future OS benefits not yet observed. A limitation of our study is that we could only correct for observed differences between the trials, and not for unobserved ones. Also, the reweighing was performed for all relevant reported baseline characteristics; not all baseline characteristics were reported in all trials. Both limitations could have an impact on the outcomes and therefore the study conclusions. Disclosures Muresan: Ingress-health Nederland BV: Employment. Mamolo:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cappelleri:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shapiro:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Crescenzo:Pfizer Inc: Employment. Su:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership. Heeg:Ingress-health Nederland BV: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Bortezomib Plus Melphalan–Prednisone Continues to Demonstrate a Survival Benefit Vs Melphalan–Prednisone in the Phase III VISTA Trial in Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma After 3 Years' Follow-up and Extensive Subsequent Therapy Use.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3859.3859 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3859-3859 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽

Paul G Richardson ◽

Rudolf Schlag ◽

Nuriet K Khuageva ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Ortho Biotech ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 3859 Poster Board III-795 The initial results of the pivotal, international, phase III VISTA trial demonstrated the superiority of bortezomib (Velcade®) plus melphalan–prednisone (VMP) versus MP alone across all efficacy end points, including overall survival (OS), in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM) patients ineligible for high-dose therapy (San Miguel et al, N Engl J Med 2008). We conducted a planned updated survival analysis of VISTA after a median >3 years of follow-up and with the majority of patients having received subsequent therapy. We confirmed the previously demonstrated OS benefit of VMP versus MP, examined the use of subsequent therapy and its efficacy following VMP and MP, and evaluated the survival of patients who had received subsequent therapy. Patients were randomized to receive nine 6-week cycles of VMP (N=344; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, d 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1–4, d 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5–9; melphalan 9 mg/m2 d 1–4, prednisone 60 mg/m2, d 1–4, all cycles) or MP (N=338) alone. Response was assessed using EBMT criteria with central laboratory M-protein analysis. After disease progression, patients were followed for survival and subsequent therapy, including investigator-assessed best response to subsequent therapies. The median age of patients was 71 years, 30% were aged ≥75 years, 34% had ISS stage III MM, and 33% had β2-microglobulin >5.5 mg/L. After median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP vs MP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.653, p=0.0008); median OS was not estimable vs 43.1 months, and 3-year OS rates were 68.5% vs 54.0% with VMP vs MP, respectively. This OS benefit was seen consistently across patient subgroups predefined by baseline characteristics. Within the VMP arm, OS was longer among patients aged <75 vs ≥75 years (HR 1.664, p=0.011; 3-year OS: 74.1% vs 55.5%); by contrast, there were no significant differences, although there were trends to longer OS among patients with creatinine clearance ≥60 versus <60 mL/min (HR 1.291, p=0.238; 3-year OS: 74.5% vs 63.1%) and patients with standard- vs high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.346, p=0.399; 3-year OS 71.6% vs 56.1%). At data cut-off (16 March 2009), 178 (52%) VMP and 233 (69%) MP patients had received subsequent therapy; median time to subsequent therapy (28.1 vs 19.2 months, HR 0.527, p<0.0001) and median treatment-free interval (17.6 vs 8.4 months, HR 0.543, p<0.0001) were superior with VMP vs MP. Receipt of and response to subsequent bortezomib-, thalidomide-, and lenalidomide-based therapy are summarized in the Table. Median survival from start of subsequent therapy following VMP and MP was 30.2 vs 21.9 months (HR 0.815, p=0.21) among all patients receiving subsequent therapy. This updated analysis of VISTA confirms that VMP results in significantly longer OS compared with MP, despite 50% of MP patients being rescued with bortezomib-based therapy in the relapsed setting. VMP treatment used upfront appears more beneficial than treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel-agent-based treatment until relapse. Subsequent therapies appeared similarly effective in the VMP and MP arms, with our analysis also demonstrating the benefit of retreatment with bortezomib-based therapies following VMP. In addition, post-relapse survival among all patients receiving subsequent therapy appeared longer following VMP, indicating that frontline bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapses. Table Response among patients who received subsequent therapy VMP (N=178) MP (N=233) Received subsequent therapy containing:* Bortezomib, n (%) 43 (24) 116 (50) Thalidomide, n (%) 81 (46) 110 (47) Lenalidomide, n (%) 57 (32) 30 (13) Overall response rate (%) to subsequent therapy: Bortezomib-based 47 59 Thalidomide-based 41 53 Lenalidomide-based 59 52 * Patients could have received >1 agent, either in combination or separately in different subsequent lines of therapy Disclosures: Mateos: Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium: 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. Dimopoulos:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria; Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shpilberg:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kropff:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Petrucci:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Dmoszynska:Millennium: Research Funding. Schots:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Esseltine:Millennium: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cakana:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. van de Velde:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Variation in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Among Multiple Myeloma Patients by Insurance Coverage

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3150.3150 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3150-3150 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Chris L. Pashos ◽

Brian GM Durie ◽

Robert Rifkin ◽

Howard Terebelo ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Insurance Coverage ◽

Insurance Status ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Us ◽

Related Quality ◽

Health Related ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 3150 Introduction. Affordability of health care in the United States (US), and the impact of patient insurance coverage on it have been shown to be associated with the delivery and timeliness of access to care. With increasing costs of novel therapies in hematology and oncology, this concern has been raised in hematologic cancers. This analysis evaluates whether the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with active, symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the US varies by their insurance coverage as they initiate treatment. Methods. Baseline data were collected in Connect MM®, a prospective observational registry initiated in September 2009 involving centers in the US. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was reported by patients in the clinic at enrollment, within two months of diagnosis. Patients completed 3 psychometrically validated instruments: the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). Standard analyses were conducted of each instrument given clinical characteristics at that time. Patients were characterized as to the main source of their insurance coverage: Medicare, Medicaid or Commercial. The Medicare cohort included those with supplemental commercial coverage, and the Medicaid cohort included those with dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage. Reported mean BPI, EQ-5D and FACT-MM scores were analyzed by patient insurance coverage. Statistical significance of score differences among sub-cohorts was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1. Results. HRQOL data and insurance status were reported by 863 patients, enrolled from 189 centers. Patients were predominantly male (57%) and white (82%) with mean age at 67.0 (standard deviation [SD] 11.3) yrs. HRQOL scores by insurance status are presented: Overall FACT-MM results indicate that Medicaid insurance status is associated with greater decrement in baseline HRQOL compared to the other groups. Statistically significant differences are noted in the FACT-G general cancer HRQOL score, and its physical, social/family and emotional component scores. BPI data (on a scale of 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain] indicate that average pain may be worse among Medicaid patients compared to either Medicare or commercially insured patients. There are no statistically significant differences on EQ-5D scores (on a scale of 1 [no problem] to 2 [some problems] to 3 [incapacity] between cohorts based on insurance status. Conclusions. Initial results from the Connect MM® Registry indicate that HRQOL at baseline prior to initiation of treatment is worse among Medicaid patients compared to those with either Medicare or commercial coverage. This should be investigated to determine whether Medicaid patients are accessing care later in disease progression than others covered by Medicare or commercial insurance. Furthermore, future analyses should be conducted of patients by insurance coverage to determine whether status may be associated with access to medical care, subsequent clinical outcomes, and HRQOL over time. Results reported here should serve as a baseline reference. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Narang:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Khan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Follow-up of Real Life Treated Multiple Myeloma Patients: Response, Disease Progression and Overall Survival,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3937.3937 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3937-3937

Author(s):

Hareth Nahi ◽

Johan Liwing ◽

Katarina Uttervall ◽

Johan Andreasson ◽

Astrid Gruber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Real Life ◽

M Protein ◽

Novel Agents ◽

Response Distribution ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Study Population ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 3937 Treatment results in clinical practice and in real life can be different from each other. Therefore, evaluating real life outcomes in Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients in order to understand treatment outcome in clinical practice is very important. All patients diagnosed with MM and treated between Jan 2000 and Jul 2010 at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge and Södersjukhuset were included. Furthermore, all diagnosed patients between Jan 2005 and Jul 2010 at Karlolinska University Hopital, Solna were included. At diagnosis data regarding age, gender, type of myeloma and skeleton destruction as well as Ca, Hb, β2-microglobelin, albumin and creatinine were collected. For each treatment line, drugs given and specific start and stop dates for each drug were collected. Serum and urine M-protein was collected at baseline and each time the measurement differed from the previous. Near complete response (nCR) was defined as an immeasurable M-protein in the blood and urine by standard electrophoresis but not always confirmed by immunofixation since it was not required in clinical practice. Partial response (PR) was defined as a 50% reduction in M-protein. No response (NR) was defined as less than 50% reduction of M-protein. Progress was considered when M-protein increased with ≥ 25%. Novel agents were defined as bortezomib, lenalidomide and thalidomide. In the total population n=674, 89 (13%) patients were excluded due to non treatment demanding disease or plasmacytoma without MM diagnosis setting the study population to n=585. The median follow up of the study population was 815 days. The median age in the study population was 68 years and 45% were women. High dose treatment (HDT) was given to 214 (37%) patients. The median age in the HDT population was 58 years and 34% were women. The median age in the non-HDT population was 75 years and 51% was women. The median number of given treatment lines was 2. The proportion of patients receiving more treatment lines were declining rapidly with the number of received lines of therapy. The response distribution for the entire population nCR/PR/NR was 27/41/32 in 1st line, 18/34/48 in 2nd line. In the HDT population the same response distribution was 50/38/12 in 1st line and 28/38/34 in 2nd line. In the non-HDT population the response distribution was 14/43/43 in 1st line and 12/33/55 in 2nd line. The depth of the responses was significantly dependent on the line of therapy. Responses were significantly better in the HDT population vs. the non-HDT population in the first two treatment lines. There seems to be a correlation between the responses in 1st and 2nd line in the entire population. Improving the responses in 2nd line compared to 1st line seems not very likely. Statistical analysis shows that the non-HDT patients receiving novel agents in 1st line had a significantly higher probability of achieving nCR, 25% vs 9%.The same statistical difference was seen in the HDT patients with nCR rates of 65% vs 47%. The median TTP/TTNT for the study population was 309/381 days in the 1st line and 182/210 in 2nd line. In the HDT population the TTP/TTNT was 538/639 days in 1st line and 199/257 in 2nd line. In the non-HDT population the TTP/TTNT was 244/295 days in 1st line and 177/193 in 2nd line. In the HDT population both the TTP and the TTNT in the 1st line were significantly better than in the non-HDT population with no difference in the 2nd line. There was a significant trend of increasing TTP/TTNT in 1st line depending on the increased depth of the response. Statistical analysis showed that the use of novel agents in 1st line predicted a longer TTP for the non-HDT population. Median OS was 4.3 years 95% CI [3.9;5.0] with 53% censored. HDT patients had a significant longer median OS 6.3 years 95% CI [5.4;8.5] than the non-HDT patients OS 3.0 years 95% CI [2.2;3.6]. The median OS for non-HDT patients with 1st line best response nCR was 4.9 years, PR 3.3 years and NR 1.5 years. Kaplan-Mayer analysis shows that use of novel agents in the 1st line predicted a longer OS, median 5.1 years vs. 4.1 years. Patients receiving 2nd and 3rd line treatment were declining rapidly. To get a good response in 1st line increases the likelihood of having a good response in 2nd line. Receiving an nCR in 1st line seems to be very important and this study confirms the prognostic impact of achieving at least nCR. The use of novel agents improves the outcome for patients in clinical practice. Disclosures: Liwing: Janssen-Cilag: Employment, Equity Ownership. Näsman:Janssen-CIlag: Consultancy. Aschan:Janssen-Cilag: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text