scholarly journals Outcomes after First Rescue Treatment in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Colombia

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4745-4745
Author(s):  
Humberto Martinez-Cordero ◽  
Virginia Abello ◽  
William Armando Mantilla Duran ◽  
Rigoberto Gomez ◽  
Jheremy Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Nearest Neighbor ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Rescue Treatment ◽  
Oncological Diseases ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Background Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are approved for treating newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) in Colombia. This propensity score matching (PSM) analysis using data from the real-world, was designed to establish the role PIs (bortezomib or carfilzomib) at first relapsed or refractory MM. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoint included was overall survival (OS). Moreover, an analysis of OS was done regarding response attained. On Behalf of RENEHOC-GRIMMCO (Colombian Registry for Hemato-Oncological Diseases and Colombian Mieloma Múltiple study group). Methods PSM by nearest neighbor analysis to evaluate the role of PIs used at first relapse in multiple myeloma of patients belonging to RENEHOC registry, between 2010 and 2020. Results 390 patients were identified in the first relapse of the Colombian registry, 269 patients with PI and 121 patients without PI. One hundred and ten patients were included in each group after PSM. Patients were matched for age, ISS, extramedullary disease, and use of lenalidomide to define the influence of this immunomodulatory drug in the PI group. A difference was found in the use of lenalidomide because only 1 patient was treated with PI and lenalidomide concomitantly (0.91%) compared to 31 patients in the group without PI (28.18%), (p <0, 0001). Regarding ORR, no differences were found between the 2 groups 38.18% in PIs vs 37.27% in non-PIs group (p = 0.801). A trend towards better OS was found in the PIs group with a median of 58 months versus 39 months (p = 0.179). Overall survival in patients who achieved at least PR was better compared to those who did not reach 79 months versus 32 months in non-responders (p = 0.0001). Conclusion In this study, we found that the use of PI has a tendency to improve overall survival in real-world in MM patients when used in the first relapse and that this effect could possibly be enhanced with the combination with lenalidomide. Regardless of the treatment used, better responses are associated with better survival. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abello: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Dr Reddy's: Research Funding. Sossa: Amgen: Research Funding.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of triple-exposed multiple myeloma patients treated in community oncology practices in the United States.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18727-e18727
Author(s):  
Robert Smith ◽  
Mei Xue ◽  
Natalie Dorrow ◽  
Prateesh Varughese ◽  
Cosima Hogea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Duration Of Therapy ◽  
The Us

e18727 Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) over the past decade has significantly improved survival. In particular, 3 drug classes have altered the treatment paradigm for MM patients: proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and CD38 monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD38s). Despite these advances, the majority of patients with MM will become refractory to PIs, IMiDs, and anti-CD38s, and limited evidence indicates these patients have poor outcomes. A retrospective study in the US showed that 275 patients treated at 14 academic institutions with prior exposure to a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 had median overall survival of 9.2 months. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-world treatment patterns and outcomes (duration of therapy and overall survival) of patients who had been treated with a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 in community practices in the US. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted using the Integra Connect (IC) database. The IC database includes electronic health data from structured and unstructured fields from 12 community practices on the East and West Coast of the US. Adult patients with ≥2 ICD-9/ICD-10 codes for MM on at least 2 separate dates, who received MM treatment between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2019, with treatment history that included at least one PI, one IMiD, and one anti-CD38 (triple exposed), and initiated a subsequent line of therapy (s-LOT) after becoming triple exposed, were included. Duration of length of s-LOT was defined as number of days from start of s-LOT to last-day supply of s-LOT. Overall survival was defined as the length of time from start of s-LOT through death or the date of the last office visit. Results: A total of 501 patients were included in this analysis. The median age of patients was 64.9 years; 50% were male; 50% had commercial insurance. 82.8% of patients had ECOG 0 or 1 at diagnosis and had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (LOTs) before initiating s-LOT. Prior to initiating s-LOT, 91% had been exposed to bortezomib, 81% to carfilzomib, 94% to lenalidomide, 82% to pomalidomide, and 100% to daratumumab. In s-LOT, 95% received treatment that included same drug or same drug class (30% received bortezomib, 48% carfilzomib, 31% lenalidomide, 47% pomalidomide, and 31% daratumumab). The median duration of s-LOT was 78 days and median survival was 10.3 months (308 days) from initiation of s-LOT. Conclusions: For triple-class exposed patients, there is a lack of consensus on the most efficacious approach to subsequent treatment. The present study shows a significant amount of retreatment with previously used agents or classes among these patients with short duration of therapy and poor survival. As has been previously noted, new strategies and agents targeting novel aspects of MM are needed to improve outcomes for these patients. Disclosures: This study (213286) was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline.

The Value of Risk Stratification Tools in Multiple Myeloma (MM) in the Real-World: Validation of the Revised- International Staging System (R-ISS) at Initiation of Treatment and Relevance of the ISS and the R-ISS for Risk Stratification in the Relapsed Setting Using Data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2418-2418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Hájek ◽  
Jiri Jarkovsky ◽  
Walter Bouwmeester ◽  
Maarten Treur ◽  
DeCosta Lucy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Standard Practice ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Using Data

Abstract The ISS stratifies survival risk in patients with MM based on β2-microglobulin and albumin levels. The R-ISS is an improved stratification tool, which also uses chromosomal abnormalities (CA) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). It was developed based on clinical trial data in the first-line setting but, has not been validated outside clinical trials or for use in the relapsed setting. Using data from the RMG, we assessed the real-world validity of the R-ISS at diagnosis. Additionally, as it is standard practice to re-stage patients after first relapse, we explored the value of re-estimating ISS stage in the relapsed setting and exploring the carry on effect of R-ISS from diagnosis. Re-estimation of R-ISS at relapse is not possible as standard practice often does not include CA measurement at first relapse. Assessment of improvement in stratification was based on visual comparison of median OS, hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals. Eligible patients were diagnosed with symptomatic MM between May 2007 and April 2016. A Cox regression model and Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed the performance of the ISS and R-ISS for stratifying patients based on survival both at diagnosis and at first relapse. Overall, there were 3027 patients at diagnosis however only 493 were included in these analyses due to unavailable CA values (84% of patients). ISS and R-ISS stage distribution at diagnosis was ISS I 31.2%, II 29.1% and III 39.6%; and R-ISS I 12% II 57% and III 31% (Table 1). Median overall survival (OS) in months (95% confidence interval [CI]), from diagnosis was 73.5 (68.0-NE), 40.5 (31.0-50.0) and 29.0 (20.9-37.2) in patients with ISS stage I, II and III, respectively, and not reached (NR), 46.6 (39.2-54.1) and 26.0 (18.2-33.8) in patients with R-ISS stage I, II and III, respectively. Table 2 shows HR, which indicate OS assessed in alternative ways was significantly different among the three stages for both ISS and R-ISS. R-ISS provided refined stratification than ISS alone, since R-ISS stage III classified patients with higher risk than ISS III alone, (shorter median OS, narrower CI, and stronger HR vs. ISS I and II). From the original sample of 493 patients at diagnosis, only 250 went on to receive further treatment after first relapse. The median OS months (95% CI) after first relapse was 46.4 (32.0-60.8), 22.8 (13.4-32.1) and 14.9 months (9.0-20.8) in patients staged as ISS stage I, II and III at diagnosis, respectively. In patients staged as R-ISS stage I, II and III at diagnosis it was NR, 25.6 (20.8-30.3) and 10.4 (6.7-14.2), respectively. Data to enable re-estimation of ISS and R-ISS at first relapse were available for 187 patients (R-ISS re-stratification was using CA data at diagnosis only). Median OS months (95% CI) from first relapse was 32.2 (15.5-49.0), 25.6 (11.5-39.6) and 10.8 (8.6-13.0) in patients at ISS stage I, II and III, respectively, and 23.3 (NE-NE), 28.4 (20.8-36.0) and 9.7 (6.5-12.9) in patients at R-ISS stage I, II and III, respectively. The HRs comparing OS from first relapse stratified by ISS at diagnosis indicated that re-estimating ISS did not improve stratification (Table 2). For R-ISS, compared with staging patients at diagnosis, staging at first relapse resulted in refined stratification between stage II and III, however assessment of HRs comparing to stage I was difficult owing to small sample sizes. Re-estimation of R-ISS stage at first relapse resulted in 26% of patients having their stage reclassified; the main drivers of reclassification to a lower R-ISS risk group were β2-microglobulin and albumin levels, and to a higher risk group, LDH levels. Our real-world data show that, at diagnosis R-ISS provides refined risk stratification compared with ISS. Further refinement seemed to be added by restaging at first relapse using R-ISS, not ISS however, CA measurements are not currently routinely measured at first relapse, limiting the practical utility of the R-ISS at this stage. Therefore, re-estimating R-ISS stage after first relapse may enable physicians improve estimation of patient prognosis. Both ISS and R-ISS have been developed for use at diagnosis when there is less evidence to predict prognosis, therefore risk stratification after first relapse should also consider other historical patient, disease and treatment factors contributing to improved risk stratification and improved treatment selection and outcomes. Disclosures Hájek: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bouwmeester:Amgen: Consultancy. Treur:Amgen: Consultancy. Lucy:Amgen: Employment, Other: Amgen Stock. Campioni:Amgen: Employment, Other: Holds Amgen Stock. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Raab:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schoen:Amgen: Employment, Other: Holds Amgen Stock. Szabo:Amgen: Employment, Other: Holds Amgen Stock. Gonzalez-McQuire:Amgen: Employment, Other: Holds Amgen Stock.

scholarly journals Indirect Comparison Using Individual Patient Level Data Comparing Efficacy and Safety of a Daratumumab Monotherapy Vs. EU Approved Comparator Therapies in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3541-3541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Demmer ◽  
Susanne Huschens ◽  
Dietrich Potthoff ◽  
Jörg Tomeczkowski ◽  
Christian Englisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab monotherapy (DARA mono) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) has been shown in the single-arm phase I/II trial GEN501 and the single-arm phase II trial SIRIUS (1, 2). Since then, several indirect treatment comparisons of DARA mono versus comparator therapies have been published showing consistent results with an overall survival benefit for DARA mono (3, 4, 5, 6). This analysis compares efficacy and for the first time also safety of DARA mono data versus an international historic control group, adjusting for differences in patient populations based on individual patient level data (IPD). Methods. IPD from the SIRIUS trial and from the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-cohort (7), a retrospective, multicenter cohort, were compared using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, on the endpoints of efficacy (overall survival (OS)) and safety (discontinuation due to adverse events (DISCONAE)). The IMF-cohort included patients with rrMM who received at least three prior lines of therapy, were refractory to both an immunomodulator (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and were exposed to an alkylating agent. An inclusion criterion for the historic control group in this analysis was treatment with EU approved regimens. Baseline covariates adjusted for in the regression model included age, gender, prior lines of therapy, albumin, beta-2 microglobulin, prior exposure to pomalidomide and carfilzomib, and PI/IMiD refractory status. Several sensitivity analyses were run, including multiple imputation of missing values. Results. Data from 106 patients treated with DARA mono (16 mg/kg) were available from SIRIUS; 258 patients from the IMF chart review fulfilled the inclusion criteria; most frequent treatment regimens contained pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (PomDex) (n=172), bortezomib (n=31), carfilzomib (n=21), cyclophosphamide (n=14) and lenalidomide (n=9). The adjusted HR for OS was 0.41 [0.25, 0.69], p<0.001, and 0.23 [0.05, 1.00], p=0.050 for DISCONAE, in favor of daratumumab. Results were consistent across a range of sensitivity analyses and were similar when restricting the comparison to DARA vs. PomDex, with HR=0.35 [0.19, 0.64], p<0.001 for OS and 0.20 [0.03, 1.54], p=0.123 for DISCONAE. Conclusions. This comparison using real-world data of rrMM patients suggests improved efficacy and safety for DARA mono compared to approved therapy regimens used in clinical practice, including PomDex. References. Lokhorst, H. M., Plesner, T., Laubach, J. P., Nahi, H., Gimsing, P., Hansson, M., et al. Targeting CD38 With Daratumumab Monotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015. Lonial S, Weiss BM, Usmani SZ, Singhal S, Chari A, Bahlis NJ, et al. Daratumumab Monotherapy in Patients with Treatment-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (SIRIUS): An Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial. The Lancet. 2016. Usmani S, Ahmadi T, Ng Y, Lam A, Desai A, Potluri R, Mehra M. Analysis of Real-World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients With ≥3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) and an Immunomodulatory Drug (IMiD), or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The Oncologist. 2016. Van Sanden S, Ito T, Diels J, Vogel M, Belch A, Oriol A. Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison. The Oncologist. 2017. Usmani SZ, Diels J, Ito T, Mehra M, Khan I, Lam A. Daratumumab monotherapy compared with real-world historical control data in heavily pretreated patients with highly refractory multiple myeloma: An adjusted treatment comparison. American Journal of Heamtology. 2017. Jelínek T, Maisnar V, Pour L, Špička I, Minařík J, Gregora E, et al. Adjusted comparison of daratumumab monotherapy versus real-world historical control data from the Czech Republic in heavily pretreated and highly refractory multiple myeloma patients. Current Medical Research an Opinion. 2017. Kumar SK, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Terpos E, Nahi H, Goldschmidt H, et al. Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study. Leukemia. 2017. Disclosures Demmer: Janssen: Employment. Huschens:Janssen: Employment. Potthoff:Janssen: Employment. Tomeczkowski:Janssen: Employment. Englisch:Janssen: Employment. Thilakarathne:Janssen: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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. Durie:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Eisele:Janssen: Employment.

One Line Does Not Make a Picture: Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Of Multiple Myeloma Treatments Using a Full Disease Model

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2930-2930
Author(s):  
Hedwig M Blommestein ◽  
Silvia GR Verelst ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Peter C. Huijgens ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Disease Model ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Pathways

Abstract Background As with many types of cancer, treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is characterised by sequential treatment lines consisting of innovative expensive drugs such as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. While the cost-effectiveness of single treatments has been studied, a full disease model evaluating treatments sequentially is currently lacking. Therefore, we aimed to take a look at the big picture and calculate real-world costs and effects for commonly used treatment pathways for MM. Methods We developed a patient-level simulation (PLS) model for elderly (>65) MM patients diagnosed since 2004. Real-world data (N=621) including patient and disease characteristics, treatment information and outcomes as well as resource use was obtained from the Population based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies, PHAROS. Based on this information, a patient population was simulated. Parametric survival models including patient characteristics such as age, performance status, comorbidities, laboratory values and treatment were used to predict overall survival of commonly used treatment pathways. Five treatment categories were distinguished; Melphalan/Prednison, Thalidomide based regimens, Bortezomib based regimens, Lenalidomide based regimens and Other regimens not including a novel agent. Monthly costs, per treatment per line, were calculated based on real-world data. The sensitivity of parameters was explored through sensitivity analyses. Results Mean age of our simulated population was 76 [SD: 6.25, Range 66-93] and 19 commonly used treatment pathways were observed. Average total costs from diagnosis till death ranged from $54,200 [SD: $10,990] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) to $172,346 [SD: $27,887] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other) while overall survival ranged from 29 [SD: 1.02] to 50 [SD 1.75] months for Melphalan/Prednison-Bortezomib-Lenalidomide and Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other, respectively. Total costs were especially induced by drug costs and inpatient hospital days. Substantial variation among the treatment pathways was observed with drug costs ranging from 7% ($3,980) of the total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other compared to 53% ($88,058) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. In addition, inpatient day costs ranged from 68% ($37,113) of total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Bortezomib to 25% ($41,347) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. Costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) were between $29,060 [SD: $5,623] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) and $56,179 [SD: $9,190] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other). In addition to the 19 treatment pathways, we calculated the total costs and overall survival of treatment as observed in daily clinical practice, $79,203 [SD: $12,001] and 32 [SD: 1.33] months, respectively. Compared to real-world prescription, survival could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained (Lenalidomide-Thalidomide-Bortezomib). Conclusion Real-world costs and effects of 19 treatment pathways for MM patients were calculated and revealed that real-world treatment could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained. Our PLS model proved to be a reliable and robust approach to study entire treatment pathways for MM. Disclosures: Sonneveld: Jansssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Lenalidomide Maintenance Does Not Negatively Impact Overall and Progression Free Survival Using Lenalidomide-Based Regimens for Multiple Myeloma in First Relapse

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5643-5643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Cherniawsky ◽  
Zack M. Breckenridge ◽  
Irwindeep Sandhu ◽  
Michael P. Chu ◽  
Joanne D. Hewitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Aggressive Disease ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND Outcomes in multiple myeloma have improved dramatically over the last decade however, optimal sequencing of therapy remains unknown. Specifically, in an era where post-transplant lenalidomide (L) maintenance is now as established standard of care, questions remain around the utility of full dose L-based regimens in second line therapy. In this series, we sought to evaluate the impact of different regimens used at first relapse in patients who received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in the frontline setting treated with and without lenalidomide maintenance (LM). We focused on the impact of L-based therapies in patients relapsing on LM. METHODS Using our prospectively maintained institutional MM database we retrospectively analyzed patients treated at the Cross Cancer Institute from January, 2005 to January, 2016 to ensure 2 years of follow-up for surviving patients. 4 categories were identified based on 2 variables: receipt of LM following 1st line therapy (yes or no) and receipt of L-based 2nd line therapy (yes or no). The primary endpoint was 2nd PFS defined as time of initiation of second line therapy to relapse, death or last follow-up. OS was defined as time of initiation of first line induction therapy to death or last follow-up. Second OS was defined as time of initiation of second line therapy to death or last follow-up. Survival statistics were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method with SPSS software. A p - value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS 213 patients received standard bortezomib-based induction and ASCT of which 132 (62%) received LM. Median follow up for the LM patients was 48 months compared to 74.6 months in non-LM patients. 103 patients (48%) required treatment with second line therapy. Forty-four percent patients were treated with LM while 56% were not. Sixty-nine percent received L-based therapy at relapse, 21% received PI-based therapy and 8% were treated with a PI-IMID combination (table 1). Focusing on the cohort of relapsed patients who received LM (n=44), the median 2nd PFS was 9.3 months in those that received L-based second line therapy vs 4.1 months in those that did not (p = 0.28, figure 1b]. In patients who did not receive LM (n = 55) the median 2nd PFS was 14.0 months in those who received L-based second line therapy vs 6.9 months in those who did not (p = 0.19, figure 1a. Examining all patients who received L-based therapy at relapse there was no difference in 2nd PFS based on whether LM was given (p = 0.42). The median 2nd OS was not statistically significant between the groups (p = 0.39, figure 1b. Patients on LM had a median 2nd OS of 34 months with L-based therapy at relapse compared to 39.2 months without. The median 2nd OS in non-LM patients was 34.5 months in those receiving L-based therapy at first relapse and 23.4 months in those that did not (p=0.10). There was no statistically significant differences in median OS between the 4 groups (p = 0.83). For patients who received LM the median OS was not reached in those receiving L-based therapies at relapse and was 78.1 months in patients who did not. In patients who did not receive LM the median OS was 78.0 months in those receiving L-based therapies at relapse and 69.3 months in those who did not. CONCLUSION Our data suggests that receiving LM does not negatively impact survival outcomes after receiving full dose L-based therapy at relapse. Both median 2nd PFS and 2nd OS were similar with L-based therapies regardless of prior LM. While the 2nd PFS at relapse does fall short of recently published trials in relapsed MM there are some notable confounders here. Firstly, this real-world data includes frailer patients with potentially greater co-morbidities possibly influencing choice and duration of therapy as well as reflect more aggressive disease biology. Secondly, given the relatively short median follow-up of the relapsed LM patients to date, the cohort may be enriched with "early" relapsers (< 2-years) also potentially indicative of biologically more aggressive disease. As such, this may underestimate the true impact of L-based therapies in patients relapsing on LM. Larger series with longer follow-up are necessary to formally examine whether multi-agent L-based regimens confer additional benefit over L-Dexamethasone or non-L based regimens. Real world registries will be useful as prospective trials are unlikely to be done. Disclosures Sandhu: Novartis: Honoraria; Bioverativ: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Outcome of Third Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 993-993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Garderet ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Anja van Biezen ◽  
Linda Koster ◽  
Peter Dreger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Third ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Time To Relapse

Abstract Background. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains a gold standard treatment for younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM). With the aid of new drugs, the patients live longer and third salvage ASCT is an increasingly used option. However, the outcome of third salvage ASCT has not yet been analyzed. Methods. Between 1997 and 2010, 1288 MM patients who had received at least 3 ASCT were registered in the EBMT database. We excluded patients older than 75 years, those with a time from diagnosis to first ASCT of more than 10 years, patients transplanted with bone marrow, those with a time between relapse and ASCT of less than one month and those with an uncertain relapse date. Planned tandem ASCT was considered to be performed within a 6 month interval and at least 1 month apart. The conditioning regimen for the third transplant was high dosemelphalan alone or in combination withbusulfan orbortezomib. We could distinguish two main groups: 417 patients who received tandem ASCT and then a third ASCT after single relapse (AARA group) and 72 patients who received one ASCT, a second ASCT after first relapse, and a third ASCT after second relapse (ARARA group). A third group, who received tandem ASCT after relapsing following single ASCT comprised only 25 patients and was not studied. Results. We compared the two groups AARA vs ARARA. A third ASCT was performed in the AARA group in more recent years (p=0.047). There were more males than females (65% vs 72%) in both groups (p=NS). The main myeloma isotype was IgG (56% vs 58%). The ISS stage at diagnosis was similar (stage III in 70% vs 72% of cases). The time interval between diagnosis and first ASCT tended to be shorter in the AARA group (p=0.089), being within the first 6 months in 50% vs 38% of patients. The status at third ASCT was different: CR, 5% vs 4%: VGPR or PR, 45% vs 19%: MR or stable disease, 12% vs 15%: primary refractory/progressive disease, 38% vs 62% (p<0.001). A Karnofsky score of >70% at third ASCT was reported in 91% vs 90% of cases. The conditioning regimen at third ASCT was different between the two groups: melphalan 200 mg/m2, 42% vs 18%: melphalan 140 mg/m2, 6%vs 12%: other 52%vs 70% (p=0.018). The median age at third ASCT was 59vs 61 years. There was a trend to a longer time between first ASCT and first relapse (27vs 22 months (p=0.056)) in the AARA group while the interval between first ASCT and third ASCT was much shorter (44vs 64 months (p<0.001)). The time between the last relapse and third ASCT was similar (9vs 11 months (p=0.4)). The median follow-up was similar (70vs73 months (p=0.9)). Engraftment was similar (96%vs93% (p=0.35)).The best response achieved after the third ASCT was superior in the AARA group: CR, 32%vs12%: VGPR or PR, 60%vs71% :MRor SD, 4%vs14%: progression, 4%vs3% (p<0.001). The median OS after third ASCT was much higher in the AARA group: 30vs19 months (p=0.01) (Figure 1). The causes of death were: relapse/progression, 84%vs84%: second primary malignancies (SPM), 0.4%vs3.6%: other, 16%vs13%. There was a trend to more SPM including both hematologic and solid tumors in the ARARA group (p=0.068) with a shorter median time to SPM, 12vs42 months (p=0.004). Focusing on the AARA group, the longer the time from tandem ASCT to first relapse, the better the OS after the third transplant: if relapse occurred within 12 months of tandem ASCT, median OS of 13 months: within 18-24 months, OS of 29 months: within 36-60 months, OS of 59 months (Figure 2). Conclusions.A third ASCT is feasible in MM with more than 80% of patients achieving at least PR although with increased non relapse mortality. This treatment is mostly used in one of two scenarios: tandem ASCT followed by relapse and a third ASCT, or less commonly a first ASCT followed by a first relapse, a second ASCT, a second relapse and subsequently a third ASCT. The first scenario gives much better results, partly due to a better remission status at the third ASCT with no sign of increased SPM. In this AARA group, if relapse occurred more than 3 years after the initial tandem ASCT, the median OS after third ASCT was more than 4 years. These results should be compared with those obtained with the new drugs, especially in combination. Figure 1. AARAvsARARA groups: Overall Survival after the third transplant Figure 1. AARAvsARARA groups: Overall Survival after the third transplant Figure 2. AARA group: Overall Survival after the third transplant according to the time to relapse following tandem ASCT. Figure 2. AARA group: Overall Survival after the third transplant according to the time to relapse following tandem ASCT. Disclosures Garderet: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy. Dreger:Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Peschel:MophoSys: Honoraria. Meuleman:Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Ciceri:MolMed SpA: Consultancy. Schönland:Janssen, Prothena, GSK: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommations, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kröger:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Analyses of Real World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients with at Least 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a PI and an IMiD, or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4498-4498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Usmani ◽  
Tahamtan Ahmadi ◽  
Yvette Ng ◽  
Annette Lam ◽  
Ravi Potluri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
Heavily Pretreated

Abstract Background: To fully evaluate the potential benefit of novel agents for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are heavily pretreated and refractory, it is important to understand the outcomes of this patient population based on current real-world experience. An International Myeloma Working Group study determined that the median overall survival (OS) of patients refractory to bortezomib (proteasome inhibitor, PI) and at least 1 immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) was 9 months (Kumar S et al. Leukemia 2012; 26: 149). Since then, other therapies have been approved for relapsed and refractory MM in the United States (US), including pomalidomide (IMiD) and carfilzomib (PI). In this analysis, real-world data were used to define the treatment landscape and outcomes of patients with MM refractory to PIs and IMiDs or who had received ³3 prior lines of therapy (LOT; including a PI and an IMiD) and provide context to results from the single-agent daratumumab phase 2 study MMY2002 (Sirius) recently presented at ASCO 2015 (Lonial S. J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 suppl; abstr LBA8512). Methods: Two independent databases were analyzed.TheIMS LifeLink: IMS Oncology Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Database (IMS Health Incorporated, Danbury, CT) and the OPTUM Database (OPTUM, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN) both comprised US patients only. For the IMS LifeLink database, patient records from the index period of 2000-2011 were screened. For the OPTUM database, the indexing period was 2007-2014. Median OS was assessed for cohorts that met the criteria of disease that was double refractory to a PI and IMiD (Criteria 1) or had been treated with ³3 LOT including a PI and IMiD and showed disease progression within 60 days on completion of last regimen (Criteria 2). Patients who met Criteria 1 could have received ³3 prior LOT, however those who met Criteria 2 only did not meet the double refractory criteria. Subgroup analyses of the eligible population were conducted on those who were only double refractory and triple/quadruple refractory. Results: For the IMS LifeLink database, 4,030 patients with MM were screened, approximately 90% of patients were diagnosed with MM in 2006 or later, and 500 met the criteria for the target population. Of the 500 patients, 323 patients met Criteria 1 and 177 patients only met Criteria 2. For the OPTUM database, 3,837 patients with MM were screened, approximately 90% of patients were diagnosed after 2009, and 162 met the criteria for the target population, 120 of whom met Criteria 1 and 42 of whom only met Criteria 2. In the total eligible populations, median OS was 239 days in the IMS LifeLink dataset compared with 240 days in the OPTUM dataset (P = 0.5358). Among patients that were only double refractory (triple/quadruple refractory patients excluded), median OS was 228 days (n = 253) in the IMS LifeLink dataset compared with 259 days (n = 97) in the OPTUM dataset (P = 0.8052). In triple/quadruple refractory patients, median OS was 154 days (n = 70) in the IMS LifeLink dataset and 95 days (n = 23) in the OPTUM dataset (P = 0.6675). The results from both databases were consistent, hence the data were pooled for further analyses; the pooled analyses indicated that the median OS was 240 days for the eligible population (n = 662), 237 days for patients who were only double refractory (n = 350), and 154 days for patients who were triple/quadruple refractory (n = 93). A naïve comparison of the OS curves from the MMY2002 study and the pooled analysis suggests a survival benefit with daratumumab versus the real-world historical control (Figure). Conclusions: Analyses of real-world data from two independent US patient databases indicated that outcomes remain poor among patients with MM who are heavily pretreated and/or highly refractory despite the availability and use of newer PIs and IMiDs, such as carfilzomib and pomalidomide. Median OS of approximately 8 months was observed in patients with ≥3 LOT (including a PI and IMiD) or refractory to a PI and IMiD. These data not only highlight the critical need for new MM treatments for patients with advanced MM, but also provide a point of reference against which novel agents such as daratumumab could be evaluated. Disclosures Usmani: Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ahmadi:Janssen: Employment. Ng:Janssen: Employment. Lam:Janssen: Employment. Potluri:Smart Analyst: Employment. Mehra:Janssen: Employment.

Real-world treatment patterns in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Clinical and economic outcomes in patients treated with pomalidomide or daratumumab

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199553
Author(s):  
Joshua Richter ◽  
Vamshi Ruthwik Anupindi ◽  
Jason Yeaw ◽  
Suneel Kudaravalli ◽  
Stojan Zavisic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Economic Outcomes ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
New Treatment

Introduction Real-world evidence on later line treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is sparse. We evaluated clinical outcomes among RRMM patients in the 1-year following treatment with pomalidomide or daratumumab and compared economic outcomes between RRMM patients and non-MM patients. Patient and Methods Adult patients with ≥1 claim of pomalidomide or daratumumab were identified between January 2012 and February 2018 using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus US claims database. Patients were required to have a diagnosis or treatment for MM and a claim of any immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors before the index date. Mean time to new therapy, overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier curve and adverse events (AEs) were reported over the 1-year post-index period. RRMM patients were also matched to a non-MM comparator cohort and economic outcomes were compared between the two cohorts. Results 289 RRMM patients were matched to 1,445 patients without MM. Most prevalent hematological AE was anemia (72.0%) and non-hematological AE was infections (75.4%). Mean (SD) time to a new treatment was 4.7 (5.3) months and median OS was 14.6 months. RRMM patients had significantly higher hospitalizations and physician office visits (Both P < .0001) compared to non-MM patients. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients with RRMM had 4.9 times (95% CI 3.8-6.4, P < .0001) the total healthcare costs compared with patients without MM. The major driver of total costs among RRMM patients was pharmacy costs (67.3%). Conclusion RRMM patients showed a high frequency of AEs, low OS, and a substantial economic burden suggesting need for effective treatment options.

Treatment Patterns and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Multiple Myeloma and Baseline Renal Impairment

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 17-18
Author(s):  
Parameswaran Hari ◽  
Lita Araujo ◽  
Dominick Latremouille-Viau ◽  
Peggy Lin ◽  
Mikhail Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Real World ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Healthcare Resource ◽  
Healthcare Resource Utilization ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Analysis Group

Background: Renal impairment (RI) is associated with substantial clinical and economic burden in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but real-world data reporting on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and outcomes in these patients are lacking. We assessed treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), HRU and associated costs across lines of therapy (LoT) in patients with MM who had baseline RI. Methods: We identified patients (aged ≥18 years) with continuous Part A, B and D coverage who initiated pharmacologic therapy for MM between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment patterns from first-line to fourth-line (1L-4L) were reported for all eligible patients (main cohort). Within this cohort, a subgroup of patients diagnosed with RI at baseline (RI subgroup) were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes. Treatment regimens were identified during the first 60 days following start of each LoT; stem cell transplantation (SCT) in 1L was considered part of the 1L regimen. The end of each LoT was indicated by treatment augmentation, treatment switching (after &gt;60 days), discontinuation of all agents (for &gt;90 days), or death. Overall survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis) was defined as time from start of each LoT until death or censoring (end of data/Medicare coverage). All-cause HRU categories were identified during each LoT and reported as incidence rate per patient per month (PPPM); associated all-cause healthcare costs during LoT were reported in 2017 US$. Results are presented using standard descriptive statistics. Results: A main cohort of 10,026 patients was identified; of these, a RI subgroup of 714 patients with baseline RI was identified (7.1% of main cohort). At 1L initiation, the RI subgroup was generally younger (71.9 vs. 74.6 years), had a lower proportion of females (47.8% vs. 53.1%) and had a higher proportion of Medicare coverage for end-stage renal disease (62.9% vs. 6.3%) than the main cohort. Patients with RI had a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score (excluding MM; 4.8 vs. 3.3) and a higher proportion of patients with comorbidities (anemia: 72.5% vs. 57.9%; diabetes with chronic complications: 38.7% vs. 27.1%; cardiovascular diseases: 97.2% vs. 82.5%) than the main cohort. In the RI subgroup, among patients who received SCT in 1L (n=76), bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd) was the most frequent 1L regimen (39.5%), followed by bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd; 17.1%) and bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCd; 15.8%). In patients who had no SCT in 1L, Vd was the most frequent 1L regimen (59.5%), followed by VCd (12.7%) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd; 12.1%). Among patients in the RI subgroup who progressed to 2L therapy, 61.7% received lenalidomide-based regimens in 1L. Newer MM therapies such as carfilzomib, pomalidomide, ixazomib, daratumumab, and elotuzumab were used more frequently in later LoTs (2L: 25.6%; 3L: 50.0%; 4L: 68.8%). Median OS from start of 1L was shorter in the RI subgroup than in the main cohort (29.9 vs. 46.5 months; Table), and this difference was consistent across each subsequent LoT. Incidence of HRU during 1L (Table) was generally higher in the RI subgroup than the main cohort, particularly for inpatient days (1.3 vs. 0.7 PPPM) and home health services (0.9 vs. 0.5 PPPM); this pattern was consistent between cohorts across each subsequent LoT. Total costs in the 1L RI subgroup vs. main cohort (Table) were $14,782 vs. $12,451; the cost differential was maintained across each subsequent LoT. The key driver of this difference was the additional medical service costs ($12,047 vs. $7,459 in 1L) incurred by patients with RI. Conclusion: Patients with MM who had baseline RI were shown to experience higher clinical and economic burden in real-world clinical practice than the overall MM population. This burden was maintained across LoTs. Efficacious regimens that help improve renal function with minimal toxicity would enable patients with MM and RI to persist with treatment and may help address unmet need in this subgroup of patients. Table Disclosures Hari: BMS: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Araujo:Sanofi Genzyme: Current Employment. Latremouille-Viau:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Dominique Latremouille-Viau is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Sanofi Genzyme.; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Dominique Latremouille-Viau is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Novartis.. Lin:Sanofi Genzyme: Current Employment. Davidson:Sanofi Genzyme: Other: Mikhail Davidson is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc which received consultancy fees from Sanofi Genzyme.. Guerin:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Annie Guerin is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Sanofi Genzyme.; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Annie Guerin is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. which received consultancy fees from Novartis.. Sasane:Sanofi Genzyme: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Subsequent Therapies in Multiple Myeloma Patients after Progression on a BCMA Targeting Therapy: A Single-Center Experience

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 11-13
Author(s):  
Barry Paul ◽  
Myra Robinson ◽  
Kristen Cassetta ◽  
Daniel Slaughter ◽  
Jordan Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Targeting Therapy ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Car T

Background: Targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) with antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), bispecific antibodies, or chimeric antigen receptor t-cells (CAR-Ts) has proven safe and effective in recent clinical trials, but relapses remain common. As most patients treated with BCMA targeting therapies are refractory to conventional anti-myeloma therapies, management of these patients poses unique challenges once they progress, with no data available to guide subsequent therapies. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients at our institution who progressed while on or after a BCMA targeting therapy and were treated with subsequent therapies. We evaluated the best response achieved and overall survival (OS) measured from progression on BCMA targeting therapies. Kaplan Meier methods were used to estimate OS curves and landmarks between classes of BCMA targeting therapy received (ADC, bispecific antibody or CAR-T), and by type of subsequent therapy. Results: At a median follow up of 6 months, a total of 47 patients were treated with a BMCA targeting therapy. Of those, a total of 21 (44.7%) patients have progressed, with 18 (38.3%) receiving another therapy. Twelve-month overall survival of the patients who received a subsequent treatment was 51.1% (figure 1a), but varied considerably based on the class of BCMA therapy they received (figure 1b). Patients who progressed after a BCMA CAR-T had the best OS (N =2, 6 mo OS: 100%, 12 mo OS: Of the 18 patients who progressed and were treated with subsequent therapies, 7 (38.9%) received 2 lines of therapy, 5 (27.8%) received 3 lines of therapy, and 1 patient (5.6%) received 5 lines of therapy. In the first relapse, 4 (22.2%) patients received infusional chemotherapy with CAR-D PACE or CAR-DCEP, 4 (22.2%) received the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (Elo-Pd; one of which was first treated with CAR-DCEP), 3 (16.7%) received selinexor based regimens. The best response seen after first-line post BCMA treatment was a partial response (PR) in 5 (27.8% of patients), whereas 8 (61.5%) patients who received second-line treatment post-BCMA therapy had a PR or better, including 3 (23.1%) who had a very good partial response (VGPR). In the third line post-BCMA, 1 (16.7%) had a VGPR, while 1 (16.7%) had stable disease as their best response. The use of Elo or Dara after anti-BCMA progression seemed to correlate with improved OS (see figure 1c below). While all these patients were Elo naïve, the majority (94.4%) were previously Dara exposed. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that many RRMM patients who progress on BCMA targeting therapies still derive benefit from subsequent treatment. Early evidence from our experience suggests a survival advantage with monoclonal antibody-based therapies even in patients who had previously been exposed to these agents-suggesting a possible resensitization with BCMA directed therapy. Although our dataset is a single-center experience, to our knowledge it represents the first report of post-BCMA exposed management of RRMM and provides valuable insight into the treatment of this challenging and ever-expanding population. Disclosures Paul: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Stock Ownership (prior employee); Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bhutani:BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute. Voorhees:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptides: Other: Personal fees; TeneoBio: Other: Personal fees; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health: Current Employment. Usmani:Celgene: Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding. Atrash:BMS, Jansen oncology, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Amgen, Karyopharm, BMS, Sanofi, Cellactar, Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen, GSK, Karyopharm.: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document