Risk of Progression and Survival in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Non-Responsive to Bortezomib-Based Induction Therapy: an Observational Multicenter International Study

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3488-3488
Author(s):  
Yael C Cohen ◽  
Erel Joffe ◽  
Noam Benyamini ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Svetlana Trestman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Induction Regimen

Abstract INTRODUCTION Botezomib-based induction is widely used and highly effective for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), with an overall response rate (ORR) of 75-80%. However, the outcomes of patients who fail to respond to this treatment remain unclear. The goal of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients with NDMM who failed to respond to bortezomib-based induction as compared to induction-responsive patients. METHODS We reviewed consecutive patients with NDMM between 1-JAN-2007 and 31-JAN-2014 in three participating centers in Greece and Israel. Inclusion criteria were measurable disease and an induction regimen containing bortezomib in combination with alkylators and/or corticosteroids. Patients who failed to achieve at least partial response in accordance with IMWG criteria after 4 cycles of therapy were classified as non-responsive and their baseline characteristics, next treatment, overall survival and progression following second-line treatment (2ndPFS) were assessed and compared to responsive patients. 2ndPFS was defined as the time from 2nd line treatment to disease progression, death or censoring. In the non-responsive group we limited this analysis to patients advancing to 2nd line within six months of initiation of induction. RESULTS Two hundred and ninety five patients met inclusion criteria and 74 (25%) were non-responsive to bortezomib-containing induction. Non-responsive patients were older, more anemic and had more often ISS-3, del17p and ECOG performance status 2-4 (table 1). Notably, these patients received less often a bi-weekly bortezomib schedule, a triple-drug regimen and high dose melphalan treatment at first line. Of the non-responsive patients 57% (n=42) received salvage treatment immediately following induction non-response, with an ORR of 59% (25/42); 12/31(39%) of those treated with salvage 2nd line and 13/15(87%) of those who underwent HDM at first line, responded. Failure to respond to bortezomib induction was associated with increased mortality (HR 5.06, 95% CI 2.80 – 9.16) (Fig. a), which remained significant in multivariate analysis. One- and 3-years OS in responsive vs. non-responsive patients were 97% vs 76% and 88% vs 53%, respectively (p<0.0001). 2ndPFS in patients who received salvage second line therapy immediately following induction failure was similar to that measured in bortezomib-responsive patients receiving 2nd-line therapy for disease progression, approaching 14 months. However, survival from time of salvage 2nd-line treatment was significantly lower among patients non-responsive to bortezomib-based induction compared to that measured in responsive patients (25 months vs. not reached, respectively, p=0.024; Fig. b). CONCLUSIONS Failure to respond to a bortezomib-based induction was found to be an independent risk factor for mortality. Despite the non-inferior 2ndPFS reported in these patients as compared with their bortezomib-responsive counterparts, survival remained significantly inferior. Possibly this difference is because non-responsive patients are less likely to respond to further proteasome inhibitor therapy at following relapses. Randomized controlled trials are needed to test whether intensification of induction and/or of further treatment may improve the poor prognosis of patients who fail to respond to bortezomib-based induction. Table 1: All patients n = 295 Induction non-responsive n = 74 Induction - responsive n =221 P value Demographic Median Age (yrs) 62.0 66.8 61.0 0.004 Gender Male Female 148 (50%) 147 (50%) 42 (55%) 33 (45%) 107 (48%) 114 (52%) 0.347 Patient / Disease ECOG 0-1 2-4 182 (63%) 107 (37%) 33 (45%) 40 (55%) 149 (69%) 67 (31%) <0.0001 ISS I II III 74 (28%) 95 (36%) 95 (36%) 9 (14%) 20 (33%) 33 (53%) 65 (32%) 75 (37%) 62 (31%) 0.002 High risk Cytogenietics Del17p High risk (%) Elevated LDH (%) Extramedullary disease (%) Hb≤ 10 gr% Creatinine > 2mg% 23 (14%) 69 (34%) 66 (27%) 23 (9.5%) 114 (43%) 64 (23%) 10 (26%) 13 (28%) 21 (36%) 5 (8.1%) 35 (54%) 20 (30%) 13 (10%) 56 (36%) 45 (24%) 18 (9.7%) 79 (39) 44 (21%) 0.031 0.297 0.091 0.805 0.044 0.094 Therapy Induction regimen VCD Vd VMP PAD 204 (69%) 49 (17%) 11 (4%) 19 (6%) 52 (57%) 18 (24%) 3 (4%) 4 (5%) 162 (73%) 31 (14%) 8 (4%) 15 (7%) 0.007 Any triplet 243 (82%) 55 (74%) 188 (85%) 0.051 Bortezomib schedule Bi-weekly Weekly 239 (81%) 56 (19%) 52 (70%) 22 (30%) 187 (85%) 34 (15%) 0.010 HDM at first line 143 (48%) 15 (20%) 128 (58%) <0.0001 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Multiple Myeloma: Where Do We Lose Ground Along the Treatment Pathway?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 22-22
Author(s):  
Dharmini Manogna ◽  
Bassil Said ◽  
Naman Sharma ◽  
Fateeha Furqan ◽  
Jonathan Bress ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Negative Predictor

Introduction: Despite progress made in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), a significant percentage of patients are unable to receive second line of therapy. Our study evaluated the burden of infectious complications, and other factors that may play a role in hindering patients from receiving subsequent lines of therapy at a comprehensive teaching hospital. Methods: Patients with MM treated between 2014 and 2019 at Rochester General Hospital were selected from the MM registry. Tool was designed on REDCap for retrospective data collection from electronic medical records. Patients who declined therapy, never received treatment, had smoldering myeloma, or with a concomitant immunocompromising state were excluded. Out of 159 patients, 119 were eligible for analysis. We studied the relationship between patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, and outcomes. Binary logistic regression was used to determine which factors were significant in determining advancement in the line of treatment. The chi-squared statistic was used to determine significance with a Type I error rate set at 0.05. Results: The median age at diagnosis of MM was 68.5 years (Interquartile range=59.2-76.9), 55.4% (n=66) were males, 72.3% (n=86) were Caucasian. Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) staging was available for 77 patients, 27.3% (n=21) were stage I, 58.4% (n=45) were stage II, and 14.3% (n=11) were stage III. Cytogenetics were available for 93 patients, 76.3% (n=71) were standard risk and 23.7% (n=22) were high risk [17p del, t(4;14) or t(4;16)]. A three-drug induction regimen was administered to 61.3% (n=73) patients. Autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 39.5 % (n=47). Sixty-seven patients (56.3 %) received second line therapy. Twenty-six patients did not have a relapse after the first line at the time of data censorship. Patients who did not receive a second line treatment after relapse or progression were 21.8% (n=26). The factors prohibiting proceeding to a second line regimen (can be multiple) included patient preference/poor performance status (n=15), death while on first line treatment (n=15), advanced age (n=6) and prohibitive co-morbidity (n=4). Binary logistic regression showed age to be a significant negative predictor for receiving second line therapy. The odds ratio (OR) of receiving second line therapy was 0.88 for every year increase in age, 95% CI (0.78-0.95), p=0.007 (Figure 1). One or more documented infections within 6 months of diagnosing MM or until transplant date occurred in 32.8% (n=39). Types of infections are depicted in Figure 2. Documented infection was a borderline significant negative predictor for receiving second line therapy with OR =0.23, 95% CI (0.05-1.003), p=0.059. Race, pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), gender and high-risk cytogenetics were not significant predictors of receiving second line therapy (Figure 1). Conclusion: Our study identified advancing age as a significant negative predictive factor to receipt of second line therapy in MM. Documented infections, while borderline significant, had a high impact as to whether a patient receives second line therapy. Strategies such as a formalized geriatric assessment, tailored treatment for frail patients, and infection prevention measures might increase odds of receiving second line therapy and may result in improved outcomes. Disclosures Jamshed: Takeda, Amgen and Celgene: Honoraria.

The combination of thalidomide and intermediate-dose dexamethasone is an effective but toxic treatment for patients with primary amyloidosis (AL)

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 105 (7) ◽  
pp. 2949-2951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Palladini ◽  
Vittorio Perfetti ◽  
Stefano Perlini ◽  
Laura Obici ◽  
Francesca Lavatelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Primary Amyloidosis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Symptomatic Bradycardia ◽  
Intermediate Dose

AbstractBased on the efficacy of thalidomide in multiple myeloma and on its synergy with dexamethasone on myeloma plasma cells, we evaluated the combination of thalidomide (100 mg/d, with 100-mg increments every 2 weeks, up to 400 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1-4) every 21 days in 31 patients with primary amyloidosis (AL) whose disease was refractory to or had relapsed after first-line therapy. Eleven (35%) patients tolerated the 400 mg/d thalidomide dose. Overall, 15 (48%) patients achieved hematologic response, with 6 (19%) complete remissions and 8 (26%) organ responses. Median time to response was 3.6 months (range, 2.5-8.0 months). Treatment-related toxicity was frequent (65%), and symptomatic bradycardia was a common (26%) adverse reaction. The combination of thalidomide and dexamethasone is rapidly effective and may represent a valuable second-line treatment for AL.

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

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

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

Retreatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (BD) in Multiple Myeloma as First-Line, Second-Line or Third-Line Treatment.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 4817-4817
Author(s):  
Juan Li ◽  
Beihui Huang ◽  
Ying Zhao ◽  
Dong Zheng ◽  
Shaokai Luo
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Purpose: To compare efficacy and safety of BDbortezomib and dexamethasone in multiple myeloma as first-line, second-line or third-line treatment. Patients and methods: 18 patients(pts) treated with BD (bortezomig 1.3mg/m2 on d 1,4,8,11 and dexamethasone 20mg on d 1–4 in a 21-day cycle). Responses were evaluated by the criteria of EBMT but a nCR was included. Adverse events were graded by the WHO criteria. Results: The median age was 52.5 years, and 13 (72.2%) were male. Ig subtypes were IgG, (8 pts, 44.4%), IgA (4 pts, 22.2%), light chain (2 pts, 11.1%), and IgD (1 pts, 5.9%). Durine/Salmon staging: IIA 5.9% (1/18), IIB 5.9% (1/18), IIIA 72.2% (13/18), IIIB16.6% (3/18). BD was administered in first-line (4 pts, 22.2%), second-line (7 pts 38.9%) and third-line (7 pts, 38.9%). The median number of BD cycles was 2.5 (range, 1–6 cycles). 17 pts could be evaluated, overall response was 88.3%, including CR in 2 pts (11.7%), nCR in 5 pts (29.4%), PR in 7 pts (41.2%), MR in 1 pts(5.9%), NC in 1 pts(5.9%), PD in 1 pts(5.9%). Pts in the first-line group received a response of 100%(4/4), including nCR in 1 pts (25.0%), PR in 2 pts (50.0%), MR in 1 pts(25.0%). The second-line group received a response of 100%(7/7), including CR in 1 pts(14.3%), nCR in 3 pts (42.9%), PR in 3 pts (42.9%). Those received BD as third-line or more got a response of 66.7% (4/6), including CR in 1 pts(16.7%), nCR in 1 pts (16.7%), PR in 2 pts (33.3%). Aderse events included diarrhea 44.4% (8/18; grade IV: 2/18), thrombocytopenia 44.4% (8/18; grade III–IV: 7/18), fatigue 44.4% (8/18; grade IV: 1/18), peripheral neuropathy 33.3% (6/18, grade II:1/18), pyrexia 22.2%, infection 16.7% (3/18), headache 11.1%(2/18), parageusis 11.1%(2/18), hypotension 5.9%(1/18), hypoglycemia 5.9%(1/18) while combining with glipizide. The median time to minimum counts of platets was 14 days. The median time to most serious peripheral neuropathy appeared after treatment of 3 cycles. In 1 pts the therapy was disrupted by toxicity. Conclusion: BD demonstrated better response as first-line or second-line therapy than as third or more line therapy. Toxicities were torelated and manegable. There were no treatment related deaths.

Activity of Idelalisib in High-Risk Follicular Lymphoma with Early Relapse Following Front Line Immunochemotherapy

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2744-2744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajay K Gopal ◽  
Brad S Kahl ◽  
Christopher Flowers ◽  
Peter Martin ◽  
Brian K Link ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent NHL with a heterogenous natural history of disease and a median survival of 8 to 12 y, albeit ranging between 1 to 20 y. Casulo et al. (2015) identified a high-risk FL cohort of patients with progression of disease (POD) at ≤24 months following initiation of immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP. Idelalisib (Zydelig) is a first-in-class, highly selective, oral inhibitor of PI3Kd which is indicated for relapsed FL or SLL following receipt of at least two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Retrospective subgroup analysis of the idelalisib registrational trial NCT01282424 (101-09) of a cohort with early POD following immunochemotherapy was performed to assess possible activity of idelalisib in this population. Methods: A subset of 46 patients enrolled in study 101-09 were identified as having been diagnosed with FL and having received first-line immunochemotherapy, of which 37 experienced early POD, defined as starting second-line treatment within 24 months of initial first-line treatment. For the latter group, descriptive statistics of demographic and baseline characteristics and inter-treatment intervals in months as well as Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) following initiation of immunochemotherapy and idelalisib were calculated. Population: Demographic characteristics of these 37 patients included median (range) age at initiation of idelalisib of 64 (33-84) y and 18 (48.6%) females. Histologic grade at diagnosis included 33 (89.2%) with grades 1 or 2 as well as 4 (10.8%) with grade 3A, while 21 (56.8%) patients had a FLIPI score ≥3. The mean (s.d.) number of prior therapies was 3.4±1.4, with a range of 2 to 8, while first-line therapies included 21 (56.8%) patients who received R-CHOP-based regimens, 7 (18.9%) who received BR, and 5 (13.5%) who received R-CVP. Mean (s.d.) inter-treatment intervals included 12.5±6.1 months between first- and second-line for all patients, 9.7±9.3 months between second- and third-line for all patients, 11.9±12.0 months between third- and fourth-line for 24 (64.9%) patients, and 11.8±7.6 months between fourth- and fifth-line for 15 (40.5%) patients. Median (range) time from first-line therapy to idelalisib initiation was 30.3 (8.9-94.7) months; no patient received idelalisib as second-line therapy. Results: Best responses included 5 (13.5%) patients with CR, 16 (43.2%) with PR, 2 (5.4%) with SD, and 1 (2.7%) with PD; median duration of response for those with CR or PR was 11.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 months, not evaluable). There were 7 (18.9%) deaths and 21 (56.8%) PFS events in this group. Estimated probabilities of survival (s.e.) and progression-free status at 2 y following initiation of idelalisib were 79%±7% and 29%±10%, respectively. Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.5, 19.3 months). Estimated probability of survival (s.e.) at 5 years following initiation of first-line treatment was 79%±8%. Median overall survival from both initiation of first-line immunochemotherapy as well as with idelalisib was not reached during the course of this study. Conclusions: Idelalisib may have significant clinical activity in high-risk and doubly-refractive FL following early relapse status post first-line immunochemotherapy. Given the small size of the studied subset population which may not be representative, further characterization in additional patients is warranted to ensure the generalizability of this finding, including consideration of further investigational protocols featuring targeted therapies employed both as single agents and in combination. Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 1. Overall Survival From Initiation of First-line Treatment Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 2. Overall Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Figure 3. Progression-Free Survival From Initiation of Idelalisib Disclosures Gopal: Gilead, Spectrum, Pfizer, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum, Pfizer, BioMarin, Cephalon/Teva, Emergent/Abbott. Gilead, Janssen., Merck, Milennium, Piramal, Seattle Genetics, Giogen Idec, BMS: Research Funding; Millennium, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Flowers:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celegene: Other: Unpaid consultant, Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Link:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Ye:Gilead: Employment. Koh:Gilead: Employment. Abella:Gilead: Employment. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Salles:Calistoga Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Celgene Corporation; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation; Roche and Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation; Roche: Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Real-World Treatment Patterns in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Evidence from a Cohort Review in the United Kingdom

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5947-5947
Author(s):  
Huamao Mark Lin ◽  
Keith L Davis ◽  
James A. Kaye ◽  
Katarina Luptakova ◽  
Saurabh Nagar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Additional Benefit ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Third Line

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Despite advancements in induction and maintenance therapies leading to improved response rates and overall survival (OS), virtually all patients with multiple myeloma (MM) eventually relapse. Improvement in outcomes in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains an area of unmet need, yet there is a shortage of data describing typical treatment patterns in these patients in real-world practice settings. Such data may help inform future health technology assessments and other regulatory evaluations of current and new therapies in RRMM. To help address this information gap, we analyzed retrospective data from a cohort of RRMM patients in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was conducted in a cohort (n = 216) of patients with RRMM in the UK. Patients were selected (based on randomly generated first letter of last name) from the caseloads of 41 hematology/oncology providers across the UK. Specific inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years of age at initial MM diagnosis; first determined to have RRMM between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, where RRMM was defined by (1) receipt of a first-line (induction) treatment regimen of chemotherapy with or without stem cell transplant (SCT) and with or without post-induction/SCT maintenance therapy and (2) disease progression while on or at any time after completion of first-line therapy. Patients were retrospectively assessed on second- and third-line treatment regimens received, treatment duration, and reasons for treatment discontinuation from date of first relapse or progression (study index date). All analyses were descriptive and exploratory in nature. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. Mean (SD) age at study index (first relapse, or RRMM diagnosis) was 65.6 (8.7) years, with approximately half of patients (53%) having advanced age (≥65 years). The study sample was 62.5% male and more than two-thirds of patients (69%) were still alive at the time of the medical record review. Among the 216 patients studied, 208 (97%) received ≥1 additional line of systemic chemotherapy after first relapse (Table 2); 94 patients (43%) received ≥2 additional lines of therapy (i.e., at least second- and third-line therapy) during the observation period. The most common second-line regimen was bortezomib + dexamethasone with or without other agents (66% of second-line initiators), followed by lenalidomide + dexamethasone with or without other agents (20%). Median duration of second-line treatment was 6 cycles over a median of 5.4 months. Among the 98% of patients who discontinued second-line treatment, a majority (62%) stopped therapy due to reaching complete response with no additional benefit expected; 33 patients (16%) discontinued second-line treatment due to disease progression and 8% discontinued due to toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone with or without other agents was the predominant third-line regimen (67% of third-line initiators); bortezomib + dexamethasone with or without other agents was the next most common third-line regimen (14%). Among the 94 patients receiving third-line treatment, median duration was 6 cycles over a median of 5.7 months. The leading reason for third-line discontinuation was disease progression (48%); 30% of patients discontinued because they reached complete response with no anticipated additional benefit, and 20% discontinued because of loss or lack of response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the RRMM cohort reviewed here, bortezomib-containing regimens were the predominant second-line therapy and lenalidomide + dexamethasone was the most common third-line regimen. The most common reasons for discontinuation of RRMM treatments were disease progression and physician-judged achievement of complete response with no additional benefit expected. While the most common reason for therapy discontinuation in second-line treatment was reaching complete response with no additional benefit expected, in third-line therapy it was disease progression. With growing evidence in the RRMM literature that treatment to progression may be superior to a fixed duration of therapy, as well as evidence of premature discontinuation being associated with inferior outcomes, the relatively short second-line duration reported here (<6 months) further highlights a potential unmet need in this disease area. Disclosures Lin: Takeda: Employment. Davis:Takeda: Research Funding. Kaye:Takeda: Research Funding. Luptakova:Takeda Oncology: Employment. Nagar:Takeda: Research Funding. Seal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document