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

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

Patterns of Total Costs of Care for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.2656.2656 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 2656-2656

Author(s):

Steven R. Arikian ◽

Dejan Milentijevic ◽

Gary Binder ◽

Mara Silvia Monzini ◽

X Henry Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Research Funding ◽

Direct Costs ◽

Drug Costs ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Monthly Total ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

The Cost ◽

Over Time

Abstract Introduction: As clinical evidence has mounted in support of novel agents and longer treatment (Tx) durations for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), questions have arisen regarding the economic impact of extending time to progression (TTP) in these pts, and the cost consequences once pts relapse and move to a second line of Tx. Previous analysis showed that relapsed myeloma pts incurred higher monthly costs once they advanced to later lines of Tx (Gaultney, 2013). There is limited information on the cost patterns of MM pts before and after their first relapse. A claims analysis was performed to evaluate the patterns of total direct costs of care, from Tx initiation until progression, for NDMM patients and for newly relapsed patients treated with novel agents, utilizing time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using a large US medical and pharmacy claims database, covering > 25 million lives annually. NDMM patients were identified with at least 2 outpatient claims or 1 inpatient medical claim associated 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 a minimum of 12 months' pre-index enrollment and 6 months' post-index continuous enrollment between 2006 and 2012. Pts with claims for stem cell transplantation (SCT) were excluded, to avoid confounding results from various factors based on timing, costs, and site of care of SCT. The analysis focused on NDMM and relapsed MM pts receiving lenalidomide (LEN)- or bortezomib (BORT)- based Tx, where complete claim history was available from Tx onset to initiation of subsequent Tx. Using methods similar to those described by Gaultney, patients' average monthly costs were determined, including medical (inpatient, ambulatory, and emergency room) and pharmacy (index and other drugs) costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated. Average Charlson comorbidity scores were determined to compare baseline measures between pt groups. Results: 897 NDMM pts and 280 relapsed MM pts were identified with complete data through initiation of subsequent Tx. Monthly total direct costs for NDMM pts were $15,400 in the first 3 months (mos) of Tx, and declined each quarter, reaching approximately $5,000/mo at 18+ mos. At relapse, monthly costs increased to over $12,000 for the first 3 mos and followed a quarterly pattern of reduction similar to that seen for NDMM pts (Fig 1). Quarterly cost reduction patterns were consistent for patients treated with LEN or BORT for both NDMM and relapsed pts. Pts' total monthly NDMM costs over the full TTNT period averaged $8,942 with LEN vs. $11,139 for BORT (due to 54% higher monthly medical costs for BORT), while monthly drug costs were nearly identical (Table 1). The baseline Charlson comorbidity index was similar between Tx groups in both lines of Tx. Figure 1: Direct monthly costs (medical and pharmacy) for LEN- and BORT-based treatments Figure 1:. Direct monthly costs (medical and pharmacy) for LEN- and BORT-based treatments Table 1: Direct monthly costs for NDMM pts Table 1 Table 1. Conclusions: For a population of NDMM pts receiving either LEN- or BORT-based Tx without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs per pt declined steadily over time, decreasing by 68% from the initial quarter to the period post 18 mos. Costs spiked when pts began 2nd-line therapy, then followed a similar pattern of decline over time. This pattern may suggest that further extending the TTP for NDMM pts may also yield economic benefits for each month extended before relapse. Patterns of cost decline were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, for NDMM and for relapsed patients, although mean monthly total costs were lower for NDMM pts receiving LEN-based Tx due to lower medical costs and similar drug costs. Disclosures Arikian: Genesis Research: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients . Milentijevic:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Binder:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Monzini:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hu:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Hussein:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Corvino:Genesis Research LLC: Consultancy. Surinach:Genesis Research LLC: Consultancy. Usmani:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-111121 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2243-2243

Author(s):

Ajai Chari ◽

Brian Ung ◽

Marc Tian ◽

Amit Agarwal ◽

Kejal Parikh

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Second Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Equity Ownership

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

Download Full-text

Crowdsourced High-Risk Classifiers for Multiple Myeloma Patients Commonly Identify PHF19 As a Robust Progression Biomarker

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127362 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4370-4370

Author(s):

Michael J Mason ◽

Carolina D. Schinke ◽

Christine Eng ◽

Fadi Towfic ◽

Fred Gruber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Plasma Cells ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy of terminally differentiated plasma cells residing within the bone marrow with 25,000-30,000 patients diagnosed in the United States each year. The disease's clinical course depends on a complex interplay chromosomal abnormalities and mutations within plasma cells and patient socio-demographic factors. Novel treatments extended the time to disease progression and overall survival for the majority of patients. However, a subset of 15%-20% of MM patients exhibit an aggressive disease course with rapid disease progression and poor overall survival regardless of treatment. Accurately predicting which patients are at high-risk is critical to designing studies with a better understanding of myeloma progression and enabling the discovery of novel therapeutics that extend the progression free period of these patients. To date, most MM risk models use patient demographic data, clinical laboratory results and cytogenetic assays to predict clinical outcome. High-risk associated cytogenetic alterations include deletion of 17p or gain of 1q as well as t(14;16), t(14;20), and most commonly t(4,14), which leads to juxtaposition of MMSET with the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus promoter, resulting in overexpression of the MMSET oncogene. While cytogenetic assays, in particular fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), are widely available, their risk prediction is sub-optimal and recently developed gene expression based classifiers predict more accurately rapid progression. To investigate possible improvements to models of myeloma risk, we organized the Multiple Myeloma DREAM Challenge, focusing on predicting high-risk, defined as disease progression or death prior to 18 months from diagnosis. This effort combined 4 discovery datasets providing participants with clinical, cytogenetic, demographic and gene expression data to facilitate model development while retaining 4 additional datasets, whose clinical outcome was not publicly available, in order to benchmark submitted models. This crowd-sourced effort resulted in the unbiased assessment of 171 predictive algorithms on the validation dataset (N = 823 unique patient samples). Analysis of top performing methods identified high expression of PHF19, a histone methyltransferase, as the gene most strongly associated with disease progression, showing greater predictive power than the expression level of the putative high-risk gene MMSET. We show that a simple 4 feature model composed of age, stage and the gene expression of PHF19 and MMSET is as accurate as much larger published models composed of over 50 genes combined with ISS and age. Results from this work suggest that combination of gene expression and clinical data increases accuracy of high risk models which would improve patient selection in the clinic. Disclosures Towfic: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dalton:MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Stiftung: Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding. Avet-Loiseau:takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding. Ortiz:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trotter:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dervan:Celgene: Employment. Flynt:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dai:M2Gen: Employment. Bassett:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shain:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Munshi:Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation, Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene Corporation: Other: Travel expenses. Walker:Celgene: Research Funding. Thakurta:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Phase 1 MMRC Trial of Selinexor, Carfilzomib (CFZ), and Dexamethasone (DEX) in Relapsed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4223.4223 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4223-4223 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Andrzej Jakubowiak ◽

Jagoda Jasielec ◽

Cara A. Rosenbaum ◽

Jeffrey A Zonder ◽

Craig E. Cole ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Level ◽

Research Funding ◽

Myeloma Cell ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Line Of Therapy

Abstract Background There is an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients (pts) refractory to currently available drugs, including the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib and Carfilzomib (CFZ), necessitating development of novel effective therapeutics. Pre-clinical evaluation of selinexor, a novel orally available selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE), in human myeloma cell lines (HMCL), primary plasma cells derived from myeloma patients, and HMCL tumor-bearing mice demonstrated synergistic myeloma cell death with CFZ (Rosebeck et al. ASH 2013) and the ability to overcome resistance to CFZ (Rosebeck et al. ASH 2014). Aims The primary objective is to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of selinexor and CFZ in combination with DEX in RRMM pts and to provide preliminary evaluation of efficacy of this novel triplet regimen. Methods Pts with RRMM, including CFZ-refractory pts, who have failed at least two prior treatment regimens of myeloma therapy, were eligible for enrollment. Dose escalation follows the 3+3 design with pts receiving 30 mg/m2 - 40 mg/m2 selinexor PO on days 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17; 20 mg/m2 - 56 mg/m2 CFZ given IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, and DEX PO 20/10mg (cycles 1-4/cycles 5+) in 28-day cycles. At least 12 and up to 48 pts are planned for evaluation. Dose Limiting Toxicities (DLT) are measured for the Cycle 1 as well as Day 1 of Cycle 2. Dose modifications are allowed to manage toxicities. Response was assessed by IMWG criteria plus near complete response (nCR). Results As of July 1st, 2015 the study has enrolled 8 pts, 5 pts were treated at dose level 1 (30 mg/m2 selinexor, 20/27 mg/m2 CFZ, 20/10 mg DEX) and 3 patients were treated at dose level 2a (30 mg/m2 selinexor, 20/36 mg/m2 CFZ, 20/10 mg DEX). Pts had median age of 65.5 (range 55-73) and a median of 5 prior treatment regimens (range 2-5). Six pts were refractory to CFZ combinations at their last line of therapy, including 4 to CFZ, pomalidomide (POM), and DEX. Of the 2 remaining pts, 1 was refractory to high dose CFZ with DEX in prior line of therapy and both were refractory to last line of therapy. Six pts were DLT-evaluable and two pts required replacement for DLT evaluation (1 pt had DEX reduced in cycle 1 not due to DLT; 1 pt did not receive all scheduled cycle 1 doses due to progressive disease). There have been no DLTs and MTD is not yet established. Adverse events (AEs) were reversible and managed with concomitant therapy. G3/4 hematologic AEs include thrombocytopenia (75%), neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (37.5%), lymphopenia (25%), and anemia (25%). The most common G3/4 non-hematologic AEs included fatigue (25%) and upper respiratory tract infection (25%). The most common G1/2 AEs are fatigue (75%), dyspnea (62.5%), nausea (62.5%), anemia (50%), leukopenia (50%), and thrombocytopenia (50%). Response rates for all enrolled pts are 87.5% ≥MR, 75% ≥PR, 12.5% ≥VGPR. Responses occurred rapidly; after 1 cycle: 75% ≥MR, 63% ≥PR, 12.5% VGPR. As of the cut off date, 4 pts have progressed (after 1, 2, 4, and 4 months) and 4 pts remain on treatment (10+, 1+, 1+, and 1+ months); 1 pt did not respond and died due to progression of disease. Conclusions Although still very early, the combination of selinexor, CFZ, and DEX demonstrates encouraging activity with 75% PR or better and no unexpected toxicities in highly refractory MM pts, including those previously refractory to CFZ. Responses in pts refractory to very active CFZ combinations in the last line of therapy suggest that this regimen has the ability to overcome CFZ resistance. Disclosures Jakubowiak: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: The combination of Carfilzomib and Selinexor is being used for the treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Rosenbaum:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research support; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chari:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rashal:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Youssoufian:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Henry:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shacham:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kauffman:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone Following Second-Line Lenalidomide-Based Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Phase 2 Study Investigating Efficacy and Safety

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4497.4497 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4497-4497

Author(s):

David S. Siegel ◽

Gary J. Schiller ◽

Kevin W. Song ◽

Richy Agajanian ◽

Keith Stockerl-Goldstein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

T Cells ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Group Performance ◽

Comparable Efficacy ◽

Second Line ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide (POM) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) is approved for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) who have had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide (LEN) and a proteasome inhibitor. Although LEN and POM are both IMiD® immunomodulatory agents, preclinical studies have shown that LEN is not cross-resistant with POM (Ocio et al, Leukemia, 2015) and that LEN-resistant myeloma cells remain sensitive to POM (Lopez-Girona et al, Leukemia, 2012). Furthermore, sub-analyses of the MM-002 and MM-003 trials demonstrated that POM + LoDEX had comparable efficacy in pts refractory to their last prior Tx with LEN as in the overall pt population (San Miguel et al, Lancet Oncol, 2013; Richardson et al, Blood, 2014). Here, we present an updated analysis of MM-014, a single-arm, phase 2 trial of POM + LoDEX in pts with MM relapsed or refractory to LEN-based second-line therapy. Methods: Pts were ≥ 18 years old with a documented diagnosis of MM, measurable disease, 2 prior lines of Tx, and progressive disease after ≥ 2 cycles of second-line Tx with a LEN-based therapy. The Tx regimen was POM 4 mg/day on days 1-21 and LoDEX 40 mg/day (20 mg/day for pts > 75 years old) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle; thromboprophylaxis was mandatory. Responses were assessed using modified International Myeloma Working Group criteria. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response [PR]). Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) were monitored and recorded as serious AEs regardless of relationship to Tx. Exploratory endpoints included measures to identify potential molecular, immune, and cellular biomarkers for POM + LoDEX response, resistance, or mechanism of action. Results: Of 51 enrolled pts (N = 85 planned), 16 (31.4%) remain on Tx, and 35 (68.6%) discontinued from Tx (n = 20 due to PD, n = 7 due to withdrawal by pt, and n = 2 each due to adverse event [AE], death, lack of efficacy, and other reasons). The median age was 68.0 years, and most pts (92.2%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 1; 34 pts (66.7%) were refractory to their last Tx with LEN, and 37 (72.5%), 2 (3.9%), and 1 (2.0%) pts had prior Tx with bortezomib, carfilzomib, or ixazomib, respectively. A total of 33 pts (64.7%) had prior stem cell transplant. The median duration of the most recent prior LEN-containing Tx was 24.6 months, and the median study follow-up time was 11.4 months. The ORR was 31.4%, including 3.9% (n = 2) with complete response, 5.9% (n = 3) with very good PR, and 21.6% (n = 11) with PR. The clinical benefit rate (≥ minimal response) was 41.2%. Of the 16 pts who achieved ≥ PR, 12 (75.0%) have an ongoing response; median TTR in these pts was 1.9 months. The median DOR based on Kaplan-Meier estimates was not reached. The 1-year PFS, OS, and TTP rates were 60.2%, 87.4%, and 64.6%, respectively. Common (≥ 5%) grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (23.5%), neutropenia (13.7%), thrombocytopenia (9.8%), fatigue (7.8%), and infections (19.6%; including pneumonia [7.8%]). AEs of special interest (any grade) included pulmonary embolism (3.9%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.9%); no SPMs were observed. The immune subset analysis showed a significantly elevated proportion of CD3+/CD8+ T cells after Tx (cycle 3, 5, day 1) compared with baseline (37.6% vs 30.5% of total lymphocytes; P < .01). A similar trend toward elevated proportions of CD3+ T cells (73.7% vs 66.6%) was observed; however, the difference was not significant. There was no significant change in CD3+/CD4+ T cells (35.9% vs 35.5%). Conclusions: This updated analysis of the MM-014 trial demonstrates the safety and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in pts who were relapsed or refractory to their last prior Tx with LEN. Results suggest that POM + LoDEX can be used immediately following LEN-based therapy to treat pts with relapsed/refractory MM. The study has been amended to include a cohort of pts treated with POM + LoDEX + daratumumab. Investigations of additional biomarkers, high-risk genetic aberrations, clonal evolution, and minimal residual disease in MM-014 are currently underway. Disclosures Siegel: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Song:Otsuka: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Kaya:Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Sebag:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Reu:Celgene, Novartis and Takeda: Research Funding; Signal Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy. Mouro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chung:Celgene: Employment. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment; Individual Patent: Patents & Royalties: US7,495,673B1 Used for MM-Connect Treatment Patterns Abstract.. Qian:Celgene: Employment. Rizvi:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thakurta:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-125972 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4722-4722

Author(s):

Megan Braunlin ◽

Rajesh Belani ◽

Jacqueline Buchanan ◽

John Travis Wheeling ◽

Christopher Kim

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Second Line ◽

Front Line ◽

First Line ◽

Electronic Health Record Data ◽

Employment Equity ◽

The Us ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Electronic Health

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

The Combination of Vorinostat and Bortezomib Provides Long-Term Responses in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3886.3886 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3886-3886 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Donna Weber ◽

Ronald Sobecks ◽

Gary J Schiller ◽

Lisa Lupinacci ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Histone Deacetylase ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Duration ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Bortezomib Treatment ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Experienced Grade

Abstract Abstract 3886 Poster Board III-822 Introduction A better understanding of multiple myeloma (MM) disease biology has led to the development of targeted agents such as the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. While bortezomib has provided significant survival advantages for both previously untreated and treated patients with MM, nearly all patients eventually relapse or become refractory to bortezomib therapy. Therefore, there remains a need to develop specific new approaches that are active against MM or enhance the efficacy of existing treatments. Vorinostat (Zolinza®), a potent oral inhibitor of Class I and Class II histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes, has demonstrated antiproliferative and proapoptotic activity in preclinical models of MM as a single agent and in combination with bortezomib. Preliminary results from an ongoing open-label, escalating dose, multicenter Phase I trial of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib have shown that the combination is generally well tolerated and effective in heavily pretreated patients with advanced MM (Weber et al. Clinical Lymphoma and Myeloma 2009; 9: S44, abstract A248), including patients refractory to prior bortezomib treatment (Weber et al. Clinical Lymphoma and Myeloma 2009; 9: S42, abstract A242). Here we report the safety and efficacy results for a cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory MM who have received ≥12 cycles of treatment with vorinostat in combination with bortezomib. Methods Patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory MM (ECOG performance status 0-2) were sequentially enrolled on escalating doses of vorinostat combination therapy using a standard 3+3 design for ≤8 cycles. Cycles were repeated every 21 days and consisted of vorinostat 200 mg bid or 400 mg once daily (Days 1-14) in combination with bortezomib 0.7 or 0.9 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 4, 8, 11, and 15; or escalated to 0.9, 1.1, or 1.3 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11. The addition of oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1-4 and 9-12 of each cycle was permitted for disease progression (PD). Patients without disease progression at Cycle 8 were allowed to continue on study treatment. Results Of the 34 patients who have entered the study, 9 have received combined vorinostat and bortezomib treatment for ≥12 cycles and are the focus of this report. In this population, drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 9/9 patients; 99% of these AEs were mild to moderate in severity (NCI Grade 1-3) and 6 patients had serious AEs (9 events). One patient experienced Grade 4 neutropenia, and 5 patients experienced Grade 3 drug-related AEs. The most common drug-related toxicities of any grade were diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. The best responses observed in 9 evaluable patients were 5 partial response (duration 147 to 609 days), 2 minimal response (duration 42 to 161 days), and 2 stable disease (duration 371 to 742 days). Seven of 9 patients have now discontinued treatment; all due to progressive disease (median [range] time to progression was 294 days [42 to 742 days]). Conclusions These preliminary data indicate that extended treatment with vorinostat in combination with bortezomib (+/- dexamethasone) administered in a 21-day cycle shows significant long-term clinical activity with acceptable tolerability in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Disclosures: Jagannath: Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Ad Board, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor that was approved in the FDA in October 2006 for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) who have progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease on or following two systemic therapies. Weber:Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene : Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck : Research Funding, unpaid advisory board. Schiller:Denzyme: Research Funding; Cellegne: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Centocor: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vion: Research Funding. Lupinacci:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reiser:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Allen:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rizvi:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Daratumumab, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Based on Prior Treatment Exposure: Updated Efficacy Analysis of Castor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3313.3313 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3313-3313 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Asher A. Chanan-Khan ◽

Suzanne Lentzsch ◽

Hang Quach ◽

Noemi Horvath ◽

Marcelo Capra ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Line Of Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P<0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P<0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Phase II Trial of the Combination of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117871 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 804-804 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Mark Bustoros ◽

Chia-jen Liu ◽

Kaitlen Reyes ◽

Kalvis Hornburg ◽

Kathleen Guimond ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Bone Marrow ◽

High Risk ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Rna Sequencing ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background. This study aimed to determine the progression-free survival and response rate using early therapeutic intervention in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) using the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Methods. Patients enrolled on study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al., Blood 2014. The treatment plan was designed to be administered on an outpatient basis where patients receive 9 cycles of induction therapy of ixazomib (4mg) at days 1, 8, and 15, in combination with lenalidomide (25mg) at days 1-21 and Dexamethasone at days 1, 8, 15, and 22. This induction phase is followed by ixazomib (4mg) and lenalidomide (15mg) maintenance for another 15 cycles. A treatment cycle is defined as 28 consecutive days, and therapy is administered for a total of 24 cycles total. Bone marrow samples from all patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment, whole exome sequencing (WES), and RNA sequencing of plasma and bone marrow microenvironment cells. Moreover, blood samples were obtained at screening and before each cycle to isolate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Stem cell collection is planned for all eligible patients. Results. In total, 26 of the planned 56 patients were enrolled in this study from February 2017 to April 2018. The median age of the patients enrolled was 63 years (range, 41 to 73) with 12 males (46.2%). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) was successful in 18 patients. High-risk cytogenetics (defined as the presence of t(4;14), 17p deletion, and 1q gain) were found in 11 patients (61.1%). The median number of cycles completed was 8 cycles (3-15). The most common toxicities were fatigue (69.6%), followed by rash (56.5%), and neutropenia (56.5%). The most common grade 3 adverse events were hypophosphatemia (13%), leukopenia (13%), and neutropenia (8.7%). One patient had grade 4 neutropenia during treatment. Additionally, grade 4 hyperglycemia occurred in another patient. As of this abstract date, the overall response rate (partial response or better) in participants who had at least 3 cycles of treatment was 89% (23/26), with 5 Complete Responses (CR, 19.2%), 9 very good partial responses (VGPR, 34.6%), 9 partial responses (34.6%), and 3 Minimal Responses (MR, 11.5%). None of the patients have shown progression to overt MM to date. Correlative studies including WES of plasma cells and single-cell RNA sequencing of the bone microenvironment cells are ongoing to identify the genomic and transcriptomic predictors for the differential response to therapy as well as for disease evolution. Furthermore, we are analyzing the cfDNA and CTCs of the patients at different time points to investigate their use in monitoring minimal residual disease and disease progression. Conclusion. The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is an effective and well-tolerated intervention in high-risk smoldering myeloma. The high response rate, convenient schedule with minimal toxicity observed to date are promising in this patient population at high risk of progression to symptomatic disease. Further studies and longer follow up for disease progression are warranted. Disclosures Bustoros: Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Munshi:OncoPep: Other: Board of director. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda Millennium: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopep: Equity Ownership. Richardson:Celgene: 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ghobrial:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

The Epitope Targeted by Apoptosis-Inducing ICAM-1 Antibody B11 Is Highly Expressed in Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.4897.4897 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 4897-4897

Author(s):

Markus Hansson ◽

Niina Veitonmäki ◽

Anders Lindblom ◽

Björn Frendéus

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Drug Resistance ◽

Cell Adhesion ◽

Disease Progression ◽

Plasma Cells ◽

Human Tumor ◽

University Hospital ◽

Employment Equity ◽

New Drug ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 4897 Complex adhesive and non-cognate interactions participate in multiple myeloma disease progression, resistance to apoptosis, and development of drug resistance. In spite of significant recent attempts to develop new drug classes targeting both myeloma and its microenvironment, multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease warranting development of more effective therapies. Applying novel combined target and drug discovery methodology we isolated a human tumor cell apoptosis-inducing antibody (IgG B11) targeting ICAM-1, as previously described. ICAM-1 is a cell adhesion molecule strongly implicated in myeloma pathophysiology, both regarding bone marrow stromal cell mediated disease progression and cell adhesion mediated drug resistance. We here characterize B11 epitope expression by multicolor FACS analysis in 25 patients investigated for multiple myeloma referred to Department of Hematology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden and 5 healthy controls. The B11 epitope was highly expressed in plasma cells in 5 of 5 patients with myeloma and in 1 of 1 patient with AL (light chain) amyloidosis. A comprehensive preclinical program assessing IgG B11 anti-myeloma activity and evaluating IgG B11 safety has been conducted. Based on these studies, and having received an investigational new drug (IND) approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), clinical phase I trials with IgG B11 will soon commence. Disclosures Veitonmäki: BioInvent International: Employment. Lindblom:BioInvent International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Frendéus:BioInvent International AB: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties.

Download Full-text