scholarly journals Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Are Effective in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in a Real-Life Setting: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in Taiwan

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Chin Hung ◽  
Jyh-Pyng Gau ◽  
Shang-Yi Huang ◽  
Bor-Sheng Ko ◽  
Chieh-Lin Jerry Teng
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Real Life Setting ◽  
Multicenter Registry

BackgroundThe therapeutic options of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain a challenge. The MM-003 trial demonstrated that RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom/Dex) have better progression-free survival (PFS) than those treated with high-dose dexamethasone alone. However, the real-world effectiveness of Pom/Dex in these patients in Taiwan remains unclear.MethodsThis multicenter, registry-based study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 49 consecutive patients undergoing Pom/Dex treatment for RRMM. We investigated the overall response rate (ORR) and PFS in these patients. The patients were stratified into two groups: those who received two (n=33) and those who received more than two (n=16) prior lines of treatment according to the numbers of regimens before Pom/Dex therapy. The differences in ORR and PFS between these two groups were further analyzed. We also analyzed factors attributed to disease progression.ResultsThe ORR was 47.7%, and the median PFS was 4.0 months (range, 0.1−21.1). Patients who received two prior lines of treatment had a higher ORR than those who received more than two prior lines of treatment (55.2% vs. 33.3%; p=0.045). The median PFS of these groups was 4.8 and 3.9 months, respectively (p=0.805). Primary lenalidomide refractoriness reduced the risk of myeloma progression following Pom/Dex treatment (hazard ratio, 0.14; p=0.001).ConclusionsThe median PFS following Pom/Dex treatment in Taiwanese RRMM patients in a real-world setting was similar to that reported by the MM-003 trial. Primary lenalidomide refractoriness should not be an obstacle for Pom/Dex treatment in RRMM.

scholarly journals Real-world outcomes of pomalidomide therapy after lenalidomide induction in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomer Mark ◽  
Angelica Falkenstein ◽  
Jonathan Kish
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Disease Response ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Retrospective Database Analysis ◽  
Good Partial Response ◽  
Retrospective Database

Aim: To demonstrate the efficacy of pomalidomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) following treatment in real-world, community practice using retrospective database analysis. Materials & methods: US-based community oncologists identified patients with RRMM treated with or without pomalidomide following first-line lenalidomide. Disease response (≥ very good partial response) and progression-free survival were compared. Results: Disease response was 78.6 and 51.7% for pomalidomide (n = 126) and nonpomalidomide cohorts (n = 174), respectively (p < 0.0001). Multivariate adjusted odds of response were 4.5-times greater for pomalidomide cohort (p < 0.0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached for pomalidomide cohort and 16.7 months for nonpomalidomide cohort (log-rank p < 0.01). Conclusion: Following lenalidomide induction in RRMM, pomalidomide is an effective treatment.

Safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
Mohamad Hussein ◽  
James Berenson ◽  
Seema Singhal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Prior Treatment ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM); however, toxicities from dexamethasone can be dose limiting. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Patients (N = 222) received lenalidomide 30 mg/day once daily (days 1-21 every 28 days) until disease progression or intolerance. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed. Overall, 67% of patients had received 3 or more prior treatment regimens. Partial response or better was reported in 26% of patients, with minimal response 18%. There was no difference between patients who had received 2 or fewer versus 3 or more prior treatment regimens (45% vs 44%, respectively). Median values for TTP, PFS, and OS were 5.2, 4.9, and 23.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (39%), and anemia (20%), which proved manageable with dose reduction. Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients. Lenalidomide monotherapy is active in relapsed and refractory MM with acceptable toxicities. These data support treatment with single-agent lenalidomide, as well as its use in steroid-sparing combination approaches. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00065351.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior thalidomide exposure

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (12) ◽  
pp. 4445-4451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wang ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Christine Chen ◽  
M. Teresa Cibeira ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Survival Studies

AbstractThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with thalidomide. Of 704 patients, 39% were thalidomide exposed. Thalidomide-exposed patients had more prior lines of therapy and longer duration of myeloma than thalidomide-naive patients. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone led to higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + dexamethasone despite prior thalidomide exposure. Among lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients, ORR was higher in thalidomide-naive versus thalidomide-exposed patients (P = .04), with longer median TTP (P = .04) and PFS (P = .02). Likewise for dexamethasone alone-treated patients (P = .03 for ORR, P = .03 for TTP, P = .06 for PFS). Prior thalidomide did not affect survival in lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients (36.1 vs 33.3 months, P > .05). Thalidomide-naive and thalidomide-exposed patients had similar toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone resulted in higher rates of venous thromboembolism, myelosuppression, and infections versus placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Lenalido-mide + dexamethasone was superior to placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Although prior thalidomide may have contributed to inferior TTP and PFS compared with thalidomide-naive patients, these parameters remained superior compared with placebo + dexamethasone; similar benefits compared with placebo + dexamethasone were not evident for thalidomide-exposed patients in terms of overall survival. Studies were registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00056160 and NCT00424047.

scholarly journals Carfilzomib Based Treatment Strategies in the Management of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Extramedullary Disease

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Zhou ◽  
Patricia Flüchter ◽  
Katharina Nickel ◽  
Katharina Meckel ◽  
Janin Messerschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Serological Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Extramedullary Disease ◽  
Heavily Pretreated ◽  
Pretreated Patients

Published experience with carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and extramedullary disease (EMD) is still limited. The current study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib containing therapy regimens in EMD. We retrospectively analyzed 45 patients with extramedullary RRMM treated with carfilzomib from June 2013 to September 2019. The median age at the start of carfilzomib was 64 (range 40–80) years. Twenty (44%) and 25 (56%) patients had paraosseous manifestation and EMD without adjacency to bone, respectively. The serological overall response rate (ORR) was 59%. Extramedullary response was evaluable in 33 patients, nine (27%) of them achieved partial remission (PR) (ORR = 27%). In 15 (33%) patients, we observed no extramedullary response despite serological response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were five (95% CI, 3.5–6.5) and ten (95% CI, 7.5–12.5) months, respectively. EMD without adjacency to bone was associated with a significantly inferior PFS (p = 0.004) and OS (p = 0.04) compared to paraosseous lesions. Carfilzomib based treatment strategies showed some efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with extramedullary RRMM but could not overcome the negative prognostic value of EMD. Due to the discrepancy between serological and extramedullary response, evaluation of extramedullary response using imaging is mandatory in these patients.

Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic Transplantation in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 2759-2759
Author(s):  
Sabine Gerull ◽  
Ute Hegenbart ◽  
Martin Goerner ◽  
Axel Benner ◽  
Thomas Moehler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Chronic Gvhd ◽  
Autologous Transplantation ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Allogeneic Transplantation ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Number Of Cycles

Abstract Patients with recurrent and refractory multiple myeloma have a very limited survival expectance. Allogeneic transplantation might offer an option for cure in myeloma and the recent development of non-myeloablative conditioning regimens has reduced transplant related morbidity and mortality and rendered this treatment feasible in elderly patients. The role of non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma however, has not yet been defined. We have analyzed the results of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated at our institution. Between 08/1999 and 02/2004, 56 patients with relapsed (n=54) or refractory (n=2) myeloma were treated with non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation. The median beta2microglobulin at the time of diagnosis was 2.75 mg/l, and median age at the time of transplant was 54.5 years (39.2–67.8). The median time from diagnosis to transplant was 3.6 years. Prior to allogeneic transplantation, patients received reinduction chemotherapy which included an autologous transplantation for 30 patients. The median number of previous cycles of conventional chemotherapy was 9. The conditioning regimen was 2 Gy TBI with (n=43) or without (n=3) fludarabin 3 x 30 mg/m² for 46 patients, the remaining 10 patients received a melphalan containing regimen. Acute toxicity was low with a WBC &lt; 500/μl and platelets &lt; 50/μl for a median of 0 days. Engraftment was prompt with 90 % of patients having achieved &gt; 90 % donor chimerism by day 56. Acute GvHD Grade II-IV occurred in 36 % of patients with 22 % Grade III-IV, and 61 % experienced chronic GvHD. Total transplant related mortality reached 20 %, with a day 100 TRM of 5 %. 32 patients experienced relapse or progressive disease, and 32 % of patients died due to relapse. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival and progression free survival at 18 months was 40 % and 25 %, respectively, with a median follow up of survivors of 21 months. Patients who experienced cGvHD had a significantly higher overall survival estimate (60 % vs. 20 % at 18 months, p=0.03). The number of cycles of pretreatment before allogeneic transplantation had a statistically significant negative influence on overall (p=0.02) and progression free survival (p=0.006). We conclude that non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation is feasible in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. The significant poor prognostic factors we identified were absence of chronic GvHD and number of cycles of pretreatment. Allogeneic transplantion should therefore be considered as an option earlier in the course of the disease.

Limited Feasibility of Double Transplant Program: A Multicenter Study on 151 Multiple Myeloma Patients Aged≤65 Years.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 1175-1175
Author(s):  
A. Corso ◽  
S. Mangiacavalli ◽  
L. Barbarano ◽  
E. P. Alessandrino ◽  
R. Cairoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Peripheral Blood Stem Cells ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Transplant Program ◽  
Related Mortality

Abstract High dose therapy represents the gold standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts), with no definite agreement about the adoption of single or double transplant. From January 2000 to December 2004, 151 consecutive MM pts aged ≤65 years in stage II, III or I in progression according to Durie-Salmon were enrolled in a multicenter no randomised high dose program including a tandem transplant (Tx1; Tx2). The protocol was designed as follows: 2 pulse-VAD as induction, 2 DCEP to mobilise peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC), double auto-transplant 3-6 months apart each conditioned with high-dose Melphalan at the dose of 200 mg/m2. Patients characteristics at the enrolment: males 76 (51%), females 75 (49%), median age 55 (range: 35–65), stage I in progression 26 (17%), stage II 25 (16%), stage III 100 (67%). Response rates after each phase for the evaluable patients are reported in the table below VAD (151 pts) DCEP (146 pts) Tx1 (119 pts) Tx2 (63 pts) CR (%) 4 9 18 29 VGPR (%) 28 35 48 60 PR (%) 44 30 25 9 SD (%) 18 10 2 0 Progr (%) 6 16 7 0 Patients not addressed to transplant for mobilization failure were only 5%. Most of the patients (75%) collected ≥ 4x106CD34+cells/Kg after each DCEP-cycle which were considered adequate to rescue hemopoiesis after each transplant. The whole protocol was well-tolerated. In particular, no therapy related mortality was associated to pulse-VAD, or DCEP, and no difference between Tx1 and Tx2 as far the transplant related mortality was registered (1.5% after each transplant). Second transplant was not performed in 48 pts for the following reasons: 8 pts (7%) did not collect enough PBSC, 8 pts (7%) have had severe toxicity with the first transplant; 8 pts (7%) underwent allo-TMO; 7 pts (6%) had progressive disease and 15 pts (12%) refused Tx2. Finally only 76 pts (50% of the enrolled pts) completed the program with the second transplant. Analysing data on an intention-to-treat basis, median follow-up was 30 months, median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 31 months, median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The median Event Free Survival (calculated from the completion of Tx1 to progression or any other event) was 20 months. No difference in terms of PFS and EFS was found comparing pts who finally received only Tx1, with those who completed the protocol (p=0.9; p=0.5). The EFS was not statistically different for patients receiving one or two transplant even when the analysis was performed according to the type of response achieved after Tx1. In conclusion, despite higher percentage of good quality responses (CR+VGPR) can be obtained with 2 transplants with respect to 1 (66% vs 89%) without additional toxicity, no difference in terms of PFS or EFS were observed between the patients who underwent 1 or 2 transplants. Thus, keeping into account the more complex management of patients in a tandem transplant program, it might be more advantageous to perform as initial therapeutic approach, high-dose protocol including only 1 transplant procedure.

Efficacy of Single-Agent Bortezomib Versus Thalidomide in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 5160-5160
Author(s):  
Miles Prince ◽  
Michael Adena ◽  
Dell Kingsford Smith ◽  
Judy Hertel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
English Literature ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
One Year ◽  
Intent To Treat

Abstract Aim: To perform a systematic review of the efficacy of monotherapy with bortezomib versus thalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: Published English literature from 1966 to June 2005 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library), publication reference lists, Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd data-on-file, and abstracts from recent multiple myeloma conferences were reviewed. Prospective studies containing at least a single arm of any treatment group with n ≥ 30 and using continuing or variable thalidomide dosing were included. Studies adding dexamethasone for non-responders were excluded. Outcomes were analysed on an intent-to-treat basis. Statistical pooling was performed where possible for the following outcome measures: primary outcome of response rate, defined by a serum M-protein reduction ≥50% (A) and strict (e.g. EBMT) criteria (B), and for the secondary outcomes of overall survival and progression-free survival. Results: One bortezomib (n=333, APEX, NEJM2005, 352; 2487–98) and 15 thalidomide (n=1007) studies were included. Patient baseline characteristics including age, gender, IgG:IgA, disease duration and β2M were well matched, except that 48% of bortezomib patients had received prior thalidomide. On an intent-to-treat basis, the overall estimate for response rate (A) was 53% for patients receiving bortezomib versus 32% for thalidomide (p&lt;0.001, n=10 studies). For response rate (B) the estimate was 36% for patients receiving bortezomib versus 22% for thalidomide (p&lt;0.001, n=4 studies). One-year survival was 81% for patients receiving bortezomib versus 67% for thalidomide (p&lt;0.001, n=6 studies). Due to differences in disease monitoring and definitions of progression, it was not possible to compare results for progression-free survival. Conclusion: In patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, bortezomib achieved significantly higher response rates and longer one-year survival than thalidomide, despite 48% of bortezomib-treated patients having received prior thalidomide.

Thalidomide Based Regimens (TBR) for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients: Long Term Follow Up, Unmaintained Remissions and Disease Control after Subsequent Treatments.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 4812-4812
Author(s):  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Athanasios Anagnostopoulos ◽  
Evangelos Eleftherakis-Papaiakovou ◽  
Charis Matsouka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Group A ◽  
Pulse Dexamethasone ◽  
Group B

Abstract Introduction: The effectiveness of thalidomide based regimens (TBR) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma is well established. However, there are still limited data regarding the long term follow up after such regimens and the outcome of patients when they progress and they receive further treatment. In order to answer these questions we evaluated a series of 114 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated with TBR. None of these patients had previously received thalidomide, bortezomib or lenalidomide. Patients and Methods: All patients were treated with thalidomide and dexamethasone with or without other oral agents. More specifically 41 patients had received continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 25 patients clarithromycin, continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 43 patients intermittent thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide and 5 patients continuous thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide. Type of treatment at the time of progression after TBR, response to this treatment and progression free survival were recorded for each patient. Moreover, patients who received novel agents after progression to TBR, were divided into 2 subgroups, according to their resistance to thalidomide. In group A, patients had refractory or progressive myeloma while on TBR or within 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. In group B, myeloma progressed more than 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. Results: Among the 114 patients, 41 had not responded to TBR and 73 (64%) had achieved at least a partial response. The median PFS for all patients was 8 months. As of June 2007, 10 patients remain without progression from 28 to 81 months (median 54 months). Eight patients remain off treatment and without progression for a median of 56 months (range 28–81). Patients who did not respond to or progressed after TBR were analyzed for further treatment and outcome. Thirty eight patients (37%) died before receiving further treatment, 23 patients (23%) received conventional chemotherapy and 41 patients (40%) received continuous thalidomide and dexamethasone +/− clarithromycin or cyclophosphamide (17 patients), bortezomib and dexamethasone (7 patients), melphalan-bortezomib-dexamethasone and intermittent thalidomide (12 patients) or lenalidomide with dexamethasone (5 patients). Among these 41 patients, 24 were classified in group A (thalidomide resistant) and 17 in group B. Overall 17 (41%) achieved at least partial response after retreatment with novel agent-based regimens. A response was observed in 46% of patients in group A and in 35% of patients in group B. The median progression free survival of the 41 patients who received retreatment with novel agents was 9.2 months and the median survival was 17 months. Among the 23 patients who received conventional chemotherapy only five (21%) patients responded and the progression free survival and the median survival were 5.3 and 10.2 months, respectively. Conclusions: After an oral TBR regimen 6 (5%) patients remain without treatment and free of progression for more than 4 years. A significant number of patients who progressed after TBR and who received further treatment which included a novel agent achieved a response, including several patients who were resistant to TBR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document