Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (5)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (5)
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2021 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Artikel / Aufsatz in einer Zeitschrift (5) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Schlagworte
- lenalidomide (2)
- multiple myeloma (2)
- myeloma (2)
- CD38 (1)
- SLAMF7 (1)
- bortezomib (1)
- cancer genetics (1)
- cancer genomics (1)
- cancer therapy (1)
- clinical study (1)
- efficacy (1)
- elotuzumab (1)
- frail (1)
- induction regimen (1)
- kidney (1)
- lenalidomide-refractory patients (1)
- monoclonal antibody (1)
- pomalidomide (1)
- renal failure (1)
- translational research (1)
Background
In the phase 3 ALCYONE study, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. We present a subgroup analysis of ALCYONE by patient frailty status.
Patients and Methods
Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit (0), intermediate (1), or frail (≥2); a nonfrail category combined fit and intermediate patients.
Results
Among randomized patients (D-VMP, n = 350; VMP, n = 356), 391 (55.4%) were nonfrail (D-VMP, 187 [53.4%]; VMP, 204 [57.3%]) and 315 (44.6%) were frail (163 [46.6%]; 152 [42.7%]). After 40.1-months median follow-up, nonfrail patients had longer PFS and OS than frail patients, but benefits of D-VMP versus VMP were maintained across subgroups: PFS nonfrail (median, 45.7 vs. 19.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0001), frail (32.9 vs. 19.5 months; HR, 0.51; P < .0001); OS nonfrail (36-month rate, 83.6% vs. 74.5%), frail (71.4% vs. 59.0%). Improved greater than or equal to complete response and minimal residual disease (10−5)-negativity rates were observed for D-VMP versus VMP across subgroups. The 2 most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (nonfrail: 39.2% [D-VMP] and 42.4% [VMP]; frail: 41.3% and 34.4%) and thrombocytopenia (nonfrail: 32.8% and 36.9%; frail: 36.9% and 39.1%).
Conclusion
Our findings support the clinical benefit of D-VMP in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in ALCYONE, regardless of frailty status.
Background
The anti-SLAMF7 monoclonal antibody, elotuzumab (elo), plus lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) is approved for relapsed/refractory MM in the U.S. and Europe. Recently, a small phase 2 study demonstrated an advantage in progression-free survival (PFS) for elo plus pomalidomide (pom)/dex compared to pom/dex alone and resulted in licensing of this novel triplet combination, but clinical experience is still limited.
Purpose
To analyze the efficacy and safety of elo/pom/dex in a “real world” cohort of patients with advanced MM, we queried the databases of the university hospitals of Würzburg and Vienna.
Findings
We identified 22 patients with a median number of five prior lines of therapy who received elo/pom/dex prior to licensing within an early access program. Patients received a median number of 5 four-week treatment cycles. Median PFS was 6.4 months with 12-month and 18-month PFS rates of 35% and 28%, respectively. The overall response rate was 50% and 64% of responding patients who achieved a longer PFS with elo/pom/dex compared to their most recent line of therapy. Objective responses were also seen in five patients who had been pretreated with pomalidomide. Low tumor burden was associated with improved PFS (13.5 months for patients with ISS stage I/II at study entry v 6.4 months for ISS III), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. No infusion-related reactions were reported. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia and pneumonia.
Conclusion
Elo/pom/dex is an active and well-tolerated regimen in highly advanced MM even after pretreatment with pomalidomide.
Background: With the availability of T-cell-directed therapy and next-generation compounds of established classes of drugs, the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) myeloma is getting more complex. However, treatment options in practice are limited by availability, approval, and patient comorbidity. The aim of this article is to provide a practical approach toward the choice of treatment for r/r myeloma patients. Summary: Regarding market authorization and current guidelines, at least in Germany, most patients nowadays will have received a doublet or triplet combination as first-line therapy containing a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug, mostly lenalidomide. We focus on the treatment options for patients that are ineligible for (another) stem cell transplantation. We will review treatment options for relapse after first- or second-line therapy and beyond third-line. Key Messages: There is promising data supporting the efficacy and safety of triplet combinations containing anti-CD38-monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD38 mAbs) at first or second relapse in combination with next-generation compounds. For the treatment beyond third-line, comparative studies are scarce but some promising compounds are available via conditional authorization, and there is more to come in the future. We will present some early phase trials featuring promising results.
Background: Preservation of kidney function in newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) helps to prevent excess toxicity. Patients (pts) from two prospective trials were analyzed, provided postinduction (PInd) restaging was performed. Pts received three cycles with bortezomib (btz), cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (dex; VCD) or btz, lenalidomide (len), and dex (VRd) or len, adriamycin, and dex (RAD). The minimum required estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was >30 mL/min. We analyzed the percent change of the renal function using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)-defined categories. Results: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients were eligible. Three hundred and fifty-six received VCD, 214 VRd, and 202 RAD. VCD patients had the best baseline eGFR. The proportion of pts with eGFR <45 mL/min decreased from 7.3% at baseline to 1.9% PInd (p < 0.0001). Thirty-seven point one percent of VCD versus 49% of VRd patients had a decrease of GFR (p = 0.0872). IMWG-defined “renal complete response (CRrenal)” was achieved in 17/25 (68%) pts after VCD, 12/19 (63%) after RAD, and 14/27 (52%) after VRd (p = 0.4747). Conclusions: Analyzing a large and representative newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) group, we found no difference in CRrenal that occurred independently from the myeloma response across the three regimens. A trend towards deterioration of the renal function with VRd versus VCD may be explained by a better pretreatment “renal fitness” in the latter group.