Publications by authors named "Roman Hájek"

241 Publications

Real-world comparative effectiveness of triplets containing bortezomib (B), carfilzomib (C), daratumumab (D), or ixazomib (I) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US.

Ann Hematol 2021 May 10. Epub 2021 May 10.

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Multiple available combinations of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibodies are shifting the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape. Lack of head-to-head trials of triplet regimens highlights the need for real-world (RW) evidence. We conducted an RW comparative effectiveness analysis of bortezomib (V), carfilzomib (K), ixazomib (I), and daratumumab (D) combined with either lenalidomide or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd or Pd) in RRMM. A retrospective cohort of patients initiating triplet regimens in line of therapy (LOT) ≥ 2 on/after 1/1/2014 was followed between 1/2007 and 3/2018 in Optum's deidentified US electronic health records database. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; regimens were compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Seven hundred forty-one patients (820 patient LOTs) with an Rd backbone (VRd, n = 349; KRd, n = 218; DRd, n = 99; IRd, n = 154) and 348 patients (392 patient LOTs) with a Pd backbone (VPd, n = 52; KPd, n = 146; DPd, n = 149; IPd, n = 45) in LOTs ≥2 were identified. More patients ≥75 years received IRd (39.6%), IPd (37.8%), and VRd (36.7%) than other triplets. More patients receiving VRd/VPd were in LOT2 vs other triplets. Unadjusted median TTNT in LOT ≥ 2: VRd, 13.9; KRd, 8.7; IRd, 11.4; DRd, not estimable (NE); and VPd, 12.0; KPd, 6.7; IPd, 9.5 months; DPd, NE. In covariate-adjusted analysis, only KRd vs DRd was associated with a significantly higher risk of next LOT initiation/death (HR 1.72; P = 0.0142); no Pd triplet was significantly different vs DPd in LOT ≥ 2. Our data highlight important efficacy/effectiveness gaps between results observed in phase 3 clinical trials and those realized in the RW.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00277-021-04534-8DOI Listing
May 2021

Development and Validation of a Simplified Score to Predict Early Relapse in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) in a Pooled Dataset of 2190 Patients.

Clin Cancer Res 2021 Apr 29. Epub 2021 Apr 29.

Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino

Background: Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several multiple myeloma (MM) patients still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need.

Methods: We pooled data from 7 European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2190 newly diagnosed (ND)MM patients from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data (n=1218) were split into training (n=844) and validation sets (n=374). In the training set, a univariate (UV) analysis and a multivariate (MV) logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment.

Results: The Simplified Early Relapse in MM (S-ERMM) score was modeled on 6 features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free-light chain. The S-ERMM identified 3 patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) vs. Low (OR=2.39, p<0.001) and High vs. Low (OR=5.59, p<0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter OS (High vs. Low: HR=3.24, p<0.001; Int vs. Low: HR=1.86, p<0.001) and PFS2 (High vs. Low: HR=2.89, p<0.001; Int vs. Low: HR=1.76, p<0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic (D)S-ERMM modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM.

Conclusion: Based on simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0134DOI Listing
April 2021

Selection, Expansion, and Unique Pretreatment of Allogeneic Human Natural Killer Cells with Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibody for Efficient Multiple Myeloma Treatment.

Cells 2021 Apr 21;10(5). Epub 2021 Apr 21.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, 703 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic.

Cellular immunotherapy is becoming a new pillar in cancer treatment after recent striking results in different clinical trials with chimeric antigen receptor T cells. However, this innovative therapy is not exempt from challenges such as off-tumor toxicity, tumor recurrence in heterogeneous tumors, and affordability. To surpass these limitations, we exploit the unique anti-tumor characteristics of natural killer (NK) cells. In this study, we aimed to obtain a clinically relevant number of allogeneic NK cells derived from peripheral blood (median of 14,050 million cells from a single donor) to target a broad spectrum of solid and liquid tumor types. To boost their anti-tumor activity, we combined allogeneic NK cells with the approved anti-cluster of differentiation 38 (CD-38) monoclonal antibody Daratumumab to obtain a synergistic therapeutic effect against incurable multiple myeloma. The combination therapy was refined with CD16 polymorphism donor selection and uncomplicated novel in vitro pretreatment to avoid undesired fratricide, increasing the in vitro therapeutic effect against the CD-38 positive multiple myeloma cell line by more than 20%. Time-lapse imaging of mice with established human multiple myeloma xenografts revealed that combination therapy of selected and pretreated NK cells with Daratumumab presented tumor volumes 43-fold smaller than control ones. Combination therapy with an allogeneic source of fully functional NK cells could be beneficial in future clinical settings to circumvent monoclonal antibodies' low therapeutic efficiency due to NK cell dysfunctionality in MM patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells10050967DOI Listing
April 2021

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

J Hematol Oncol 2021 Apr 13;14(1):59. Epub 2021 Apr 13.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc, Newton, MA, USA.

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562 .
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01071-9DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8045319PMC
April 2021

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Future Oncol 2021 Mar 26. Epub 2021 Mar 26.

Institute of Biostatistics & Analyses, Ltd, Brno, 602 00, Czech Republic.

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-1225DOI Listing
March 2021

Effect of age and frailty on the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Am J Hematol 2021 Jun 3;96(6):708-718. Epub 2021 May 3.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., Newton, Massachusetts, USA.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26172DOI Listing
June 2021

Expert review on soft-tissue plasmacytomas in multiple myeloma: definition, disease assessment and treatment considerations.

Br J Haematol 2021 Mar 16. Epub 2021 Mar 16.

Berlín, Germany.

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjh.17338DOI Listing
March 2021

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group.

Lancet Oncol 2021 03;22(3):e105-e118

Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30756-7DOI Listing
March 2021

Management of patients with multiple myeloma beyond the clinical-trial setting: understanding the balance between efficacy, safety and tolerability, and quality of life.

Blood Cancer J 2021 Feb 18;11(2):40. Epub 2021 Feb 18.

Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.

Treatment options in multiple myeloma (MM) are increasing with the introduction of complex multi-novel-agent-based regimens investigated in randomized clinical trials. However, application in the real-world setting, including feasibility of and adherence to these regimens, may be limited due to varying patient-, treatment-, and disease-related factors. Furthermore, approximately 40% of real-world MM patients do not meet the criteria for phase 3 studies on which approvals are based, resulting in a lack of representative phase 3 data for these patients. Therefore, treatment decisions must be tailored based on additional considerations beyond clinical trial efficacy and safety, such as treatment feasibility (including frequency of clinic/hospital attendance), tolerability, effects on quality of life (QoL), and impact of comorbidities. There are multiple factors of importance to real-world MM patients, including disease symptoms, treatment burden and toxicities, ability to participate in daily activities, financial burden, access to treatment and treatment centers, and convenience of treatment. All of these factors are drivers of QoL and treatment satisfaction/compliance. Importantly, given the heterogeneity of MM, individual patients may have different perspectives regarding the most relevant considerations and goals of their treatment. Patient perspectives/goals may also change as they move through their treatment course. Thus, the 'efficacy' of treatment means different things to different patients, and treatment decision-making in the context of personalized medicine must be guided by an individual's composite definition of what constitutes the best treatment choice. This review summarizes the various factors of importance and practical issues that must be considered when determining real-world treatment choices. It assesses the current instruments, methodologies, and recent initiatives for analyzing the MM patient experience. Finally, it suggests options for enhancing data collection on patients and treatments to provide a more holistic definition of the effectiveness of a regimen in the real-world setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00432-4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891472PMC
February 2021

Mass spectrometry for the evaluation of monoclonal proteins in multiple myeloma and related disorders: an International Myeloma Working Group Mass Spectrometry Committee Report.

Blood Cancer J 2021 Feb 1;11(2):24. Epub 2021 Feb 1.

Department of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Outpatient Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Plasma cell disorders (PCDs) are identified in the clinical lab by detecting the monoclonal immunoglobulin (M-protein) which they produce. Traditionally, serum protein electrophoresis methods have been utilized to detect and isotype M-proteins. Increasing demands to detect low-level disease and new therapeutic monoclonal immunoglobulin treatments have stretched the electrophoretic methods to their analytical limits. Newer techniques based on mass spectrometry (MS) are emerging which have improved clinical and analytical performance. MS is gaining traction into clinical laboratories, and has replaced immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) in routine practice at one institution. The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Mass Spectrometry Committee reviewed the literature in order to summarize current data and to make recommendations regarding the role of mass spectrometric methods in diagnosing and monitoring patients with myeloma and related disorders. Current literature demonstrates that immune-enrichment of immunoglobulins coupled to intact light chain MALDI-TOF MS has clinical characteristics equivalent in performance to IFE with added benefits of detecting additional risk factors for PCDs, differentiating M-protein from therapeutic antibodies, and is a suitable replacement for IFE for diagnosing and monitoring multiple myeloma and related PCDs. In this paper we discuss the IMWG recommendations for the use of MS in PCDs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00408-4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873248PMC
February 2021

Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BMC Cancer 2021 Jan 15;21(1):73. Epub 2021 Jan 15.

Department of Hematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

Background: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice.

Methods: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05.

Results: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable.

Conclusions: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07732-1DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810195PMC
January 2021

Efficacy and safety of oral panobinostat plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (PANORAMA 3): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

Lancet Oncol 2021 01 7;22(1):142-154. Epub 2020 Dec 7.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Background: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication.

Methods: PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654990.

Findings: Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8-24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8-72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8-75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4-61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related.

Interpretation: The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated.

Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30680-XDOI Listing
January 2021

Focus on monoclonal antibodies targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma: update 2020.

Br J Haematol 2020 Nov 20. Epub 2020 Nov 20.

Department of Haemato-oncology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

Remarkable advances have been achieved in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in the last decade, which saw targeted immunotherapy, represented by anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, successfully incorporated across indications. However, myeloma is still considered curable in only a small subset of patients, and the majority of them eventually relapse. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is expressed exclusively in mature B lymphocytes and plasma cells, and represents an ideal new target for immunotherapy, presented by bispecific antibody (bsAb) constructs, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells. Each of them has proved its efficacy with the potential for deep and long-lasting responses as a single agent therapy in heavily pretreated patients. As a result, belantamab mafodotin was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM, as the first anti-BCMA agent. In the present review, we focus on monoclonal antibodies targeting BCMA - bsAbs and ADCs. The data from preclinical studies as well as first-in-human clinical trials will be reviewed, together with the coverage of their constructs and mechanisms of action. The present results have laid the groundwork for the ongoing or upcoming clinical trials with combinatory regimens, which have always been a cornerstone in the treatment of MM.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjh.17235DOI Listing
November 2020

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Lancet 2020 11;396(10262):1563-1573

University Hospital "Sv Georgi" EAD, Clinic of Clinical Hematology, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Background: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.

Methods: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020.

Findings: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died.

Interpretation: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy.

Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3DOI Listing
November 2020

International Myeloma Working Group risk stratification model for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM).

Blood Cancer J 2020 10 16;10(10):102. Epub 2020 Oct 16.

Clinica Universidad de Navarra, CIMA, CIBERONC, IDISNA, Pamplona, Spain.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor state of multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, MM was redefined to include biomarkers predicting a high risk of progression from SMM, thus necessitating a redefinition of SMM and its risk stratification. We assembled a large cohort of SMM patients meeting the revised IMWG criteria to develop a new risk stratification system. We included 1996 patients, and using stepwise selection and multivariable analysis, we identified three independent factors predicting progression risk at 2 years: serum M-protein >2 g/dL (HR: 2.1), involved to uninvolved free light-chain ratio >20 (HR: 2.7), and marrow plasma cell infiltration >20% (HR: 2.4). This translates into 3 categories with increasing 2-year progression risk: 6% for low risk (38%; no risk factors, HR: 1); 18% for intermediate risk (33%; 1 factor; HR: 3.0), and 44% for high risk (29%; 2-3 factors). Addition of cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q, and/or del13q) allowed separation into 4 groups (low risk with 0, low intermediate risk with 1, intermediate risk with 2, and high risk with ≥3 risk factors) with 6, 23, 46, and 63% risk of progression in 2 years, respectively. The 2/20/20 risk stratification model can be easily implemented to identify high-risk SMM for clinical research and routine practice and will be widely applicable.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00366-3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567803PMC
October 2020

Efficacy and Safety of ABP 798: Results from the JASMINE Trial in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in Comparison with Rituximab Reference Product.

Target Oncol 2020 10;15(5):599-611

Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Introduction: ABP 798 is being developed as a biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP), a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody that is approved in the US and EU for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Methods: This randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study (JASMINE) evaluated the efficacy and safety of ABP 798 compared with rituximab RP. Adult, anti-CD20 treatment naïve patients diagnosed with grade 1, 2, or 3a follicular B-cell NHL expressing CD20 were randomized 1:1 to receive a 375 mg/m infusion of either ABP 798 or rituximab RP once weekly for 4 weeks and at weeks 12 and 20. Tumor assessments were performed at baseline and weeks 12 and 28. Primary endpoint was the risk difference (RD) of overall response rate (ORR) of complete response, unconfirmed complete response, or partial response by week 28 based on data from central, independent, and blinded assessments of disease.

Results: Of the 256 randomized patients, 254 were treated with ABP 798 (n = 128; 100%) or rituximab RP (n = 126; 98.4%); 96 (78.0%) patients in the ABP 798 group and 87 (70.2%) in the rituximab RP group had a best ORR by week 28. The point estimate of RD in ORR between ABP 798 and rituximab RP from the adjusted generalized linear model for stratification factors was 7.7%. Clinical equivalence was based on sequential testing of the one-sided 95% lower confidence limits and one-sided 95% upper confidence limits of RD in ORR (- 1.4% and 16.8%, respectively) which was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin (- 15%) and non-superiority margin (35.5%), respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary efficacy analysis. ABP 798 was also comparable to rituximab RP across additional secondary endpoints, further supporting the conclusion of similarity, and including: RD of ORR at week 12; trough serum concentrations; percent of patients with complete depletion of CD19+ cell count at day 8; safety; and immunogenicity.

Conclusions: These results support a conclusion of similar clinical efficacy between ABP 798 and rituximab RP in patients with follicular lymphoma.

Nct Number: NCT02747043; first posted April 21, 2016.

Eudract Number: 2013-005,542-11; submitted 14 October, 2014.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-020-00748-4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7568694PMC
October 2020

Ixazomib as Postinduction Maintenance for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: The Phase III TOURMALINE-MM4 Trial.

J Clin Oncol 2020 12 6;38(34):4030-4041. Epub 2020 Oct 6.

Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Purpose: Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed.

Patients And Methods: The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization.

Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n = 425) or placebo (n = 281). TOURMALINE-MM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801; < .001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6 12.9 months; HR, 0.586; < .001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8% 8.0%), vomiting (24.2% 4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2% 12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2% 6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%.

Conclusion: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02060DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7768338PMC
December 2020

Selinexor, selective inhibitor of nuclear export: Unselective bullet for blood cancers.

Blood Rev 2021 Mar 15;46:100758. Epub 2020 Sep 15.

Department of Hematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava, 17. listopadu 1790/5, Ostrava 708 52, Czech Republic; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava 703 00, Czech Republic. Electronic address:

Exportin 1 (XPO1), also known as chromosome maintenance 1 protein (CRM1), is the main transporter for hundreds of proteins like tumor suppressors, growth regulatory factors, oncoprotein mRNAs and others. Its upregulation leads to the inactivation of the tumor suppressor anti-neoplastic function in many cancers and logically is associated with poor prognosis. Selective inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE) are a new generation of XPO1 inhibitors that are being investigated as a promising targeted anti-cancer therapy. Selinexor is the first generation of SINE compounds that is being evaluated in many clinical trials involving solid tumors and hematological malignancies with its two approved indications for relapsed multiple myeloma and relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Here, we comprehensively review the current knowledge of selinexor and next generations of the SINE compounds in lymphoid and myeloid malignancies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2020.100758DOI Listing
March 2021

Osteolytic bone lesions, hypercalcemia and paraprotein, but not a myeloma: case report and review of literature.

Vnitr Lek 2020 ;66(5):90-95

In June 2018, 77-year-old man was referred to The Department of Haematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava, for suspicion of multiple myeloma. This was supported by laboratory findings of hypercalcemia, paraprotein IgA κ in serum and by the presence of multiple osteolytic skeletal lesions. Low number of plasma cells in bone marrow sample - cytologically (3.6 %) as well as in flow cytometry (less than 95 % clonal plasma cells out of total bone marrow plasma cells) - pointed at the direction of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). In the course of differential diagnosis of hypercalcemia, elevated level of parathormone had been found which led to the performance of 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy where parathyroid adenoma was discovered and later histologically verified. The final diagnosis was determined as a coincidence of MGUS and primary hyperparathyroidism. This case report also contains brief differential diagnosis of hypercalcemia and osteolytic skeletal lesions and suggestions for their diagnostic algorithms.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
November 2020

Melflufen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2020 Oct 29;29(10):1069-1078. Epub 2020 Sep 29.

Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA.

Introduction: The overall survival of patients with multiple myeloma has improved with the advent of novel agents; however, multiple myeloma remains incurable. Combinations of standard-of-care agents such as immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are increasingly used in earlier lines of therapy. Patients with disease that is refractory to multiple novel agents represent a population with high unmet medical need and for whom therapies with new mechanisms of action could be beneficial. Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) has demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Areas Covered: This review provides an overview of the mechanism of action of melflufen, a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly delivers alkylating agents into tumor cells. It reviews key Phase I and II clinical trial data for melflufen in combination with dexamethasone as well as in triplet combinations with daratumumab or bortezomib. The safety profile of melflufen, which is characterized primarily by clinically manageable hematologic adverse events, is described.

Expert Opinion: Melflufen has potential to fill a gap in the myeloma treatment landscape by providing a new mechanism of action with clinically meaningful efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients refractory to multiple novel agents.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2020.1808884DOI Listing
October 2020

Recommendations for vaccination in multiple myeloma: a consensus of the European Myeloma Network.

Leukemia 2021 01 19;35(1):31-44. Epub 2020 Aug 19.

Department of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Vaccination is one of the most successful medical interventions that has saved the life of millions of people. Vaccination is particularly important in patients with multiple myeloma, who have an increased risk of infections due to the disease-inherent immune suppression, and because of the immune suppressive effects of therapy. Hence, all appropriate measures should be exploited, to elicit an effective immune response to common pathogens like influenza, pneumococci, varicella zoster virus, and to those bacteria and viruses (haemophilus influenzae, meningococci, and hepatitis) that frequently may pose a significant risk to patients with multiple myeloma. Patients after autologous, and specifically after allogeneic transplantation have severely reduced antibody titers, and therefore require a broader spectrum of vaccinations. Response to vaccination in myeloma often is less vigorous than in the general population, mandating either measurement of the postvaccination antibody titers and/or repeating the vaccination. Here, we compile the existing data on vaccination in multiple myeloma and provide recommendations for clinical practice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-01016-0DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787974PMC
January 2021

Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Previously Untreated Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

N Engl J Med 2020 08;383(7):617-629

From the Department of Leukemia, Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (C.D.D., M.K.); the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento (B.A.J.), the Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Gehr Family Center for Leukemia Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte (V. Pullarkat), and Genentech, South San Francisco (W.-J.H.) - all in California; the Section of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago (M.J.T.), and AbbVie, North Chicago (Y.Z., J.P.) - both in Illinois; the Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston (J.S.G., A.L.); the Australian Centre for Blood Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC (A.H.W.); the Department of Internal Medicine III, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany (H.D.); Hôpital St. Louis, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Université de Paris, Paris (P.F.); the Third Medical Department for Hematology and Oncology, Hanusch Hospital, Vienna (E.K.); the Department of Hematology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels (V.H.); the Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (B.L.); the Department of Hematology, Hospital Clinic, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona (J.E.); the Institute of Hematology and Hospital of Blood Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, China (J.W.); the Department of Hematology, University Hospital Dubrava, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia (V. Pejsa); the Department of Clinic Subjects, University Hospital Ostrava-Poruba, Ostrava, Czech Republic (R.H.); Helsinki University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Helsinki, Helsinki (K.P.); the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Hematology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary (A.I.); Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem (D.L.); the Clinic of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, and San Martino Hospital IRCCS - both in Genoa, Italy (R.M.L.); the Department of Hematology and Cell Therapy, Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya, Japan (K.Y.); the Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine (S.-S.Y.), and the Department of Hematology-Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine (J.-H.J.) - both in Seoul, South Korea; the Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan (S.-P.Y.); the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey (M.T.); and Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (K.W.P.).

Background: Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a dismal prognosis, even after treatment with a hypomethylating agent. Azacitidine added to venetoclax had promising efficacy in a previous phase 1b study.

Methods: We randomly assigned previously untreated patients with confirmed AML who were ineligible for standard induction therapy because of coexisting conditions, because they were 75 years of age or older, or both to azacitidine plus either venetoclax or placebo. All patients received a standard dose of azacitidine (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1 through 7 every 28-day cycle); venetoclax (target dose, 400 mg) or matching placebo was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was overall survival.

Results: The intention-to-treat population included 431 patients (286 in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 145 in the azacitidine-placebo [control] group). The median age was 76 years in both groups (range, 49 to 91). At a median follow-up of 20.5 months, the median overall survival was 14.7 months in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 9.6 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.85; P<0.001). The incidence of complete remission was higher with azacitidine-venetoclax than with the control regimen (36.7% vs. 17.9%; P<0.001), as was the composite complete remission (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) (66.4% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001). Key adverse events included nausea of any grade (in 44% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 35% of those in the control group) and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (in 45% and 38%, respectively), neutropenia (in 42% and 28%), and febrile neutropenia (in 42% and 19%). Infections of any grade occurred in 85% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 67% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 83% and 73%, respectively.

Conclusions: In previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was higher in the venetoclax-azacitidine group than in the control group. (Funded by AbbVie and Genentech; VIALE-A ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02993523.).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2012971DOI Listing
August 2020

Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Dexamethasone for Light-Chain Amyloidosis.

J Clin Oncol 2020 10 30;38(28):3252-3260. Epub 2020 Jul 30.

Amyloidosis Research and Treatment Center "Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico San Matteo," Pavia, Italy.

Purpose: Oral melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) were considered a standard of care in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. In the past decade, bortezomib has been increasingly used in combination with alkylating agents and dexamethasone. We prospectively compared the efficacy and safety of MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex).

Methods: This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients were stratified according to cardiac stage. Patients with advanced cardiac stage (stage IIIb) amyloidosis were not eligible. The primary end point was hematologic response rate at 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01277016.

Results: A total of 109 patients, 53 in the BMDex and 56 in the MDex group, received ≥ 1 dose of therapy (from January 2011 to February 2016). Hematologic response rate at 3 months was higher in the BMDex arm (79% 52%; = .002). Higher rates of very good partial or complete response rates (64% 39%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.71) and improved overall survival, with a 2-fold decrease in mortality rate (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.90), were observed in the BMDex arm. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (the most common being cytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and heart failure) were more common in the BMDex arm, occurring in 20% versus 10% of cycles performed.

Conclusion: BMDex improved hematologic response rate and overall survival. To our knowledge, this is the first time a controlled study has demonstrated a survival advantage in AL amyloidosis. BMDex should be considered a new standard of care for AL amyloidosis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01285DOI Listing
October 2020

Methodology of a Novel Risk Stratification Algorithm for Patients with Multiple Myeloma in the Relapsed Setting.

Oncol Ther 2019 Dec 3;7(2):141-157. Epub 2019 Nov 3.

Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

Introduction: Risk stratification tools provide valuable information to inform treatment decisions. Existing algorithms for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) were based on patients with newly diagnosed disease, and these have not been validated in the relapsed setting or in routine clinical practice. We developed a risk stratification algorithm (RSA) for patients with MM at initiation of second-line (2L) treatment, based on data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies.

Methods: Predictors of overall survival (OS) at 2L treatment were identified using Cox proportional hazards models and backward selection. Risk scores were obtained by multiplying the hazard ratios for each predictor. The K-adaptive partitioning for survival (KAPS) algorithm defined four groups of stratification based on individual risk scores.

Results: Performance of the RSA was assessed using Nagelkerke's R test and Harrell's concordance index through Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS data. Prognostic groups were successfully defined based on real-world data. Use of a multiplicative score based on Cox modeling and KAPS to define cut-off values was effective.

Conclusion: Through innovative methods of risk assessment and collaboration between physicians and statisticians, the RSA was capable of stratifying patients at 2L treatment by survival expectations. This approach can be used to develop clinical decision-making tools in other disease areas to improve patient management.

Funding: Amgen Europe GmbH.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40487-019-00100-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359995PMC
December 2019