User login
ASH preview: Key themes include tackling CAR T obstacles, sickle cell advances, VTE
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have garnered a great deal of attention given their “incredible efficacy” in treating B-cell malignancies, and new findings are taking aim at the drawbacks of therapy, such as the time, expense, and toxicity involved, according to Robert A. Brodsky, MD.
One example, from a study slated for presentation during a plenary session at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology involves the investigational T-cell bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab, which targets both CD20 on the surface of malignant B cells, and CD3 on cytotoxic T cells, engaging the T cells and directing their cytotoxicity against B cells.
In a study (Abstract 6) of 218 non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, including 23 who had already received CAR T-cell therapy and had relapsed or were refractory to the treatment, 64% responded, 42% had a complete response, and the median duration of response is now out to 9 months, Dr. Brodsky, ASH secretary and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said during a premeeting press conference.
“It’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cell to do what a CAR-T cell would do – [a] very exciting study and large study,” he said. “It is an off-the-shelf product, it completely gets around the problem of the time to generate the CAR T-cell product, and because it’s going to be much simpler and faster to produce, it’s likely going to be much cheaper than CAR T cells.”
The preliminary results also suggest it is less toxic than CAR T-cell therapy, he added.
Two other CAR T-cell therapy–related studies highlighted during the press conference address its use for multiple myeloma. One, the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE study (Abstract 577) uses CAR T cells against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in the relapsed/refractory setting.
Of 25 patients treated with chemotherapy followed by CAR T-cell infusion and followed for a median of 3 months, 91% responded, two achieved a complete remission, and “many other responses were very deep responses,” Dr. Brodsky said, noting that the second featured multiple myeloma trial (Abstract 930) looked at bispecific CAR T-cell therapy targeting BCMA and CD38 in an effort to reduce resistance to the therapy.
“Again, very interesting preliminary results,” he said, noting that of 16 patients followed for a median of 36 weeks, 87.5% responded, the treatment was well tolerated, and progression-free survival at 9 months was 75%.
In addition to the “key theme” of overcoming CAR T-cell therapy obstacles, three other themes have emerged from among the thousands of abstracts submitted for presentation at ASH. These, as presented during the press conference, include new venous thromboembolism (VTE) therapies and approaches to research; inclusive medicine, with abstracts focused on age- and race-related issues in clinical trials; and new advances in the treatment of sickle cell disease. All of these have potentially practice-changing implications, as do the six late-breaking abstracts selected from 93 abstracts submitted for consideration for oral presentation at ASH, Dr. Brodsky said.
One of the “truly practice-changing” late-breakers is a randomized phase 3 trial (Abstract LBA-1) comparing the bispecific antibody blinatumomab to chemotherapy for post-re-induction therapy in high- and intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at first relapse in children, adolescents and young adults.
The study demonstrated the superiority of blinatumomab for efficacy and tolerability, which is particularly encouraging given the challenges in getting relapsed ALL patients back into remission so they can undergo bone marrow transplant, Dr. Brodsky said.
Of 208 patients randomized, 73% vs. 45% in the blinatumomab vs. chemotherapy arms were able to get to transplant – and therefore to potential cure, he said.
“Of note, the blinatumomab arm was less toxic and there was marked improvement in disease-free and overall survival, so this is clearly going to become a new standard of care for relapsed and refractory ALL,” he added.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have garnered a great deal of attention given their “incredible efficacy” in treating B-cell malignancies, and new findings are taking aim at the drawbacks of therapy, such as the time, expense, and toxicity involved, according to Robert A. Brodsky, MD.
One example, from a study slated for presentation during a plenary session at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology involves the investigational T-cell bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab, which targets both CD20 on the surface of malignant B cells, and CD3 on cytotoxic T cells, engaging the T cells and directing their cytotoxicity against B cells.
In a study (Abstract 6) of 218 non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, including 23 who had already received CAR T-cell therapy and had relapsed or were refractory to the treatment, 64% responded, 42% had a complete response, and the median duration of response is now out to 9 months, Dr. Brodsky, ASH secretary and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said during a premeeting press conference.
“It’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cell to do what a CAR-T cell would do – [a] very exciting study and large study,” he said. “It is an off-the-shelf product, it completely gets around the problem of the time to generate the CAR T-cell product, and because it’s going to be much simpler and faster to produce, it’s likely going to be much cheaper than CAR T cells.”
The preliminary results also suggest it is less toxic than CAR T-cell therapy, he added.
Two other CAR T-cell therapy–related studies highlighted during the press conference address its use for multiple myeloma. One, the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE study (Abstract 577) uses CAR T cells against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in the relapsed/refractory setting.
Of 25 patients treated with chemotherapy followed by CAR T-cell infusion and followed for a median of 3 months, 91% responded, two achieved a complete remission, and “many other responses were very deep responses,” Dr. Brodsky said, noting that the second featured multiple myeloma trial (Abstract 930) looked at bispecific CAR T-cell therapy targeting BCMA and CD38 in an effort to reduce resistance to the therapy.
“Again, very interesting preliminary results,” he said, noting that of 16 patients followed for a median of 36 weeks, 87.5% responded, the treatment was well tolerated, and progression-free survival at 9 months was 75%.
In addition to the “key theme” of overcoming CAR T-cell therapy obstacles, three other themes have emerged from among the thousands of abstracts submitted for presentation at ASH. These, as presented during the press conference, include new venous thromboembolism (VTE) therapies and approaches to research; inclusive medicine, with abstracts focused on age- and race-related issues in clinical trials; and new advances in the treatment of sickle cell disease. All of these have potentially practice-changing implications, as do the six late-breaking abstracts selected from 93 abstracts submitted for consideration for oral presentation at ASH, Dr. Brodsky said.
One of the “truly practice-changing” late-breakers is a randomized phase 3 trial (Abstract LBA-1) comparing the bispecific antibody blinatumomab to chemotherapy for post-re-induction therapy in high- and intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at first relapse in children, adolescents and young adults.
The study demonstrated the superiority of blinatumomab for efficacy and tolerability, which is particularly encouraging given the challenges in getting relapsed ALL patients back into remission so they can undergo bone marrow transplant, Dr. Brodsky said.
Of 208 patients randomized, 73% vs. 45% in the blinatumomab vs. chemotherapy arms were able to get to transplant – and therefore to potential cure, he said.
“Of note, the blinatumomab arm was less toxic and there was marked improvement in disease-free and overall survival, so this is clearly going to become a new standard of care for relapsed and refractory ALL,” he added.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have garnered a great deal of attention given their “incredible efficacy” in treating B-cell malignancies, and new findings are taking aim at the drawbacks of therapy, such as the time, expense, and toxicity involved, according to Robert A. Brodsky, MD.
One example, from a study slated for presentation during a plenary session at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology involves the investigational T-cell bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab, which targets both CD20 on the surface of malignant B cells, and CD3 on cytotoxic T cells, engaging the T cells and directing their cytotoxicity against B cells.
In a study (Abstract 6) of 218 non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, including 23 who had already received CAR T-cell therapy and had relapsed or were refractory to the treatment, 64% responded, 42% had a complete response, and the median duration of response is now out to 9 months, Dr. Brodsky, ASH secretary and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said during a premeeting press conference.
“It’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cell to do what a CAR-T cell would do – [a] very exciting study and large study,” he said. “It is an off-the-shelf product, it completely gets around the problem of the time to generate the CAR T-cell product, and because it’s going to be much simpler and faster to produce, it’s likely going to be much cheaper than CAR T cells.”
The preliminary results also suggest it is less toxic than CAR T-cell therapy, he added.
Two other CAR T-cell therapy–related studies highlighted during the press conference address its use for multiple myeloma. One, the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE study (Abstract 577) uses CAR T cells against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in the relapsed/refractory setting.
Of 25 patients treated with chemotherapy followed by CAR T-cell infusion and followed for a median of 3 months, 91% responded, two achieved a complete remission, and “many other responses were very deep responses,” Dr. Brodsky said, noting that the second featured multiple myeloma trial (Abstract 930) looked at bispecific CAR T-cell therapy targeting BCMA and CD38 in an effort to reduce resistance to the therapy.
“Again, very interesting preliminary results,” he said, noting that of 16 patients followed for a median of 36 weeks, 87.5% responded, the treatment was well tolerated, and progression-free survival at 9 months was 75%.
In addition to the “key theme” of overcoming CAR T-cell therapy obstacles, three other themes have emerged from among the thousands of abstracts submitted for presentation at ASH. These, as presented during the press conference, include new venous thromboembolism (VTE) therapies and approaches to research; inclusive medicine, with abstracts focused on age- and race-related issues in clinical trials; and new advances in the treatment of sickle cell disease. All of these have potentially practice-changing implications, as do the six late-breaking abstracts selected from 93 abstracts submitted for consideration for oral presentation at ASH, Dr. Brodsky said.
One of the “truly practice-changing” late-breakers is a randomized phase 3 trial (Abstract LBA-1) comparing the bispecific antibody blinatumomab to chemotherapy for post-re-induction therapy in high- and intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at first relapse in children, adolescents and young adults.
The study demonstrated the superiority of blinatumomab for efficacy and tolerability, which is particularly encouraging given the challenges in getting relapsed ALL patients back into remission so they can undergo bone marrow transplant, Dr. Brodsky said.
Of 208 patients randomized, 73% vs. 45% in the blinatumomab vs. chemotherapy arms were able to get to transplant – and therefore to potential cure, he said.
“Of note, the blinatumomab arm was less toxic and there was marked improvement in disease-free and overall survival, so this is clearly going to become a new standard of care for relapsed and refractory ALL,” he added.
Early lenalidomide may delay progression of smoldering myeloma
Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.
While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.
Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.
The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.
The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).
Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).
Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.
To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.
“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.
Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.
While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.
Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.
The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.
The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).
Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).
Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.
To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.
“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.
Early treatment with lenalidomide may delay disease progression and prevent end-organ damage in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), according to findings from a phase 3 trial.
While observation is the current standard of care in SMM, early therapy may represent a new standard for patients with high-risk disease, explained Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues. Their findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included 182 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM. Study patients were randomly allocated to receive either oral lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle or observation.
Study subjects were stratified based on time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year, and all patients in the lenalidomide arm received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28. Both interventions were maintained until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal for other reasons.
The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from baseline to the development of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The criteria for progression included evidence of end-organ damage in relation to MM and biochemical disease progression.
The researchers found that at 1 year PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide group and 89% in the observation group. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide group and 76% in the observation group. PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide group and 66% in the observation group at 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.28; P = .002).
Among lenalidomide-treated patients, grade 3 or 4 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 36 patients (41%). Nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%).
Frequent AEs among lenalidomide-treated patients included grade 4 decreased neutrophil count (4.5%), as well as grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin problems (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%). “In most cases, [adverse events] could be managed with dose modifications,” they wrote.
To reduce long-term toxicity, the researchers recommended a 2-year duration of therapy for patients at highest risk.
“Our results support the use of early intervention in patients with high-risk SMM – as defined by the 20/2/20 criteria where our magnitude of benefit was the greatest – rather than continued observation,” the researchers wrote.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Lonial S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01740.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Foundation launches direct-to-patient registry in multiple myeloma
The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) recently launched its Direct-to-Patient registry, in what the organization’s leaders are describing as a “disruptive” step toward improving outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma.
The new registry is intended to build upon CoMMpass, a program started 8 years ago that now represents the largest genomic database of any type of cancer. Although CoMMpass includes data from about 1,150 patients with myeloma, it’s not enough information, according to the chief marketing and development officer at the MMRF, Anne Quinn Young.
“For a disease as heterogenous as myeloma is, we need more, particularly because we don’t have all the samples for later-stage disease,” Ms. Quinn Young said in an interview. “And even with the clinical data, given the patient population, both [in terms of] demographics and the nature of the disease, the numbers of patients still living after multiple relapses is rather small.”
In an earlier effort to gather more data, the MMRF first turned to other organizations for help, but this approach fell short because of scarcity of data, and in some cases, unwillingness to share. Steven Labkoff, MD, chief data officer at the MMRF, described this experience in an interview.
“When the MMRF was looking around for different data sources for myeloma data, it was always the claim that, ‘Sure, we have plenty of patients, we have plenty of data, and it’s rich and really complete.’ However, as we approached an array of organizations – big organizations – as we dug into the details and reviewed patient counts or data completeness, they either didn’t have a sufficient number of patients, they didn’t have sufficiently complete data for our needs, and in the case where some did have sufficient numbers and complete data sets, they simply weren’t in a position to share that data outside their institution,” Dr. Labkoff said.
Undeterred, the MMRF switched tactics to the current, patient-centric approach.
“We’re leveraging one aspect of the HIPAA legislation,” Dr. Labkoff said, referring to patients’ rights to request their own medical records and an institution’s legal obligation to provide those records.
In the short-term, the registry will collect three types of data: patient donated data (answers from a patient survey), electronic medical records abstracted from all relevant past providers, and genomic test results. Participating patients will have blood drawn at home by a phlebotomist for the genomic assay. Additional tubes of blood will be concurrently collected and biobanked. This will eventually allow for immune profiling, Dr. Labkoff said.
Future goals include a patient-reported outcomes module and the ability to link data with medical claims.
So far, 79 patients have participated in the pilot program, according to the MMRF. As the database builds, Ms. Quinn Young and Dr. Labkoff anticipate that it will yield answers to a variety of real-world questions.
Dr. Labkoff offered two examples. “Of all the patients who have been exposed to ‘name your drug,’ what were the costs of their therapy, and what were the outcomes?” he said. In addition, researchers will be able to query clinical trial inclusion criteria to search for data on a specific patient profile, such as patients with a 4:14 translocation, who have had a bone marrow transplant in the last 2 years, and have been exposed to a certain drug regimen.
Ms. Quinn Young noted that doctors may be able to use the database to reliably identify high-risk patients and guide agent selection. Common patient questions also will be addressed, she said, including best treatment regimens for certain types of patients.
“For patients who may have run out of all commercially available options, or for patients who are perhaps seen at a community center, where certainly this type of profiling is not standard, it’s opening up a whole new set of options for them,” Ms. Quinn Young said. “And if their physician doesn’t pursue those options, they have the report that they can use to seek a second opinion.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is unique because it aims to empower patients in a way that hasn’t been done before, Ms. Quinn Young said. “We are committed ... ever since we conceived of this project, to giving results back to patients. That is disruptive because right now that doesn’t exist.”
But the cost of implementing the registry, which has an approximate budget of $20 million, stands in the way of a completely free flow of anonymized data. MMRF leaders are exploring different strategies to sustain funding for the program.
Another MMRF program, CoMMpass, uses a precompetitive consortium model, in which several pharmaceutical companies pay for a preview of the data 6 months in advance of nonprofit researchers. A similar model may be used with the Direct-to-Patient registry, but this has yet to be determined, according to Dr. Labkoff and Ms. Quinn Young.
For now, Ms. Quinn Young said she hopes that physicians will be receptive to the program. “[The short term goal is that] when patients come to their doctors asking about this, that there is support and open-mindedness,” she said.
Looking to the future, Dr. Labkoff described how the registry could accelerate myeloma research, ultimately toward a cure.
“It is generally accepted that it can take 17 years to get something – a therapy, a new drug, or a guideline – from the bench to the bedside,” he said. “It’s my hope that we can take next generation sequencing and the results of this registry and bend that curve, maybe ... to 10 [years], or very aggressively, to 7 or 5 [years], where doctors are able to use the information in these reports for the patients that have literally given themselves, and use this to help guide the choices of their therapy or the trials they apply for, to help them get a better outcome in general.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is a collaborative effort between the MMRF and multiple organizations, including the health care technology company COTA, the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Prometheus Research, Tempus, and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) recently launched its Direct-to-Patient registry, in what the organization’s leaders are describing as a “disruptive” step toward improving outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma.
The new registry is intended to build upon CoMMpass, a program started 8 years ago that now represents the largest genomic database of any type of cancer. Although CoMMpass includes data from about 1,150 patients with myeloma, it’s not enough information, according to the chief marketing and development officer at the MMRF, Anne Quinn Young.
“For a disease as heterogenous as myeloma is, we need more, particularly because we don’t have all the samples for later-stage disease,” Ms. Quinn Young said in an interview. “And even with the clinical data, given the patient population, both [in terms of] demographics and the nature of the disease, the numbers of patients still living after multiple relapses is rather small.”
In an earlier effort to gather more data, the MMRF first turned to other organizations for help, but this approach fell short because of scarcity of data, and in some cases, unwillingness to share. Steven Labkoff, MD, chief data officer at the MMRF, described this experience in an interview.
“When the MMRF was looking around for different data sources for myeloma data, it was always the claim that, ‘Sure, we have plenty of patients, we have plenty of data, and it’s rich and really complete.’ However, as we approached an array of organizations – big organizations – as we dug into the details and reviewed patient counts or data completeness, they either didn’t have a sufficient number of patients, they didn’t have sufficiently complete data for our needs, and in the case where some did have sufficient numbers and complete data sets, they simply weren’t in a position to share that data outside their institution,” Dr. Labkoff said.
Undeterred, the MMRF switched tactics to the current, patient-centric approach.
“We’re leveraging one aspect of the HIPAA legislation,” Dr. Labkoff said, referring to patients’ rights to request their own medical records and an institution’s legal obligation to provide those records.
In the short-term, the registry will collect three types of data: patient donated data (answers from a patient survey), electronic medical records abstracted from all relevant past providers, and genomic test results. Participating patients will have blood drawn at home by a phlebotomist for the genomic assay. Additional tubes of blood will be concurrently collected and biobanked. This will eventually allow for immune profiling, Dr. Labkoff said.
Future goals include a patient-reported outcomes module and the ability to link data with medical claims.
So far, 79 patients have participated in the pilot program, according to the MMRF. As the database builds, Ms. Quinn Young and Dr. Labkoff anticipate that it will yield answers to a variety of real-world questions.
Dr. Labkoff offered two examples. “Of all the patients who have been exposed to ‘name your drug,’ what were the costs of their therapy, and what were the outcomes?” he said. In addition, researchers will be able to query clinical trial inclusion criteria to search for data on a specific patient profile, such as patients with a 4:14 translocation, who have had a bone marrow transplant in the last 2 years, and have been exposed to a certain drug regimen.
Ms. Quinn Young noted that doctors may be able to use the database to reliably identify high-risk patients and guide agent selection. Common patient questions also will be addressed, she said, including best treatment regimens for certain types of patients.
“For patients who may have run out of all commercially available options, or for patients who are perhaps seen at a community center, where certainly this type of profiling is not standard, it’s opening up a whole new set of options for them,” Ms. Quinn Young said. “And if their physician doesn’t pursue those options, they have the report that they can use to seek a second opinion.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is unique because it aims to empower patients in a way that hasn’t been done before, Ms. Quinn Young said. “We are committed ... ever since we conceived of this project, to giving results back to patients. That is disruptive because right now that doesn’t exist.”
But the cost of implementing the registry, which has an approximate budget of $20 million, stands in the way of a completely free flow of anonymized data. MMRF leaders are exploring different strategies to sustain funding for the program.
Another MMRF program, CoMMpass, uses a precompetitive consortium model, in which several pharmaceutical companies pay for a preview of the data 6 months in advance of nonprofit researchers. A similar model may be used with the Direct-to-Patient registry, but this has yet to be determined, according to Dr. Labkoff and Ms. Quinn Young.
For now, Ms. Quinn Young said she hopes that physicians will be receptive to the program. “[The short term goal is that] when patients come to their doctors asking about this, that there is support and open-mindedness,” she said.
Looking to the future, Dr. Labkoff described how the registry could accelerate myeloma research, ultimately toward a cure.
“It is generally accepted that it can take 17 years to get something – a therapy, a new drug, or a guideline – from the bench to the bedside,” he said. “It’s my hope that we can take next generation sequencing and the results of this registry and bend that curve, maybe ... to 10 [years], or very aggressively, to 7 or 5 [years], where doctors are able to use the information in these reports for the patients that have literally given themselves, and use this to help guide the choices of their therapy or the trials they apply for, to help them get a better outcome in general.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is a collaborative effort between the MMRF and multiple organizations, including the health care technology company COTA, the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Prometheus Research, Tempus, and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) recently launched its Direct-to-Patient registry, in what the organization’s leaders are describing as a “disruptive” step toward improving outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma.
The new registry is intended to build upon CoMMpass, a program started 8 years ago that now represents the largest genomic database of any type of cancer. Although CoMMpass includes data from about 1,150 patients with myeloma, it’s not enough information, according to the chief marketing and development officer at the MMRF, Anne Quinn Young.
“For a disease as heterogenous as myeloma is, we need more, particularly because we don’t have all the samples for later-stage disease,” Ms. Quinn Young said in an interview. “And even with the clinical data, given the patient population, both [in terms of] demographics and the nature of the disease, the numbers of patients still living after multiple relapses is rather small.”
In an earlier effort to gather more data, the MMRF first turned to other organizations for help, but this approach fell short because of scarcity of data, and in some cases, unwillingness to share. Steven Labkoff, MD, chief data officer at the MMRF, described this experience in an interview.
“When the MMRF was looking around for different data sources for myeloma data, it was always the claim that, ‘Sure, we have plenty of patients, we have plenty of data, and it’s rich and really complete.’ However, as we approached an array of organizations – big organizations – as we dug into the details and reviewed patient counts or data completeness, they either didn’t have a sufficient number of patients, they didn’t have sufficiently complete data for our needs, and in the case where some did have sufficient numbers and complete data sets, they simply weren’t in a position to share that data outside their institution,” Dr. Labkoff said.
Undeterred, the MMRF switched tactics to the current, patient-centric approach.
“We’re leveraging one aspect of the HIPAA legislation,” Dr. Labkoff said, referring to patients’ rights to request their own medical records and an institution’s legal obligation to provide those records.
In the short-term, the registry will collect three types of data: patient donated data (answers from a patient survey), electronic medical records abstracted from all relevant past providers, and genomic test results. Participating patients will have blood drawn at home by a phlebotomist for the genomic assay. Additional tubes of blood will be concurrently collected and biobanked. This will eventually allow for immune profiling, Dr. Labkoff said.
Future goals include a patient-reported outcomes module and the ability to link data with medical claims.
So far, 79 patients have participated in the pilot program, according to the MMRF. As the database builds, Ms. Quinn Young and Dr. Labkoff anticipate that it will yield answers to a variety of real-world questions.
Dr. Labkoff offered two examples. “Of all the patients who have been exposed to ‘name your drug,’ what were the costs of their therapy, and what were the outcomes?” he said. In addition, researchers will be able to query clinical trial inclusion criteria to search for data on a specific patient profile, such as patients with a 4:14 translocation, who have had a bone marrow transplant in the last 2 years, and have been exposed to a certain drug regimen.
Ms. Quinn Young noted that doctors may be able to use the database to reliably identify high-risk patients and guide agent selection. Common patient questions also will be addressed, she said, including best treatment regimens for certain types of patients.
“For patients who may have run out of all commercially available options, or for patients who are perhaps seen at a community center, where certainly this type of profiling is not standard, it’s opening up a whole new set of options for them,” Ms. Quinn Young said. “And if their physician doesn’t pursue those options, they have the report that they can use to seek a second opinion.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is unique because it aims to empower patients in a way that hasn’t been done before, Ms. Quinn Young said. “We are committed ... ever since we conceived of this project, to giving results back to patients. That is disruptive because right now that doesn’t exist.”
But the cost of implementing the registry, which has an approximate budget of $20 million, stands in the way of a completely free flow of anonymized data. MMRF leaders are exploring different strategies to sustain funding for the program.
Another MMRF program, CoMMpass, uses a precompetitive consortium model, in which several pharmaceutical companies pay for a preview of the data 6 months in advance of nonprofit researchers. A similar model may be used with the Direct-to-Patient registry, but this has yet to be determined, according to Dr. Labkoff and Ms. Quinn Young.
For now, Ms. Quinn Young said she hopes that physicians will be receptive to the program. “[The short term goal is that] when patients come to their doctors asking about this, that there is support and open-mindedness,” she said.
Looking to the future, Dr. Labkoff described how the registry could accelerate myeloma research, ultimately toward a cure.
“It is generally accepted that it can take 17 years to get something – a therapy, a new drug, or a guideline – from the bench to the bedside,” he said. “It’s my hope that we can take next generation sequencing and the results of this registry and bend that curve, maybe ... to 10 [years], or very aggressively, to 7 or 5 [years], where doctors are able to use the information in these reports for the patients that have literally given themselves, and use this to help guide the choices of their therapy or the trials they apply for, to help them get a better outcome in general.”
The Direct-to-Patient registry is a collaborative effort between the MMRF and multiple organizations, including the health care technology company COTA, the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Prometheus Research, Tempus, and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
Multiple Myeloma: A New Treatment Option for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible Patients
Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.
Article includes:
- An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
- Details on the phase 3 trial
- Efficacy and safety profile
Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.
Article includes:
- An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
- Details on the phase 3 trial
- Efficacy and safety profile
Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.
Article includes:
- An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
- Details on the phase 3 trial
- Efficacy and safety profile
Levofloxacin prophylaxis improves survival in newly diagnosed myeloma
Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.
The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.
Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.
At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.
After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).
With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).
“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.
One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.
“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.
SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.
Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.
The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.
Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.
At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.
After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).
With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).
“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.
One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.
“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.
SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.
Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.
The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.
Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.
At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.
After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).
With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).
“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.
One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.
“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.
SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
SEER analysis reveals medication adherence factors in newly diagnosed myeloma
Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.
The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.
Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.
The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.
The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.
After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.
The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”
There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).
“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.
Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.
The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.
Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.
The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.
The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.
After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.
The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”
There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).
“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.
Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.
The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.
Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.
The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.
The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.
After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.
The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”
There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).
“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA
What is the optimal duration of maintenance in myeloma?
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Study finds no standard for treatment discontinuation in myeloma
BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.
Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.
Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.
The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).
Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.
First-line therapy
“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”
First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:
- Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
- Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
- Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
- Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
- Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
- Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
- Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
- Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
- Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
- Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.
Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).
Second- and third-line therapies
“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”
In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.
There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:
- Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
- Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
- KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
- VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
- Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
- VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
- Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
- IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
- VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
- VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.
Duration of therapy
Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.
None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.
Time to next treatment
“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”
For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.
Reasons for discontinuation
“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”
The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:
- Relapse for VCd.
- Planned end of therapy for VRd.
- Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
- AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:
- Planned end of therapy for VCd.
- AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
- Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
- AEs for Rd and IRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Kd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:
- AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
- Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
- Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Rd.
The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.
INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.
SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.
BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.
Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.
Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.
The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).
Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.
First-line therapy
“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”
First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:
- Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
- Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
- Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
- Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
- Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
- Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
- Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
- Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
- Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
- Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.
Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).
Second- and third-line therapies
“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”
In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.
There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:
- Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
- Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
- KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
- VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
- Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
- VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
- Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
- IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
- VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
- VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.
Duration of therapy
Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.
None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.
Time to next treatment
“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”
For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.
Reasons for discontinuation
“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”
The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:
- Relapse for VCd.
- Planned end of therapy for VRd.
- Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
- AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:
- Planned end of therapy for VCd.
- AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
- Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
- AEs for Rd and IRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Kd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:
- AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
- Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
- Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Rd.
The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.
INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.
SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.
BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.
Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.
Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.
The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).
Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.
First-line therapy
“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”
First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:
- Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
- Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
- Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
- Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
- Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
- Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
- Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
- Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
- Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
- Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.
Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).
Second- and third-line therapies
“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”
In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.
There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:
- Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
- Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
- KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
- VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
- Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
- VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
- Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
- IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
- VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
- VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.
Duration of therapy
Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.
None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.
Time to next treatment
“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”
For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.
Reasons for discontinuation
“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”
The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:
- Relapse for VCd.
- Planned end of therapy for VRd.
- Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
- AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:
- Planned end of therapy for VCd.
- AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
- Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
- AEs for Rd and IRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Kd.
The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:
- AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
- Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
- Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
- AEs and other reasons for Rd.
The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.
INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.
SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.
REPORTING FROM IMW 2019
Second-generation anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy shows promise in myeloma trial
BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).
Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.
Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.
In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.
Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.
In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 108 cells, but three received 0.5 x 108, 1 x 108, and 1.8 x 108 cells, respectively.
The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).
A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.
Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 108 cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.
Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).
All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.
This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.
BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).
Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.
Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.
In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.
Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.
In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 108 cells, but three received 0.5 x 108, 1 x 108, and 1.8 x 108 cells, respectively.
The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).
A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.
Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 108 cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.
Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).
All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.
This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.
BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).
Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.
Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.
In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.
Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.
In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 108 cells, but three received 0.5 x 108, 1 x 108, and 1.8 x 108 cells, respectively.
The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).
A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.
Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 108 cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.
Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).
All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.
Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.
This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.
REPORTING FROM IMW 2019
Daratumumab approved in combo with VTd for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.
The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).
The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.
Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.
The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).
The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.
Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.
The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.
The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).
The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.
Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.