Multiple Myeloma

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the EC for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is EC-approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE (MMY3007) study.

Results from this study were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P<0.0001). Rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the D-VMP arm and was 18.1 months in the VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 87% and 76%, respectively. The 18-month PFS was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (50% and 53%), thrombocytopenia (49% and 54%), anemia (28% and 38%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (28% and 34%), upper respiratory tract infection (26% and 14%), diarrhea (24% and 25%), pyrexia (23% and 21%), and nausea (21% and 22%).

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 28% of patients in the D-VMP arm and 0% of those in the VMP arm.

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. In both arms, most infections resolved.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 5% in the D-VMP arm and 9% in the VMP arm.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

© Nevit Dilmen

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality in postmenopausal women who develop multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

They found that high fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death in postmenopausal females with MM, independent of other clinical risk factors.

Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, and her colleagues reported these findings in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The researchers studied 362 subjects in the Women’s Health Initiative data set who developed MM but had no history of any cancer at baseline. The women were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal when they were originally recruited at 40 US centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for the women using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Ninety-eight of the subjects were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P=0.044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 72% (n=71) of women with high FRAX scores and 59% (n=155) of women with low FRAX scores.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop MM, according to Dr. Rosko and her coauthors.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” the researchers wrote.

This work was supported, in part, by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality risk in cancer-free postmenopausal women who go on to develop multiple myeloma, results of a recent analysis suggest.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

High fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death, independent of other clinical risk factors, in this analysis of postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data set.

The findings help define osteoporosis as an important prognostic factor associated with mortality in postmenopausal women who develop myeloma, according to study author Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and her colleagues.

“Osteoporosis is highly prevalent in aging adults, and very little is known on how this comorbid condition contributes to outcomes in individuals who develop myeloma,” wrote Dr. Rosko and her coauthors. Their report is in the journal Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The analysis involved 362 women in the WHI data set who developed myeloma and had no history of any cancer at baseline. Women in the WHI were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal at baseline when originally recruited at 40 U.S. centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for women in the data set using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Of the 362 women who developed myeloma, 98 were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture, or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, according to investigators, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P = .044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients who developed myeloma, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 71 women with high FRAX scores, or 72% of that subset; and 155 women with low FRAX scores, or 59% of that subset, investigators reported.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop multiple myeloma, Dr. Rosko and her coauthors said in a discussion of the study results.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” they said.

This investigation was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Rosko AE et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Sep;18(9):597-602.e1.

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality risk in cancer-free postmenopausal women who go on to develop multiple myeloma, results of a recent analysis suggest.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

High fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death, independent of other clinical risk factors, in this analysis of postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data set.

The findings help define osteoporosis as an important prognostic factor associated with mortality in postmenopausal women who develop myeloma, according to study author Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and her colleagues.

“Osteoporosis is highly prevalent in aging adults, and very little is known on how this comorbid condition contributes to outcomes in individuals who develop myeloma,” wrote Dr. Rosko and her coauthors. Their report is in the journal Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The analysis involved 362 women in the WHI data set who developed myeloma and had no history of any cancer at baseline. Women in the WHI were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal at baseline when originally recruited at 40 U.S. centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for women in the data set using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Of the 362 women who developed myeloma, 98 were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture, or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, according to investigators, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P = .044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients who developed myeloma, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 71 women with high FRAX scores, or 72% of that subset; and 155 women with low FRAX scores, or 59% of that subset, investigators reported.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop multiple myeloma, Dr. Rosko and her coauthors said in a discussion of the study results.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” they said.

This investigation was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Rosko AE et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Sep;18(9):597-602.e1.

Preexisting osteoporosis is an important risk factor for mortality risk in cancer-free postmenopausal women who go on to develop multiple myeloma, results of a recent analysis suggest.

©eranicle/Thinkstock

High fracture risk was associated with an increased risk of death, independent of other clinical risk factors, in this analysis of postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data set.

The findings help define osteoporosis as an important prognostic factor associated with mortality in postmenopausal women who develop myeloma, according to study author Ashley E. Rosko, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and her colleagues.

“Osteoporosis is highly prevalent in aging adults, and very little is known on how this comorbid condition contributes to outcomes in individuals who develop myeloma,” wrote Dr. Rosko and her coauthors. Their report is in the journal Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The analysis involved 362 women in the WHI data set who developed myeloma and had no history of any cancer at baseline. Women in the WHI were between 50 and 79 years of age and postmenopausal at baseline when originally recruited at 40 U.S. centers between 1993 and 1998.

Dr. Rosko and her colleagues calculated bone health for women in the data set using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), a web-based tool that calculates 10-year probability of hip and other major osteoporotic fractures.

Of the 362 women who developed myeloma, 98 were classified as having high FRAX scores, defined as a 10-year probability of 3% or greater for hip fracture, or 20% or greater for other major osteoporosis-related fractures.

With a median follow-up of 10.5 years, the adjusted risk of death was elevated in women with high FRAX scores, according to investigators, with a covariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.25; P = .044) versus women with low FRAX scores.

Of the 362 patients who developed myeloma, 226 died during the follow-up period. That included 71 women with high FRAX scores, or 72% of that subset; and 155 women with low FRAX scores, or 59% of that subset, investigators reported.

These findings suggest osteoporosis is an “important comorbidity” in women who develop multiple myeloma, Dr. Rosko and her coauthors said in a discussion of the study results.

“Recognizing osteoporosis as a risk factor associated with multiple myeloma mortality is an important prognostic factor in postmenopausal women,” they said.

This investigation was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Rosko AE et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Sep;18(9):597-602.e1.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to elotuzumab (Empliciti) for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat multiple myeloma patients who have received between one and three prior therapies.

The elotuzumab application is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study that evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Researchers presented findings from this study at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018.

The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd) arm and 26% in the pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) arm. The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0078), the researchers reported.

The researchers also reported that adverse events in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The priority review typically shortens the time to an approval decision by a few months. The agency is expected to make a decision on elotuzumab by Dec. 27, 2018.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to elotuzumab (Empliciti) for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat multiple myeloma patients who have received between one and three prior therapies.

The elotuzumab application is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study that evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Researchers presented findings from this study at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018.

The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd) arm and 26% in the pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) arm. The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0078), the researchers reported.

The researchers also reported that adverse events in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The priority review typically shortens the time to an approval decision by a few months. The agency is expected to make a decision on elotuzumab by Dec. 27, 2018.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to elotuzumab (Empliciti) for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab is already approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat multiple myeloma patients who have received between one and three prior therapies.

The elotuzumab application is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study that evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Researchers presented findings from this study at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in June 2018.

The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd) arm and 26% in the pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) arm. The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0078), the researchers reported.

The researchers also reported that adverse events in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The priority review typically shortens the time to an approval decision by a few months. The agency is expected to make a decision on elotuzumab by Dec. 27, 2018.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are codeveloping elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests cancer survivors are just as likely as people without a history of cancer to have complete mental health (CMH), which is defined as “optimal functioning” and the “absence of psychopathology.”

In a study of nearly 11,000 Canadians, 77.5% of cancer survivors and 76.8% of people with no cancer history had CMH.

As for patients who were battling cancer at the time of the study, 66.1% had CMH.

Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, and Keri West, both of the University of Toronto in Canada, conducted this research and reported the findings in Aging & Mental Health.

“Cancer patients were doing much better than we had expected,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said. “Two-thirds met our very stringent criteria for complete mental health . . . . The news for cancer survivors was even better, with three-quarters living in complete mental health, which is a prevalence comparable to that of individuals with no cancer history.”

This study included a nationally representative sample of Canadian community dwellers age 50 and older. Subjects had current cancer (n=438), previous cancer (n=1174), or no cancer history (n=9279).

Data were obtained from Statistics Canada’s 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health.

To meet criteria for CMH, subjects had to have all of the following:

• Absence of mental illness, addictions, and suicidal thoughts in the past year
• Almost daily happiness or life satisfaction in the past month
• Psychosocial well-being.

The prevalence of CMH was 77.5% in cancer survivors and 76.8% in subjects who had never had cancer. Both were significantly higher than the 66.1% prevalence of CMH in current cancer patients (P<0.001).

In a multivariable model adjusted for demographics, current cancer patients had 45% lower odds of CMH compared to subjects with no cancer history (odds ratio [OR]=0.55). The odds of CMH were comparable for cancer survivors and those without a history of cancer (OR=0.98).

The researchers also conducted a multivariable analysis in which they adjusted for “all relevant factors,” which included demographics as well as adverse childhood events, socioeconomic status, health variables, lifetime mental illness, etc.

In this analysis, current cancer patients had 37% lower odds of CMH than subjects with no cancer history (OR=0.63). And cancer survivors had comparable odds of CMH as those with no cancer history (OR=1.06).

The researchers identified several factors that were associated with CMH in the population affected by cancer.

“Among those with former or current cancer, the odds of complete mental health were higher for women, white, married, and older respondents, as well as those with higher income and those who did not have disabling pain nor functional limitations,” West said.

“We found that earlier difficulties cast a long shadow. Those who had been physically abused during their childhood and those who had ever had depression or anxiety disorders were less likely to be in complete mental health.”

West and Dr Fuller-Thomson emphasized that these results are only correlational, and it is impossible to determine causality due to the cross-sectional and observational nature of the study.

The pair also said future longitudinal research is needed to improve understanding of what pathways improve resilience and recovery among cancer patients.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests cancer survivors are just as likely as people without a history of cancer to have complete mental health (CMH), which is defined as “optimal functioning” and the “absence of psychopathology.”

In a study of nearly 11,000 Canadians, 77.5% of cancer survivors and 76.8% of people with no cancer history had CMH.

As for patients who were battling cancer at the time of the study, 66.1% had CMH.

Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, and Keri West, both of the University of Toronto in Canada, conducted this research and reported the findings in Aging & Mental Health.

“Cancer patients were doing much better than we had expected,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said. “Two-thirds met our very stringent criteria for complete mental health . . . . The news for cancer survivors was even better, with three-quarters living in complete mental health, which is a prevalence comparable to that of individuals with no cancer history.”

This study included a nationally representative sample of Canadian community dwellers age 50 and older. Subjects had current cancer (n=438), previous cancer (n=1174), or no cancer history (n=9279).

Data were obtained from Statistics Canada’s 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health.

To meet criteria for CMH, subjects had to have all of the following:

• Absence of mental illness, addictions, and suicidal thoughts in the past year
• Almost daily happiness or life satisfaction in the past month
• Psychosocial well-being.

The prevalence of CMH was 77.5% in cancer survivors and 76.8% in subjects who had never had cancer. Both were significantly higher than the 66.1% prevalence of CMH in current cancer patients (P<0.001).

In a multivariable model adjusted for demographics, current cancer patients had 45% lower odds of CMH compared to subjects with no cancer history (odds ratio [OR]=0.55). The odds of CMH were comparable for cancer survivors and those without a history of cancer (OR=0.98).

The researchers also conducted a multivariable analysis in which they adjusted for “all relevant factors,” which included demographics as well as adverse childhood events, socioeconomic status, health variables, lifetime mental illness, etc.

In this analysis, current cancer patients had 37% lower odds of CMH than subjects with no cancer history (OR=0.63). And cancer survivors had comparable odds of CMH as those with no cancer history (OR=1.06).

The researchers identified several factors that were associated with CMH in the population affected by cancer.

“Among those with former or current cancer, the odds of complete mental health were higher for women, white, married, and older respondents, as well as those with higher income and those who did not have disabling pain nor functional limitations,” West said.

“We found that earlier difficulties cast a long shadow. Those who had been physically abused during their childhood and those who had ever had depression or anxiety disorders were less likely to be in complete mental health.”

West and Dr Fuller-Thomson emphasized that these results are only correlational, and it is impossible to determine causality due to the cross-sectional and observational nature of the study.

The pair also said future longitudinal research is needed to improve understanding of what pathways improve resilience and recovery among cancer patients.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests cancer survivors are just as likely as people without a history of cancer to have complete mental health (CMH), which is defined as “optimal functioning” and the “absence of psychopathology.”

In a study of nearly 11,000 Canadians, 77.5% of cancer survivors and 76.8% of people with no cancer history had CMH.

As for patients who were battling cancer at the time of the study, 66.1% had CMH.

Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, and Keri West, both of the University of Toronto in Canada, conducted this research and reported the findings in Aging & Mental Health.

“Cancer patients were doing much better than we had expected,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said. “Two-thirds met our very stringent criteria for complete mental health . . . . The news for cancer survivors was even better, with three-quarters living in complete mental health, which is a prevalence comparable to that of individuals with no cancer history.”

This study included a nationally representative sample of Canadian community dwellers age 50 and older. Subjects had current cancer (n=438), previous cancer (n=1174), or no cancer history (n=9279).

Data were obtained from Statistics Canada’s 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health.

To meet criteria for CMH, subjects had to have all of the following:

• Absence of mental illness, addictions, and suicidal thoughts in the past year
• Almost daily happiness or life satisfaction in the past month
• Psychosocial well-being.

The prevalence of CMH was 77.5% in cancer survivors and 76.8% in subjects who had never had cancer. Both were significantly higher than the 66.1% prevalence of CMH in current cancer patients (P<0.001).

In a multivariable model adjusted for demographics, current cancer patients had 45% lower odds of CMH compared to subjects with no cancer history (odds ratio [OR]=0.55). The odds of CMH were comparable for cancer survivors and those without a history of cancer (OR=0.98).

The researchers also conducted a multivariable analysis in which they adjusted for “all relevant factors,” which included demographics as well as adverse childhood events, socioeconomic status, health variables, lifetime mental illness, etc.

In this analysis, current cancer patients had 37% lower odds of CMH than subjects with no cancer history (OR=0.63). And cancer survivors had comparable odds of CMH as those with no cancer history (OR=1.06).

The researchers identified several factors that were associated with CMH in the population affected by cancer.

“Among those with former or current cancer, the odds of complete mental health were higher for women, white, married, and older respondents, as well as those with higher income and those who did not have disabling pain nor functional limitations,” West said.

“We found that earlier difficulties cast a long shadow. Those who had been physically abused during their childhood and those who had ever had depression or anxiety disorders were less likely to be in complete mental health.”

West and Dr Fuller-Thomson emphasized that these results are only correlational, and it is impossible to determine causality due to the cross-sectional and observational nature of the study.

The pair also said future longitudinal research is needed to improve understanding of what pathways improve resilience and recovery among cancer patients.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for elotuzumab (Empliciti).

With this sBLA, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA for elotuzumab by December 27, 2018.

Elotuzumab is already FDA-approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Supporting trial

The sBLA for elotuzumab is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study in which researchers evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

Data from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

The trial randomized 117 MM patients who received two or more prior therapies and were either refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive either elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd; n=60) or pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd; n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm (odds ratio=3.25; P=0.0029).

The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Overall survival data were not mature at last follow-up, but there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62).

The researchers said adverse events (AEs) in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure (n=1), and general physical health deterioration (n=1).

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection (n=1), multiple organ failure and infection (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), and plasma cell myeloma (n=1).

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for elotuzumab (Empliciti).

With this sBLA, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA for elotuzumab by December 27, 2018.

Elotuzumab is already FDA-approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Supporting trial

The sBLA for elotuzumab is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study in which researchers evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

Data from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

The trial randomized 117 MM patients who received two or more prior therapies and were either refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive either elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd; n=60) or pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd; n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm (odds ratio=3.25; P=0.0029).

The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Overall survival data were not mature at last follow-up, but there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62).

The researchers said adverse events (AEs) in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure (n=1), and general physical health deterioration (n=1).

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection (n=1), multiple organ failure and infection (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), and plasma cell myeloma (n=1).

Bristol-Myers Squibb

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for elotuzumab (Empliciti).

With this sBLA, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is seeking approval for elotuzumab in combination with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to treat patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA for elotuzumab by December 27, 2018.

Elotuzumab is already FDA-approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treat MM patients who have received one to three prior therapies.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie are co-developing elotuzumab, with Bristol-Myers Squibb solely responsible for commercial activities.

Supporting trial

The sBLA for elotuzumab is supported by data from ELOQUENT-3, a randomized, phase 2 study in which researchers evaluated the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

Data from this study were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association in June.

The trial randomized 117 MM patients who received two or more prior therapies and were either refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

The patients were randomized to receive either elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone (EPd; n=60) or pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd; n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm (odds ratio=3.25; P=0.0029).

The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the EPd arm and 4.7 months in the Pd arm (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Overall survival data were not mature at last follow-up, but there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62).

The researchers said adverse events (AEs) in the EPd arm were consistent with expectations based on previous results with elotuzumab and pomalidomide regimens.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure (n=1), and general physical health deterioration (n=1).

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection (n=1), multiple organ failure and infection (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), and plasma cell myeloma (n=1).

Photo by Darren Baker

A simulation could help personalize therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which MM patients would have the greatest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide.

Joske Ubels, of University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and her colleagues described this research in Nature Communications.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” the researchers noted.

For this study, the team applied a simulated treatment learning model called GESTURE to two MM gene expression datasets. One set included patients who received bortezomib (and other therapies). The other included patients who received lenalidomide (and other therapies).

For the bortezomib dataset, the researchers combined data from three randomized, phase 3 trials of 910 MM patients (total therapy 2, total therapy 3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4).

The model suggested that, in 19.8% of these patients, bortezomib would produce a two-fold greater PFS benefit than in the patient population as a whole.

For the lenalidomide dataset, the researchers obtained data on 662 MM patients in the CoMMpass trial.

The model suggested that, in 31.1% of these patients, lenalidomide would produce a three-fold greater PFS benefit than that observed in the patient population as a whole.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that GESTURE “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment.”

The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, according to the researchers.

The team’s next step is to see if GESTURE makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support for this research. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative.

Dr. Ubels and one co-investigator are employees of SkylineDx. Another co-investigator served on the company’s advisory board. All other study authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Photo by Darren Baker

A simulation could help personalize therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which MM patients would have the greatest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide.

Joske Ubels, of University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and her colleagues described this research in Nature Communications.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” the researchers noted.

For this study, the team applied a simulated treatment learning model called GESTURE to two MM gene expression datasets. One set included patients who received bortezomib (and other therapies). The other included patients who received lenalidomide (and other therapies).

For the bortezomib dataset, the researchers combined data from three randomized, phase 3 trials of 910 MM patients (total therapy 2, total therapy 3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4).

The model suggested that, in 19.8% of these patients, bortezomib would produce a two-fold greater PFS benefit than in the patient population as a whole.

For the lenalidomide dataset, the researchers obtained data on 662 MM patients in the CoMMpass trial.

The model suggested that, in 31.1% of these patients, lenalidomide would produce a three-fold greater PFS benefit than that observed in the patient population as a whole.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that GESTURE “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment.”

The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, according to the researchers.

The team’s next step is to see if GESTURE makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support for this research. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative.

Dr. Ubels and one co-investigator are employees of SkylineDx. Another co-investigator served on the company’s advisory board. All other study authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Photo by Darren Baker

A simulation could help personalize therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which MM patients would have the greatest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide.

Joske Ubels, of University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and her colleagues described this research in Nature Communications.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” the researchers noted.

For this study, the team applied a simulated treatment learning model called GESTURE to two MM gene expression datasets. One set included patients who received bortezomib (and other therapies). The other included patients who received lenalidomide (and other therapies).

For the bortezomib dataset, the researchers combined data from three randomized, phase 3 trials of 910 MM patients (total therapy 2, total therapy 3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4).

The model suggested that, in 19.8% of these patients, bortezomib would produce a two-fold greater PFS benefit than in the patient population as a whole.

For the lenalidomide dataset, the researchers obtained data on 662 MM patients in the CoMMpass trial.

The model suggested that, in 31.1% of these patients, lenalidomide would produce a three-fold greater PFS benefit than that observed in the patient population as a whole.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that GESTURE “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment.”

The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, according to the researchers.

The team’s next step is to see if GESTURE makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support for this research. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative.

Dr. Ubels and one co-investigator are employees of SkylineDx. Another co-investigator served on the company’s advisory board. All other study authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Prescription drug coverage at diagnosis is associated with outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with myeloma, according to new research.

Patients enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan (PDP) and those with other creditable prescription drug coverage (OCC) at the time of myeloma diagnosis were more likely to receive active care and had better overall survival (OS) than Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage.

Adam Olszewski, MD, of Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, and his colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers looked at 9755 patients diagnosed with myeloma from 2006 to 2011, assessing the patients’ first-line treatment and OS.

The team classified patients according to the prescription drug coverage they had at myeloma diagnosis. There were 1460 patients with no prescription drug coverage, 3283 with PDP, 3607 with OCC, and 1405 with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Treatment

In a multivariate analysis, PDP beneficiaries were 6% more likely than beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active care for myeloma.

However, PDP beneficiaries were 14% less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy and 38% less likely to receive classic cytotoxic agents. The use of bortezomib-based regimens was similar between PDP patients and those with no drug coverage.

Beneficiaries with OCC were 3% more likely than those with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. The use of parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens was similar between the OCC group and the group without drug coverage.

Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollees were about as likely as beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. However, the dual enrollees were less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens.

Survival

The median follow-up was 4.9 years. The median survival for all myeloma patients was 2.3 years, and the 3-year OS was 43.1%.

The researchers noted that, among the beneficiaries without drug coverage at diagnosis, 41% had obtained PDP or OCC by the following January. Even so, their OS was significantly worse than beneficiaries who had PDP or OCC at diagnosis.

In a multivariate analysis, OS was 16% longer in both the PDP group and the OCC group than in the group without drug coverage at diagnosis. OS was 8% longer for dual enrollees than for patients without drug coverage.

Dr Olszewski and his colleagues noted that survival differences were largest during the first year and decreased over time as more patients without drug coverage obtained coverage.

The researchers said they couldn’t determine whether the worse OS in the group without drug coverage was the result of not receiving therapy, lack of access to immunomodulatory drugs, or other medical issues.

The team also said their findings should be interpreted with caution because the survival results are “confounded by multiple baseline factors and mediated by the quality of cancer treatment.”

Still, the results “strongly suggest that patients with myeloma without prescription drug coverage may not have received the most effective first-line therapy,” Dr Olszewski and his colleagues wrote.

“Survival for PDP and OCC groups remained identical, which supports the notion that having any prescription drug coverage contributed to optimal treatment and outcomes.”

Photo by Bill Branson

Prescription drug coverage at diagnosis is associated with outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with myeloma, according to new research.

Patients enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan (PDP) and those with other creditable prescription drug coverage (OCC) at the time of myeloma diagnosis were more likely to receive active care and had better overall survival (OS) than Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage.

Adam Olszewski, MD, of Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, and his colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers looked at 9755 patients diagnosed with myeloma from 2006 to 2011, assessing the patients’ first-line treatment and OS.

The team classified patients according to the prescription drug coverage they had at myeloma diagnosis. There were 1460 patients with no prescription drug coverage, 3283 with PDP, 3607 with OCC, and 1405 with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Treatment

In a multivariate analysis, PDP beneficiaries were 6% more likely than beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active care for myeloma.

However, PDP beneficiaries were 14% less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy and 38% less likely to receive classic cytotoxic agents. The use of bortezomib-based regimens was similar between PDP patients and those with no drug coverage.

Beneficiaries with OCC were 3% more likely than those with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. The use of parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens was similar between the OCC group and the group without drug coverage.

Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollees were about as likely as beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. However, the dual enrollees were less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens.

Survival

The median follow-up was 4.9 years. The median survival for all myeloma patients was 2.3 years, and the 3-year OS was 43.1%.

The researchers noted that, among the beneficiaries without drug coverage at diagnosis, 41% had obtained PDP or OCC by the following January. Even so, their OS was significantly worse than beneficiaries who had PDP or OCC at diagnosis.

In a multivariate analysis, OS was 16% longer in both the PDP group and the OCC group than in the group without drug coverage at diagnosis. OS was 8% longer for dual enrollees than for patients without drug coverage.

Dr Olszewski and his colleagues noted that survival differences were largest during the first year and decreased over time as more patients without drug coverage obtained coverage.

The researchers said they couldn’t determine whether the worse OS in the group without drug coverage was the result of not receiving therapy, lack of access to immunomodulatory drugs, or other medical issues.

The team also said their findings should be interpreted with caution because the survival results are “confounded by multiple baseline factors and mediated by the quality of cancer treatment.”

Still, the results “strongly suggest that patients with myeloma without prescription drug coverage may not have received the most effective first-line therapy,” Dr Olszewski and his colleagues wrote.

“Survival for PDP and OCC groups remained identical, which supports the notion that having any prescription drug coverage contributed to optimal treatment and outcomes.”

Photo by Bill Branson

Prescription drug coverage at diagnosis is associated with outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with myeloma, according to new research.

Patients enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan (PDP) and those with other creditable prescription drug coverage (OCC) at the time of myeloma diagnosis were more likely to receive active care and had better overall survival (OS) than Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage.

Adam Olszewski, MD, of Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, and his colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers looked at 9755 patients diagnosed with myeloma from 2006 to 2011, assessing the patients’ first-line treatment and OS.

The team classified patients according to the prescription drug coverage they had at myeloma diagnosis. There were 1460 patients with no prescription drug coverage, 3283 with PDP, 3607 with OCC, and 1405 with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Treatment

In a multivariate analysis, PDP beneficiaries were 6% more likely than beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active care for myeloma.

However, PDP beneficiaries were 14% less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy and 38% less likely to receive classic cytotoxic agents. The use of bortezomib-based regimens was similar between PDP patients and those with no drug coverage.

Beneficiaries with OCC were 3% more likely than those with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. The use of parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens was similar between the OCC group and the group without drug coverage.

Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollees were about as likely as beneficiaries with no drug coverage to receive active myeloma care. However, the dual enrollees were less likely to receive parenteral chemotherapy, classic cytotoxic agents, and bortezomib-based regimens.

Survival

The median follow-up was 4.9 years. The median survival for all myeloma patients was 2.3 years, and the 3-year OS was 43.1%.

The researchers noted that, among the beneficiaries without drug coverage at diagnosis, 41% had obtained PDP or OCC by the following January. Even so, their OS was significantly worse than beneficiaries who had PDP or OCC at diagnosis.

In a multivariate analysis, OS was 16% longer in both the PDP group and the OCC group than in the group without drug coverage at diagnosis. OS was 8% longer for dual enrollees than for patients without drug coverage.

Dr Olszewski and his colleagues noted that survival differences were largest during the first year and decreased over time as more patients without drug coverage obtained coverage.

The researchers said they couldn’t determine whether the worse OS in the group without drug coverage was the result of not receiving therapy, lack of access to immunomodulatory drugs, or other medical issues.

The team also said their findings should be interpreted with caution because the survival results are “confounded by multiple baseline factors and mediated by the quality of cancer treatment.”

Still, the results “strongly suggest that patients with myeloma without prescription drug coverage may not have received the most effective first-line therapy,” Dr Olszewski and his colleagues wrote.

“Survival for PDP and OCC groups remained identical, which supports the notion that having any prescription drug coverage contributed to optimal treatment and outcomes.”