Real-world data on regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are limited. Daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone is a promising new treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the outcomes of daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (DVd) combination for the treatment of patients with RRMM in a real-world setting. All consecutive RRMM patients who received at least two cycles of DVd treatment between December 2016 and July 2020 were identified. We analyzed the clinical characteristics and survival of 47 patients treated at 7 Slovak centers outside of the clinical trials. The median age was 65 years (range, 35 to 83). The median (range) number of lines of therapy per patient was 3 (2-6). All patients were previously exposed to PIs (proteasome inhibitors) and IMIDs (immunomodulatory drugs), the majority of patients (70.2%) had double refractory (IMIDs and PI) disease and 72.3% of patients were refractory to their last therapy. Most patients presented with high-risk characteristics, including 25.6% adverse cytogenetics and 25.5% extramedullary disease. The majority of patients responded with an overall response rate of 78%, we found complete response in 3, very good partial response in 22, partial response in 12, minor response or stable disease in 9, and progressive disease in 1 patient. After a median follow-up period of 8 months, the median progression-free survival was 10 months. There was a longer progression-free survival in those with 2 vs. > 2 prior treatments, with equally good effectivity in standard risk and high-risk cytogenetic groups. The adverse events were usually mild, none leading to permanent drug interruptions. Daratumumab-bortezomib-based combinations are efficacious and safe regimens in RRMM patients in the real-world setting. This is the first analysis in Slovakia addressing the DVd combination outside of the clinical trial setting.
Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.
The aim of this study was to assess cardiotoxicity and potential adverse effects related to lipid metabolism during treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) imatinib and nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive patients with CML, who received nilotinib and/or imatinib in a single haemato-oncological Slovak center between years 2002-2018 were evaluated in a retrospective study. The mean age was 55.8 years (range 22-77 years). Median of follow-up was 61.3 months. RESULTS: A signifi cantly higher incidence of dyslipidemia, signifi cantly higher levels of potential risk markers of cardiovascular disease small dense LDL cholesterol (sdLDL-CH) and a signifi cant increase in total cholesterol were found in the patients during treatment with nilotinib in comparison to imatinib. Dyslipidemia led to drug therapy in 22 % of the patients in the nilotinib group. Fourteen percent of the patients in the nilotinib group had one or more cardiovascular events, including peripheral artery disease (10 %), myocardial infarction (4 %) and stroke (4 %). CONCLUSION: A higher risk of cardiovascular events and atherogenic dyslipidemia were associated with nilotinib therapy. Patients treated with TKI, especially nilotinib, require an early modifi cation of cardiovascular risk factors and a careful cardiologic surveillance so that antileukemic therapy with this highly effective agent could continue (Tab. 4, Fig. 3, Ref. 32).
Author contributions and disclosures: M.Z. contributed to the research by fluorescence activated cell sorting, DNA processing and amplification, bioinformatic and following data analysis and wrote the manuscript, G. S. designed and led the bioinformatic analysis, T.Š. designed the research, consulted results and wrote the manuscript, V. F. performed the pathway analysis, Z. CH., K. G. and L.B. contributed to bone marrow preparation and DNA processing, T.
Background: The addition of ixazomib to the doublet lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) has shown significant benefit in progression free survival (PFS) in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study. Several real-world data including our previous analysis confirmed that the combination IRD is feasible and with fair outcomes even outside the clinical trial. Here we report an updated analysis which is aimed at overall survival (OS) and the PFS2 interval which is defined as the time from the date of treatment initiation to the date of first documentation of progressive disease after initiation of further anti-myeloma treatment or death from any cause. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 344 patients with RRMM, 127 being treated by IRD and 217 by RD combination. The group characteristics and study design are described elsewhere. 1 The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 28.5 months. The primary endpoint was OS, OS in patients with relapse 1-3, progression free survival (PFS), and PFS2. Secondary endpoints were response rates and toxicity profile. For statistical analysis we used Fisher's exact test or Mann-Whitney U test. Survival measures were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, and statistical significance was assessed using the log-rank test at a significance level of α = 0.05 (all tests two-sided). Results: The outcomes of OS in the whole cohort were already published before, with significantly longer median OS in the IRD vs RD cohort (mOS 36.6 months vs 26.0 months, p = 0.008).1 In the follow-up analysis, the medians were slightly improved, maintaining a significant difference (mOS 40.9 vs 27.1 months, p = 0.001). In patients treated within relapse 1-3, the results outcomes were even more pronounced (mOS 51.7 vs 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS was also better in the IRD cohort (mPFS 17.5 vs 12.5 months, p = 0.013) but the results did not substantially differ from our previous analysis. The median PFS2 in the IRD vs RD cohort was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (mPFS2 29.8 vs 21.6 months, p = 0.016). The subsequent therapy included mostly pomalidomide (27.5% vs 30.8%), bortezomib (28.8% vs 28.2%) or thalidomide (10.0% vs 16.2%). Monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab, isatuximab) were more frequently used after IRD combination (21.3% vs 4.3%). The response rates in the IRD vs RD cohort were similar as in our primary analysis: overall response rate (ORR) 73.0% vs 66.8%, with significant difference in very good partial response and better (VGPR+) 38.1% vs 26.3%. The toxicity profile did not reveal any additional safety concerns. Majority of grade 3+ toxicities included hematological toxicity (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and infections, with similar distribution in the cohorts. Conclusion: The treatment of RRMM using the full oral IRD regimen in routine clinical practice is easy, safe and with significantly improved outcomes in comparison to RD doublet. Our follow-up analysis confirmed the impact on OS in patients in the whole cohort including relapse 1-3. The median PFS2 was also longer in the IRD cohort, possibly affected by more frequent use of monoclonal antibodies in the next treatment. With support of AZV 17-29343A, NV18-03-00500, MH CZ - DRO (FNOl, 00098892), IGA-LF-2021-001. 1) Minarik J, Pika T, Radocha J. et al. Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice. BMC Cancer 2021; 21: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07732-1 Disclosures Minarik: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hajek: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.