Search

The standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM) consists of induction chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT), but this setting doesn't present curative potential. Despite advances in new, efficient, and targeted drugs, allogeneic transplant (aloSCT) remains the modality with curative potential in MM. With the knowledge of high mortality and morbidity related to the treatment in comparison to treatment with novel drugs, there is no consensus in the indication of aloSCT in MM, also the choice of ideal patients profiting from this method is difficult. Therefore, we performed a retrospective unicentric study of 36 unselected consecutive patients transplanted for MM in the University Hospital in Pilsen between the years 2000-2020 in order to define possible variables influencing survival. The median age of the patients was 52 years (38-63) and the distribution of MM subtypes was standard. The majority of the patients were transplanted in the relapse setting, 3 (8.3%) patients in the 1st line setting, and in 7 (19%) patients elective auto-alo tandem transplant was performed. 18 patients (60% of patients with available cytogenetics (CG) had high-risk disease. 12 (33.3%) patients were transplanted with chemoresistant disease (at least PR not reached). With a median follow-up of 85 months, we observed median overall survival (OS) of 30 months (range 10-60) and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 15 months (11-175). 1- and 5-year Kaplan Meier survival probabilities for OS were 55% and 30.5% respectively. During the follow-up, 27 (75%) patients died, 11 (35%) due to treatment-related mortality (TRM), and 16 patients (44%) due to a relapse. 9 (25%) patients were still alive, 3 (8.3%) of them with complete remission (CR), and 6 (16.7%) patients with relapse/progression. Altogether 21 (58%) of the patients relapsed/progressed with a median of 11 months (3-175). Incidence of clinically significant acute graft versus host disease (aGvHD gr. >II) was low (8.3%) and extensive chronic GvHD (cGvHD) developed in 4 patients (11.1%). Univariant analysis proved marginal statistical significance in disease status before aloSCT (chemosensitive × chemoresistant) for OS, favoring patients with the chemosensitive disease (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.01, p=0.05), there was no significant impact of high-risk cytogenetics (CG) on survival. No other analyzed parameter was found to be significant. Our findings support the conclusion that aloSCT is able to overcome high-risk CG and that aloSCT still remains a valid treatment choice with acceptable toxicity in well-selected high-risk patients with curative potential, even though often with active disease, but not derogating the quality of life significantly.

Background: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice., Methods: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05., Results: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable., Conclusions: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

This study used data from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies to validate the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and revised International Staging System (R-ISS) indices for risk stratification in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in clinical practice. Patients were included if they had symptomatic MM, complete data allowing R-ISS and IMWG staging (including cytogenetic information regarding t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p)), and key parameters for treatment evaluation. Median overall survival (OS) in included patients (n = 550) was 47.7 (95% CI: 39.5-55.9) and 46.2 (95% CI: 38.9-53.5) months from diagnosis and initiation of first-line therapy, respectively. Patients categorized as higher vs lower risk had reduced survival; median OS from diagnosis was 35.4 (95% CI: 30.5-40.3) vs 58.3 (95% CI: 53.8-62.9) months in high-risk vs other patients (IMWG; P = .001) and 34.1 (95% CI: 30.2-38.0) vs 47.2 (95% CI: 43.4-51.0) months in Stage III vs Stage II patients (R-ISS; P < .001). In conclusion, IMWG and R-ISS risk stratification indices are applicable to patients with MM in a real-world setting., (© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Simple Summary: We report the final outomes of the addition of ixazomib to the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the routine clinical practice. With prolonged follow-up, the overall response rate was similar in both cohorts, but the addition of ixazomib induced more deeper responses. Median progression free survival was significantly better in patients receiving ixazomib and translated into better overal survival. Inferior results were seen in patients who were pretreated with lenalidomide in previous regimens. We conclude that the treatment using IRD regimen in routine practice is easy, well tolerated, and with very good therapeutic outcomes, comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]