Search

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

Background: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18–65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1–3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0–2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1–21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment. Findings: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2–67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3–64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5–46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62–0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3–49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0–not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5–58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63–0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]). Interpretation: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Funding: Janssen and Celgene. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drugs classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events.Leukemia accepted article preview online, 18 December 2017. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.353.

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits. © 2018 The Authors

Introduction We previously reported the results of the phase III randomized HOVON-87/NMSG-18 study for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation (nte-NDMM). The efficacy of melphalan, prednisolone and either thalidomide followed by thalidomide maintenance (MPT-T) versus lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) was found to be comparable, being consistent across subgroups defined by age, cytogenetic risk and ISS [1]. As frailty is known to affect clinical outcome, we investigated the impact of frailty on outcome. Methods Frailty was assessed by a modification of the IMWG frailty score based on age, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (retrospectively retrieved from the list of comorbidities that were present at entry) and the WHO performance as a proxy for (instrumental) Activities of Daily Living ((i)ADL). To assess the effect of frailty on progression free survival (PFS) and OS, the logrank test was used, while the chi-squared test was used to evaluate the association of frailty with discontinuation rate and toxicity. Results All 637 eligible patients from the HOVON-87/NMSG-18 trial were included in the analysis. Median age was 73 years; 66% of patients were 80 years. A CCI of 0, 1, 2 and >=3 was found in 61, 20, 7 and 4% of patients respectively (8% unknown). The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus without end organ complications (12%) and myocardial infarction (6%). A WHO performance of 0, 1 and >= 2 was observed in 35, 47 and 16% respectively (3% unknown). Univariate analyses showed that older age (>80 years: HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.12-2.25]), a higher CCI (CCI >=2: HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.01-1.95]); and a poor WHO performance (WHO >=2: HR 2.05 [1.49-2.82]) were associated with an inferior OS. HR's were 1.07 [95% CI 0.82-1.40] and 1.27 [95% CI 0.98- 1.65] for age 76-80 years and WHO performance respectively. For age and the CCI the IMWG frailty score classification was used. For the WHO, scores were assigned based on the HR: WHO 0; 0 points, WHO 1; 1 point and WHO >=2; 2 points. Fit patients were defined as a proxy frailty score of 0, unfit as a score of 1 and frail as a score of >=2, comparable to the IMWG frailty score. Using this modified IMWG frailty score, 135 patients were fit (21%), 199 were unfit (31%) and 259 were frail (41%) (7% unknown). The median OS was found to be significantly different in fit versus unfit versus frail patients; 58, 55 and 46 months respectively (p=0.004). In contrast no significant difference in median PFS was found; 26, 20 and 21 months respectively (p=0.30). The inferior OS for the frail might be partly explained by higher discontinuation rate of induction therapy; 50%, versus 43% in unfit, and 34% in fit patients (p=0.011), being mainly due to excessive toxicity (25, 23 and 16% respectively). The cumulative incidence of treatment discontinuation on protocol (induction plus maintenance), corrected for death and progressive disease which were considered as competing risks, is depicted in figure 1B. Discontinuation rate at 2 years for fit, unfit, and frail patients were 48%, 48%, and 59% respectively (p=0.06). There were significantly more grade >=3 adverse events on protocol in frail and unfit patients (both 86%) as compared to fit patients (77%, p=0.039). Especially more grade >=3 infections were found in frail (28% versus 18% in unfit and 13% in fit). In contrast, frailty was not associated with hematological toxicity. Conclusion We here present a modified frailty score, using the WHO performance instead of the (i)ADL, combined with age and the CCI, that enables the identification of frail MM patients with an inferior OS, a higher discontinuation rate and a higher rate of grade >= 3 toxicity. This non-laborious modified frailty score can be easily implemented in clinical trials and allows to compare the outcome of frail patients in nte-NDMM trials, which will hopefully result in frailty-adapted therapy in clinical daily practice. (Figure Presented).

Aims: The aim is to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results of HOVON87/NMSG18 study (Zweegman et al., Blood 2016;127(9):1109-1116). Non-transplant eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients were randomized between melphalan/prednisolone plus either thalidomide or lenalidomide for nine induction cycles, followed by thalidomide or lenalidomide maintenance (MPT-T or MRP-R). The study showed comparable efficacy of treatment. Methods: The validated instruments, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-MY20, were used for HRQoL measurement and were optional in the study. The patients answered the questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 9 induction cycles and after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. Changes in HRQoL score over time during treatment and between groups were evaluated according to previously published levels of minimal important difference. Results: 613 of the total of 637 randomized patients chose to participate in the HRQoL reporting, and the baseline questionnaire was available from 553 patients (90.2%). Patient drop-out during follow-up was due to progressive disease, toxicity, death and other, and reduced the number of patients completing the therapy to 42 (15%) patients in the MPT-T and 93 (33%) in the MPR-R group. Both groups reported clinically meaningful improvement in global quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, pain, disease symptoms and insomnia. In the evaluation of difference between groups, the patients receiving MPR-R reported increasing diarrhea, better controlled pain at induction phase and increased global QoL and physical functioning during maintenance phase compared to MPT-T. The patients receiving MPT-T reported increasing constipation, better controlled pain during maintenance phase, better controlled fatigue during induction treatment and decreased insomnia compared to MPR-R. Conclusions: HRQoL during treatment is important to myeloma patients, especially when treatment efficacy of the treatment regimens is comparable. MPR-R and MPT-T both demonstrated improvements in global QoL, physical functioning and pain. Fatigue and insomnia were better controlled in the MPT-T group, which can be attributed to the thalidomide side effect of sleepiness. For interpretation of the HRQoL results patient drop-out rate must be taken in account, and we will recommend a HRQoL study design with high focus on data completeness and registration of reasons for missing data. (Figure Presented).

Purpose: The aim of the International Myeloma Working Group was to develop practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma–related renal impairment (RI). Methods: Recommendations were based on published data through December 2015, and were developed using the system developed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Recommendations: All patients with myeloma at diagnosis and at disease assessment should have serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and electrolytes measurements as well as free light chain, if available, and urine electrophoresis of a sample from a 24-hour urine collection (grade A). The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, preferably, or the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula should be used for the evaluation of estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with stabilized serum creatinine (grade A). International Myeloma Working Group criteria for renal reversibility should be used (grade B). For the management of RI in patients with multiple myeloma, high fluid intake is indicated along with antimyeloma therapy (grade B). The use of high-cutoff hemodialysis membranes in combination with antimyeloma therapy can be considered (grade B). Bortezomib-based regimens remain the cornerstone of the management of myeloma-related RI (grade A). High-dose dexamethasone should be administered at least for the first month of therapy (grade B). Thalidomide is effective in patients with myeloma with RI, and no dose modifications are needed (grade B). Lenalidomide is effective and safe, mainly in patients with mild to moderate RI (grade B); for patients with severe RI or on dialysis, lena-lidomide should be given with close monitoring for hematologic toxicity (grade B) with dose reduction as needed. High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (with melphalan 100 mg/m2 to 140 mg/m2) is feasible in patients with RI (grade C). Carfilzomib can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 15 mL/min, whereas ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dex-amethasone can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 30 mL/min (grade A). © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Background: International collaborative research is a mechanism for improving the development of dis-ease- specific therapies and for improving health at the population level. However, limited data are available to assess the trends in research output related to orphan diseases. Methods and Findings: We used bibliometric mapping and clustering methods to illustrate the level of fragmentation in myeloma research and the development of collaborative efforts. Publication data from Thomson Reuters Web of Science were retrieved for 2005-2009 and followed until 2013. We created a database of multiple myeloma publications, and we analysed impact and coauthorship density to identify scientific collaborations, developments, and international key players over time. The global annual publication volume for studies on multiple myeloma increased from 1,144 in 2005 to 1,628 in 2009, which represents a 43% increase. This increase is high compared to the 24% and 14% increases observed for lymphoma and leukaemia. The major proportion (>90% of publications) was from the US and EU over the study period. The output and impact in terms of citations, identified several successful groups with a large number of intra-cluster collaborations in the US and EU. The US-based myeloma clusters clearly stand out as the most productive and highly cited, and the European Myeloma Network members exhibited a doubling of collaborative publications from 2005 to 2009, still increasing up to 2013. Conclusion and Perspective: Multiple myeloma research output has increased substantially in the past decade. The fragmented European myeloma research activities based on national or regional groups are progressing, but they require a broad range of targeted research investments to improve multiple myeloma health care. © 2015 Andersen et al.

Treatment in medical oncology is gradually shifting from the use of nonspecific chemotherapeutic agents toward an era of novel targeted therapy in which drugs and their combinations target specific aspects of the biology of tumor cells. Multiple myeloma (MM) has become one of the best examples in this regard, reflected in the identification of new pathogenic mechanisms, together with the development of novel drugs that are being explored from the preclinical setting to the early phases of clinical development. We review the biological rationale for the use of the most important new agents for treating MM and summarize their clinical activity in an increasingly busy field. First, we discuss data from already approved and active agents (including second- and third-generation proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents and alkylators). Next, we focus on agents with novel mechanisms of action, such as monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), cell cycle-specific drugs, deacetylase inhibitors, agents acting on the unfolded protein response, signaling transduction pathway inhibitors and kinase inhibitors. Among this plethora of new agents or mechanisms, some are specially promising: anti-CD38 MoAb, such as daratumumab, are the first antibodies with clinical activity as single agents in MM. Moreover, the kinesin spindle protein inhibitor Arry-520 is effective in monotherapy as well as in combination with dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients. Immunotherapy against MM is also being explored, and probably the most attractive example of this approach is the combination of the anti-CS1 MoAb elotuzumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, which has produced exciting results in the relapsed/refractory setting. © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a rare and aggressive variant of myeloma characterized by the presence of circulating plasma cells. It is classified as either primary PCL occurring at diagnosis or as secondary PCL in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. Primary PCL is a distinct clinic-pathological entity with different cytogenetic and molecular findings. The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration. The diagnosis is based upon the percentage (≥20%) and absolute number (≥2 × 10 9/l) of plasma cells in the peripheral blood. It is proposed that the thresholds for diagnosis be re-examined and consensus recommendations are made for diagnosis, as well as, response and progression criteria. Induction therapy needs to begin promptly and have high clinical activity leading to rapid disease control in an effort to minimize the risk of early death. Intensive chemotherapy regimens and bortezomib-based regimens are recommended followed by high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation if feasible. Allogeneic transplantation can be considered in younger patients. Prospective multicenter studies are required to provide revised definitions and better understanding of the pathogenesis of PCL. © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved.

Udgivelsesdato: september

Background The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation.Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (I S S), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HS CT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment.Findings Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60.3 months (IQR 52. 2-67. 6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56.7 months [95% CI 49.3-64.5] vs 41.9 months [37.5-46.9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 0.62-0.85; p=0.0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42.1 months (IQR 32.3-49.2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58.9 months [54.0-not estimable] vs 45.5 months [39.5-58.4]; HR 0.77, 0.63-0.95; p=0.014). The most common grade >= 3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]).Interpretation This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

© 2018 The Authors., [Background]: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. [Patients and Methods]: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months., [Results]: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide., [Conclusion]: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits., Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.