Treatment sequencing patterns for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the era of new therapies in a single center institution.

Abstract

e19513 Background: Although there is much to be optimistic about in the multiple myeloma community as the approval of new therapies and regimen-combinations for relapsed refractory disease continues to grow, determining the best option for a patient can be complicated. Both carfilzomib- (C) and daratumumab- (D) based regimens have demonstrated superior efficacy in this setting, but there is a paucity of data supporting which should be selected first, and if regimen sequence influences outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe sequencing patterns in the era of these newer agents and to determine if there is a difference in outcomes for patients with RRMM who received one of the following treatment sequences: C-regimen with a D-regimen given immediately prior (DC); C-regimen without any prior D (C only); D-regimen with a C-regimen given immediately prior (CD); or D-regimen without any prior C (D only). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with RRMM consecutively treated at Moffitt Cancer Center between 1/1/2015 and 6/25/18. Response to therapy was assessed using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured in days from the start of therapy to progression. Time to response (TTR) was measured in days from the start of therapy to first response. Results: 132 patients with RRMM who received 1-3 prior lines of therapy with at least one line of therapy containing either C or D were identified. Overall, the majority of patients were treated with C only (n = 101), 10 received DC, 31 received D only, and 35 received CD. In patients that received C only, partial response (PR) was achieved in 38%, very good partial response (VGPR) was 20%, and stringent complete response (sCR) was 2%. In patients that received DC, PR was 20% and VGPR was 10%; no patient achieved a sCR. Of the patients that received D only, PR was 29%, VGPR was 10%, and sCR was 3%. In patients that received CD, PR was 31% and VGPR was 26%; no patient achieved sCR. Median PFS in patients who received C only, DC, D only, and CD was 117 days, 126 days, 104 days, and 190 days, respectively. TTR in patients who received C only, DC, D only, and CD was 82 days, 39 days, 98 days, and 88 days, respectively. Conclusions: The data suggests that RRMM patients who receive either CD or DC appear to have a PFS advantage over those patients who did not. Notably, an early TTR was found in patients that received DC. Further analysis is ongoing.