Registry Of Monoclonal Gammopathies Research Articles

Comparison of Lenalidomide Based Triplets (IRD, KRD and DRD) in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Practice

Background: Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) has become a chalenge with the introduction of combined lenalidomide-based triplets. The addition of proteasome inhibitors (PI) or monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) significantly improved the therapeutic outcomes of previous RD regimen (lenalidomide, dexamethasone). The clinical trials with RD triplets confirmed the outstanding synergistic effects of lenalidomide with PIs or MoAbs. However, the outcomes between individual regimens are not easily comparable as the trials used different cohorts of patients. Moreover, the clinical trials often overestimate the outcomes due to selection bias. Aims: Our aim was to compare the outcomes of lenalidomide-based triplets in an unselected “real-world population”. Patients and methods: We performed a large registry based analysis of RRMM patients treated with daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRD), carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRD), and ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) treated within 1st-3rd relapse. We excluded patients treated in clinical trials as well as patients with follow-up shorter than 6 months. For the IRD combination we performed 2 separate analyses: from 2016-2018 (early IRD, e-IRD) and 2019 onwards (late IRD, l-IRD), as the first cohort was treated within a Named Patient Program and had no competitive RD triplet or clinical trial, whereas patients treated after 2019 were those who were generally not eligible for competing KRD or DRD regimens. Altogether we assessed 224 patients with DRD regimen, 143 with KRD, 104 with e-IRD and 67 with l-IRD regimen. Data were described by absolute and relative frequencies of categorical variables and median (min-max and 5 th-95 th percentile) for quantitative variables. Survival analysis for different endpoints - overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TNT), and duration of therapy (DOT) - was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method complemented by the 95% Greenwood confidence interval for estimates of probability survival. Statistical significance of differences in survival among subgroups was assessed using the log-rank test. All statistical tests were performed at a significance level of α = 0.05 (all tests two-sided). Results: There were slight but significant differences within the demographic data: Patients treated with DRD and KRD were younger than patients on both e-IRD and l-IRD (median 65.5 vs 64.4 vs 67.2 vs 69.9 years) and had better overal performance status (PS 0 or 1 in 87.9 vs 92.2 vs 83.5 vs 76.1%). They were also less pretreated (1 previous line in 73.2 vs 70.6 vs 62.5 vs 38.8%). Also, patients on DRD and KRD had slightly lower ISS stage versus e-IRD and l-IRD patients (ISS 1 in 48.4 vs 55.5 vs 42.2 vs 37.5%). Patients on KRD had slightly higher presence of extramedullary and/or paraskeletal disease (45.6% versus 32.5% and 35.0% vs 31.6% in DRD and e-IRD and l-IRD, respectively). The presence of high-risk cytogenetics was higher in KRD and l-IRD (42.7 vs 53.1%) than in the e-IRD and DRD group (32.3% and 24.6%). The overal response rates (ORR) in DRD, KRD, e-IRD and l-IRD were following: 91.4% vs 89.6% vs 79.6% vs 70.8%. The rates of very good partial response or better (VGPR+) were 67.3% vs 62.3% vs 40.8% vs 25%. Median PFS in DRD vs KRD vs e-IRD vs l-IRD was 23.64 vs 16.52 vs 19.97 vs 11.57 months. Due to short follow-up, the median OS was not assessable with an estimate around 40 months for all the cohorts. The toxicity was similar to the data reported from clinical trials with no new safety alerts. Conclusions: We conclude that lenalidomide based triplets (DRD, KRD and IRD) have significant efficacy in RRMM even in the routine clinical practice but as expected, they do not achieve the outcomes reported in clinical trials. DRD regimen seems to be the most efficient regimen even in “real-world” setting but the results are biased by the cohort heterogeneity. The outcome of a regimen in “real-world” depends significantly on other variables including competing regimens or clinical trials, and may have large individual differences as seen in the case of e-IRD (assessed at the time with no competing lenalidomide-based triplets) versus l-IRD (influenced by the choice between several effective modalities). Supported by MH CZ - DRO (FNOL, 00098892).

Clinical characteristics and outcomes in risk-stratified patients with smoldering multiple myeloma: data from the Czech Republic Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non–high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non–high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non–high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non–high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS.

Daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients – real world evidence analysis

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients’ data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1–3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients.

Personalised progression prediction in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma (PANGEA): a retrospective, multicohort study

Patients with precursors to multiple myeloma are dichotomised as having monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma on the basis of monoclonal protein concentrations or bone marrow plasma cell percentage. Current risk stratifications use laboratory measurements at diagnosis and do not incorporate time-varying biomarkers. Our goal was to develop a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smouldering multiple myeloma stratification algorithm that utilised accessible, time-varying biomarkers to model risk of progression to multiple myeloma. In this retrospective, multicohort study, we included patients who were 18 years or older with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma. We evaluated several modelling approaches for predicting disease progression to multiple myeloma using a training cohort (with patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; annotated from Nov, 13, 2019, to April, 13, 2022). We created the PANGEA models, which used data on biomarkers (monoclonal protein concentration, free light chain ratio, age, creatinine concentration, and bone marrow plasma cell percentage) and haemoglobin trajectories from medical records to predict progression from precursor disease to multiple myeloma. The models were validated in two independent validation cohorts from National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Athens, Greece; from Jan 26, 2020, to Feb 7, 2022; validation cohort 1), University College London (London, UK; from June 9, 2020, to April 10, 2022; validation cohort 1), and Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (Czech Republic, Czech Republic; Jan 5, 2004, to March 10, 2022; validation cohort 2). We compared the PANGEA models (with bone marrow [BM] data and without bone marrow [no BM] data) to current criteria (International Myeloma Working Group [IMWG] monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 20/2/20 smouldering multiple myeloma risk criteria). We included 6441 patients, 4931 (77%) with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 1510 (23%) with smouldering multiple myeloma. 3430 (53%) of 6441 participants were female. The PANGEA model (BM) improved prediction of progression from smouldering multiple myeloma to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model, with a C-statistic increase from 0·533 (0·480-0·709) to 0·756 (0·629-0·785) at patient visit 1 to the clinic, 0·613 (0·504-0·704) to 0·720 (0·592-0·775) at visit 2, and 0·637 (0·386-0·841) to 0·756 (0·547-0·830) at visit three in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA model (no BM) improved prediction of smouldering multiple myeloma progression to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model with a C-statistic increase from 0·534 (0·501-0·672) to 0·692 (0·614-0·736) at visit 1, 0·573 (0·518-0·647) to 0·693 (0·605-0·734) at visit 2, and 0·560 (0·497-0·645) to 0·692 (0·570-0·708) at visit 3 in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA models improved prediction of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance progression to multiple myeloma compared with the IMWG rolling model at visit 1 in validation cohort 2, with C-statistics increases from 0·640 (0·518-0·718) to 0·729 (0·643-0·941) for the PANGEA model (BM) and 0·670 (0·523-0·729) to 0·879 (0·586-0·938) for the PANGEA model (no BM). Use of the PANGEA models in clinical practice will allow patients with precursor disease to receive more accurate measures of their risk of progression to multiple myeloma, thus prompting for more appropriate treatment strategies. SU2C Dream Team and Cancer Research UK.

Patient Characteristics and Survival Outcomes of Lenalidomide Exposed non- Refractory vs. Lenalidomide Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients in the HONEUR Federated Data Network

Background: Treatment options that became available over the past two decades, including proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory agents (IMIDs), have significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, MM is still an incurable disease and patients ultimately progress and become refractory to standard treatments. The increased use of Lenalidomide regimens in earlier lines of treatment has led to a higher number of Lenalidomide (Len) refractory patients (Moreau P, Blood Cancer J 2019). Description of characteristics and outcomes of patients who have become refractory to Len vs. those who have only been exposed but did not become refractory is limited especially with regards to data coming from different European healthcare systems. Methods: Data from two MM registries, the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies from the Czech Republic (Brozova L, Klin Onkol. 2017) and the Oncology Information Service registry in Germany (Merz M, Cancers 2021), were analyzed in the Hematology Outcomes Network Europe (HONEUR). HONEUR is a federated data network with patient level data solely stored and governed at local sites with analysis executed centrally. MM patients exposed to both PI and Len, in 1-3 prior lines of therapy and with ECOG 0-1, treated between 2015 and 2021, were identified to compare outcomes of Len-exposed, non- refractory vs. Len-refractory patients. Refractoriness to Len was defined as disease progression while on Len and/or initiation of subsequent line of therapy not containing Len within 60 days after stopping the previous Len containing line of treatment. Index dates were defined as the date of treatment initiation after meeting above criteria. Patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria at multiple times in their longitudinal follow-up were included as separate observations with line of therapy as unit of analysis. Results: A total of 2415 treatment lines were included in the analysis. Of these, 2029 (84.0 %) treatment lines were from Len-refractory patients. Median follow-up from index date was 22.0 vs 23.5 months for the Len-exposed non- refractory and Len-refractory patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics of the Len-exposed non-refractory and Len-refractory patients are presented in table 1. For Len-exposed non-refractory and Len-refractory patients, median OS was 36.6 [95% CI: 31.74; 43.53] vs. 21.5 [95% CI :19.94; 23.06] months, respectively, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.53 [95% CI: 0.44; 0.64] in favor of Len exposed non-refractory patients. When accounting for line of treatment, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.59 [95% CI 0.49; 0.70] in favor of Len-exposed non- refractory patients. Conclusions: An analysis of German and Czech registries in a federated data network shows that patients who have become refractory to Len have significantly poorer overall survival compared to Len-exposed non-refractory patients with MM. The Len-refractory population is a more difficult-to-treat patient population, with high unmet need for effective treatments that can prolong survival outcomes for these patients. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy.

Simple SummaryWe 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.

Bortezomib‐based therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: Czech Registry Data

This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible. We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P=.275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2mo (P=.004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients. Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice.

Bortezomib-Based Induction Treatment for Patients with Multiple Myeloma Ineligible for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective Multicenter Study in Czech Republic

Background: Bortezomib- based induction is one of the most effective treatment options in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The aim of this analysis was to identify the best bortezomib regimen and identify factors associated with better or worse treatment response.Patients and methods: Data for this study were obtained from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) acquired from hematologic centers of the Czech Republic for 794 MM patients enrolled from June 2005 to January 2017. Median patient age was 70 years (56.0- 81.0), median number of delivered bortezomib cycles was 8 (4.0- 12.0). In total, 82% (651/794) of patients were treated bortezomib-based triplet combinations. Assessment of therapeutic response was possible in 87% (691/794) of treated patients. Evaluation of treatment response was performed according to the IMWG criteria.Results: After a median follow up of 23 months (range 1.5- 129), overall response (ORR) was observed in 69.2% (478/691) patients, including 9.4% complete response (CR) and 34.7% very good partial response (VGPR). The regimen BMP (bortesomib-melphalan-prednisone) was the most effective among the three-mode regimens compared with the CBD (cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone), BDD (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) and BDD (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) regimens. Median overall survival (OS) was (49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 months, respectively), median time to progression (TTP) was (20.5 vs. 16 vs. 13.5 vs. 13.8 months, respectively) and median progression- free survival (PFS) was (22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 months, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicities were anemia in 17.5% and infections in 18% of patients. Peripheral neuropathy grade ≥ 2 was present in 21.3% of patients with no significant differences between regimens. In univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with worse ORR were as follows: calcium level > 2.9 mmol/l (OR 2.8 [95% CI: 1.6 - 4.9]; p< 0.001), M - protein concentration ≥ 23 g/l (OR 1.7 [1.2-2.4]; p= 0.001), level of lactate dehydrogenase > 2.8 μkat/l (OR 1.6 [1.1-2.3]; p= 0.017), male gender (OR 1.5 [1.1-2.1]; p= 0.012) and intravenous application of bortezomib (OR 1.6 [1.1-2.3]; p= 0.017).Conclusions: We conclude that regimen VMP of the bortezomib-based triplet regimens was the most effective treatment option for MM patients ineligible for autologous transplantation. A detailed analysis will be the subject of communication. DisclosuresHajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Closing the Efficacy and Effectiveness Gap: Outcomes in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Patients (Pts) Treated with Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) in Routine Clinical Practice Remain Comparable to the Outcomes Reported in the Phase 3 Tourmaline-MM1 Study

Closing the Efficacy and Effectiveness Gap: Outcomes in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Patients (Pts) Treated with Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) in Routine Clinical Practice Remain Comparable to the Outcomes Reported in the Phase 3 Tourmaline-MM1 Study

Overall Survival Benefit of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (IRD) over Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (RD) in RRMM Patients Treated in Routine Clinical Practice: Results from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Background : Outcomes reported in real-world practice versus controlled clinical trials show markedly shorter treatment durations, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Understanding effectiveness of therapeutic regimens in routine practice is critical for treating physicians as well as for regulatory and reimbursement authorities. We have performed a real-world comparison of two regimens, ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) triplet and lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) doublet in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated in seven Czech and one Slovak hematology-oncology centers. Patients and methods: Between 3/2015 and 5/2017, 344 patients with RRMM were treated with either IRD (N=127) or RD (N=217). Patients selected for both cohorts had the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced. The data were collected through the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG), which is an international database gathering data from patients with monoclonal gammopathies within Central Europe. Results: The median follow-up in the IRD vs RD arm was 20.8 vs 15.5 months, respectively. Median PFS in pts with 1-3 prior lines for the IRD cohort was 23.1 months (95% CI 11.8-34.5 months) and 11.6 months (95% CI 8.4-11.8 months) for the RD cohort favoring the all-oral triplet (p=0.001). The median PFS for all patients including 4+ line of therapy was 17.5 months (95% CI 10.3-24.7) in the IRD cohort versus 11.5 months (95% CI 8.6-14.3) in the RD group (p=0.005). Median OS for pts with 1-3 prior lines for IRD cohort was not reached, and was 27.1 months (95% CI 23.1-31.1 months) in the RD cohort (p=0.002). Median OS for all patients, including 4+ lines of treatment was 36.6 months in the IRD vs 26.0 months in the RD cohort (p=0.008). The PFS benefit of IRD over RD was observed in most of the assessed subgroups; in younger pts ≤65 years with hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, in pts 66-75 years HR 0.64. There was a trend towards better PFS in patients with lower ISS stage; ISS1 HR 0.53, ISS2 HR 0.58 and ISS3 the HR was 0.87. Patients in the 1st relapse (HR 0.53) benefited most from the IRD, followed by the 2nd relapse (HR 0.58), 3rd relapse (HR 0.90) and pts relapsing after 4+ therapies (HR 0.88). The PFS benefit of IRD regimen was observed in pts regardless of previous stem cell transplantation; transplant-eligible patients HR 0.51 and transplant-ineligible HR 0.71. Patients who did not benefit from the triplet regimen were those over 75 years of age and pts with the presence of extramedullary disease. The IRD treatment was well tolerated. The safety profile was concordant with previously reported data. Conclusions: This RMG comparative cohort analysis shows PFS benefit of all-oral IRD regimen over RD in the real world setting, and confirms growing evidence that long term outcomes with IRD triplet are comparable with phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Our analysis also shows an overall survival benefit of IRD over RD treatment. Patients older than 75 years, with 4+ lines of therapy and presence of extramedullary disease did not profit from addition of ixazomib to RD doublet.Additional data with larger patient populations confirming RWE effectiveness are warranted. With support of AZV 17-29343A, NV18-03-00500, FNOl 00098892, IGA-LF-2019-001, PROGRES Q40/08, MH CZ-DRO (UHHK, 00179906) Disclosures Minarik: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Straub:Amgen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Maisnar:Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data

ObjectiveTo predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies.MethodsA partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources.ResultsThe base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively.ConclusionsCombining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) - the monitored real-world database of the Czech Myeloma Group

Collection of “real life” clinical data in patients with hematologic malignancies becomes more and more important due to restrictions in recruitment into clinical trials. Especially low grade malignancies require long term follow-up and valid high quality data. The RMG registry was established in 2007 and has become one of the flagship projects of the Czech Myeloma Group. To date, four parts of the registry are active - module for multiple myeloma (MM), monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance (MGUS), AL amyloidosis (ALA) and Waldenströms macroglobulinemia (WM).

Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making.

Background. We aimed to develop and validate a conceptual model of multiple myeloma (MM) that characterizes the attributes affecting disease progression and patient outcomes, and the relationships between them. Methods. Systematic and targeted literature reviews identified disease- and patient-specific attributes of MM that affect disease progression and outcomes. These attributes were validated by a Delphi panel of four international MM experts, and a physician-validated model was constructed. Real-world clinical data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) was used to confirm the relationships between attributes using pairwise correlations and multiple Cox regression analysis. Results. The Delphi panel reached consensus that most cytogenetic abnormalities influenced disease activity, which results in symptoms and complications and affects overall survival (OS). Comorbidities and complications also affect OS. The entire panel agreed that quality of life was influenced by comorbidities, age, complications, and symptoms. Consensus was not reached in some cases, in particular, the influence of del(17p) on complications. The relationships between attributes were confirmed using pairwise analysis of real-world data from the Czech RMG; most of the correlations identified were statistically significant and the strength of the correlations changed with successive relapses. Czech RMG data were also used to confirm significant predictors of OS included in the model, such as age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and extramedullary disease. Conclusions. This validated conceptual model can be used for economic modeling and clinical decision making. It could also inform the development of disease-based models to explore the impact of disease progression and treatment on outcomes in patients with MM.

Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients (Pts) - Effectiveness in Routine Clinical Practice Is Similar to the Efficacy in the Phase 3 Tourmaline-MM1 Trial: A Pooled Analysis from the Insight MM Observational Study and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients (Pts) - Effectiveness in Routine Clinical Practice Is Similar to the Efficacy in the Phase 3 Tourmaline-MM1 Trial: A Pooled Analysis from the Insight MM Observational Study and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Risk Factors Associated with Development of Extramedullary Disease in Multiple Myeloma

Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematological malignancy characterized by plasma cell (PC) infiltration of the bone marrow. Unfortunately, better imaging techniques convey multiple reports about increased incidence of the so-called extramedullary disease of MM (EM), an aggressive, mostly resistant entity with poor prognosis for patients. EM probably develops because of ‘bone marrow escape’ of PC subclone that migrates out of the BM infiltrating soft tissues losing dependence on the BM microenvironment, either partially or completely. There are two types of EM - primary, found at the time of MM diagnosis, and secondary, found at the time of MM relapse. However, there are very few reports about EM.Aims This study aims to analyze risk factors connected to EM development.Methods Data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) were analyzed. The RMG represents a database for collection of clinical data concerning diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of Czech MM and other monoclonal gammopathies patients. In total, data of 4985 MM patients were collected into the RMG database between 2007 and June 2017. Our analysis compared patients who developed EM at initiation of first or higher line of therapy with patients without EM during at least 5-year-long follow-up (patients who died earlier included). Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association of baseline characteristics at MM diagnosis with EM occurrence at first line and relapse, respectively.Results In total, 4985 MM patients data were collected into the RMG database between 2007 and 2017. Patients were treated with bortezomib, lenalidomide, thalidomide, pomalidomide, ixazomib and daratumumab. Regardless of treatment, EM patients responded worse than MM patients did to any form of treatment. While primary EM patients had similar PFS as MM patients, OS was significantly worse (48.7 vs 60.6 months, resp.). Secondary EM patients did even worse, with PFS 8.7 months and OS 23.8 months only. We found 543 MM patients (10.9%) who developed EM during the entire follow-up. Out of these EM patients, we found 309 patients who were diagnosed with primary EM at initiation of first line of therapy. At initiation of 2nd line of treatment, we found 111 secondary EM patients. At 3rd, 4th and 5th, we found 61, 39 and 23 EM patients, resp. Finally, 309 patients who developed EM at initiation of 1st line and 234 patients who developed EM at initiation of further treatments were compared to 2092 patients who did not develop EM during the entire course of the disease. Overall, occurrence of EM at 1st or higher lines of treatment was associated with younger age, male sex, low ISS, D-S substage A, low B2 microglobulin, low creatinine, high hemoglobin, elevated thrombocytes, other types of M-Ig than IgG and presence of bone lesions. For EM cases found only at initiation of 1st line (primary EM), we found association with high ECOG status, low LDH, low M-protein quantity and low % of plasma cells infiltration in the bone marrow. For EM cases found at MM relapse (secondary EM), we found association with high D-S stage, high LDH, high CRP, high Ca, del13q and gain1q.Conclusion EM remains an aggressive disease with poor prognosis regardless of use of novel drugs. Surprisingly, in our group of patients, most EM disease developed early in the course of the disease - more than 60% at first relapse. We analyzed risk factors connected to development of EM and found that LDH, hemoglobin, thrombocytes and M-Ig status were associated with EM development. We suggest that in such patients, PET/CT or whole body MRI should be performed regularly to ensure early detection of EM.Grant support: AZV 17-29343A. DisclosuresMaisnar:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Treatment Outcomes of Real Life Elderly Multiple Myeloma Patients:Â Analysis from Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Introduction: Multiple myeloma patients over the age of 65 represent the majority of myeloma population. The main goal was to evaluate treatment outcomes in terms of overall survival for elderly patients based on initial choice of anti-myeloma drugs, and to find potential factors affecting survival.Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective registry based analysis from the Registry of monoclonal gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. Patients with multiple myeloma diagnosed between 2007-2016 over the age of 65 with symptomatic myeloma were included in the analysis. Basic demographic data and disease characteristics were obtained. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were completed by the Greenwood confidence interval. The log-rank test was used to estimate the statistical significance of the difference between the curves. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed to explore the univariate significance of risk factors.Results: Data from 1410 MM patients were obtained. Gender [HR 1.316 (1.124-1.541), p=0.001], age [above 75 vs. 66-75, HR 1.437 (1.221-1.692), p< 0.001], creatinine levels [at cutoff 152 µmol/L, HR 1.613 (1.365-1.905), p< 0.001] and ECOG performance status [0-1 vs. 2-4, 1.869 (1.594-2.191), p< 0.001] were found to significantly affect overall survival. Moreover these risk factors have cumulative effect on overall survival of the patients. Overall survival of patients regardless to above mentioned risk factors treated with upfront bortezomib (N = 880) was median OS 40.4 months (CI: 36.1-44.7), patients treated with upfront thalidomide (N = 370) had median OS 48.1 months (CI: 41.0-55.2), for lenalidomide (N = 64) median overall survival was 53.2 months (CI: 44.6-61.8) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N = 46) 32.2 months (CI: 26.6-37.8). When any of these risk factors was present the OS in each group shortened. In the group of patients with no risk factors (N = 255) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 126) was not reached, for thalidomide (N = 96) the median OS was 66.3 months (CI: 43.1-89.6), for lenalidomide (N = 17) 71.1 months (CI: 44.8-97.4) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=8) was not reached. In the group of patients with 1 risk factor (N = 514) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 303) was 46.1 months (CI: 36.2-56.1), for thalidomide (N = 141) 56.2 months (CI: 47.5-64.9), for lenalidomide (N = 29) 49.0 months (CI: 9.7-88.2) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) was not reached. In the group of patients with 2 risk factors (N = 420) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 288) was 34.0 months (CI: 24.7-43.4), for thalidomide (N = 87) 31.9 months (CI: 22.8-40.9), for lenalidomide (N = 14) 33.2 months (CI: 0.0-67.6) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) 29.4 months (CI: 7.6-51.1). In the group of patients with 3-4 risk factors (N = 221) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 163) was 19.2 months (CI: 14.9-23.5), for thalidomide (N = 46) 18.9 months (CI: 13.0-24.7), for lenalidomide (N = 4) 6.1 months (CI: 0.0-63.0) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=3) 14.3 months (CI:-).Conclusion: The overall survival of patients above the age of 65 shows promising results with the use of novel agents. The treatment outcomes seem to be generally affected by overall condition, age and gender of the patient rather than treatment modality used upfront. [Display omitted] DisclosuresHajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Maisnar:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Single agent daratumumab in advanced multiple myeloma possesses significant efficacy even in an unselected "real-world" population.

The treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains challenging. The outcomes in highly pretreated populations are unsatisfactory and there is urgent need for novel and safe therapeutic approaches. Recently, daratumumab has been approved for RRMM with promising results even in monotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of single agent daratumumab outside a clinical trial. 14 patients with RRMM and significant pretreatment (median 4.5 previous lines) entered a specific healthcare program and received treatment with single agent daratumumab. They were followed for therapeutic response based on IMWG criteria, and incidence of adverse events. The data were collected using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies. The overall response rate was 38.5%. 23.1% of patients reached very good partial response, 15.4% reached partial remission, 15.4% had minimal response, 38.5% had stable disease and 7.7% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 4.6 months and median overall survival was not achieved. The toxicities were mostly mild, only infectious complications and hematological toxicity reached grade III. We conclude that daratumumab has significant activity in highly pretreated RRMM even as a single agent, with an acceptable toxicity profile and survival impact.

Real-world Outcomes of Multiple Myeloma: Retrospective Analysis of the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies

IntroductionReal-world data on patient outcomes and treatment patterns in multiple myeloma (MM) are limited. Materials and MethodsThe present noninterventional, observational, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Czech patient medical record data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies estimated real-world outcomes in adults with a diagnosis of symptomatic MM made between May 2007 and June 2014. ResultsIn total, 2446 patients had initiated first-line treatment. The median overall survival since the diagnosis (primary endpoint) was 50.3 months (95% confidence interval, 46.1-54.5 months) and decreased with each successive treatment line. A similar trend was observed for progression-free survival and the depth of response. In line with European guidelines and clinical practice, bortezomib-, thalidomide-, and lenalidomide-based regimens were most commonly used across all treatment lines (42.3%, 28.9%, and 18.4%, respectively). In the first line, bortezomib and thalidomide were used most often, with lenalidomide the most commonly used agent in the relapse setting (second to fourth lines). Exploratory analyses revealed that younger age (≤ 65 years), lower international staging system stage, and previous stem cell transplantation were associated with significant improvements in overall and progression-free survival, especially in the early treatment lines. ConclusionThe present study is the first analysis of Czech data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, and it provides important insights into the real-world management of MM for physicians and healthcare providers.

Adjusted comparison of daratumumab monotherapy versus real-world historical control data from the Czech Republic in heavily pretreated and highly refractory multiple myeloma patients

Objectives: We conducted an adjusted comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for daratumumab monotherapy versus standard of care, as observed in a real-world historical cohort of heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients from Czech Republic.Methods: Using longitudinal chart data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group, patient-level data from the RMG was pooled with pivotal daratumumab monotherapy studies (GEN501 and SIRIUS; 16 mg/kg).Results: From the RMG database, we identified 972 treatment lines in 463 patients previously treated with both a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug. Treatment initiation dates for RMG patients were between March 2006 and March 2015. The most frequently used treatment regimens were lenalidomide-based regimens (33.4%), chemotherapy (18.1%), bortezomib-based regimens (13.6%), thalidomide-based regimens (8.0%), and bortezomib plus thalidomide (5.3%). Few patients were treated with carfilzomib-based regimens (2.5%) and pomalidomide-based regimens (2.4%). Median observed PFS for daratumumab and the RMG cohort was 4.0 and 5.8 months (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–1.39), respectively, and unadjusted median OS was 20.1 and 11.9 months (unadjusted HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48–0.78), respectively. Statistical adjustments for differences in baseline characteristics were made using patient-level data. The adjusted HRs (95% CI) for PFS and OS for daratumumab versus the RMG cohort were 0.79 (0.56–1.12; p = .192) and 0.33 (0.21–0.52; p < .001), respectively.Conclusions: Adjusted comparisons between trial data and historical cohorts can provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement decision makers on relative treatment efficacies in the absence of head-to-head comparison studies for daratumumab monotherapy.