H Tilman Steinmetz1, Moushmi Singh2, Andrea Lebioda3, Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire4, Achim Rieth5, Martina Schoehl5, Wolfram Poenisch6. 1. Oncology Cologne, Center for Hematology and Oncology, Cologne, Germany, steinmetz@oncokoeln.de. 2. Health Economics, Amgen Ltd., Uxbridge, United Kingdom. 3. Health Economics, Amgen GmbH, Munich, Germany. 4. Health Economics, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland. 5. Medical Development, Amgen GmbH, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Hematology and Cellular Therapy, Medical Clinic and Policlinic I, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Real-world data reflects treatments and outcomes in clinical practice in contrast with controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates real-life multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatments in the second or third therapy line in 2017 in Germany. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review on adult relapsed/refractory MM patients treated with ≥1 dose of a PI-based regimen in either the second or the third line of therapy. Participating physicians had ≥3 years of clinical experience in treating symptomatic MM patients and used PI according to the label. RESULTS: Distinct patient profiles for each PI-based regimen emerged. Younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel PI triplets such as carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) or IRd. Patients receiving lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-free regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients, no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained. The complete response rates were highest with KRd (13.0%), followed by carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) (5.7%) and bortezomib (4.8%). The very good partial response rates were highest with IRd (76.9%), followed by KRd (53.7%), Kd (25.7%), and bortezomib (20.5%). None of the KRd- or IRd-treated patients responded below a partial response. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Clear patient profiles for each PI type were observed. In second-line therapy, younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel-PI-based triplets, e.g., KRd or IRd. Patients treated with lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-sparing regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained due to the limited sample size.
INTRODUCTION: Real-world data reflects treatments and outcomes in clinical practice in contrast with controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates real-life multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatments in the second or third therapy line in 2017 in Germany. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review on adult relapsed/refractory MMpatients treated with ≥1 dose of a PI-based regimen in either the second or the third line of therapy. Participating physicians had ≥3 years of clinical experience in treating symptomatic MMpatients and used PI according to the label. RESULTS: Distinct patient profiles for each PI-based regimen emerged. Younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel PI triplets such as carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) or IRd. Patients receiving lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-free regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients, no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained. The complete response rates were highest with KRd (13.0%), followed by carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) (5.7%) and bortezomib (4.8%). The very good partial response rates were highest with IRd (76.9%), followed by KRd (53.7%), Kd (25.7%), and bortezomib (20.5%). None of the KRd- or IRd-treated patients responded below a partial response. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Clear patient profiles for each PI type were observed. In second-line therapy, younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel-PI-based triplets, e.g., KRd or IRd. Patients treated with lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-sparing regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained due to the limited sample size.
Authors: Michele Cavo; Evangelos Terpos; Joan Bargay; Hermann Einsele; Jim Cavet; Richard Greil; Edwin de Wit Journal: Expert Rev Hematol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 2.929
Authors: Shirin Arastu-Kapur; Janet L Anderl; Marianne Kraus; Francesco Parlati; Kevin D Shenk; Susan J Lee; Tony Muchamuel; Mark K Bennett; Christoph Driessen; Andrew J Ball; Christopher J Kirk Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel Coriu; Dominik Dytfeld; Daniela Niepel; Ivan Spicka; Imrich Markuljak; Georgi Mihaylov; Slobodanka Ostojic-Kolonic; Leah Fink; Krisztian S Toka; Katja Björklöf Journal: Pol Arch Intern Med Date: 2018-07-27
Authors: Paul G Richardson; Jesus F San Miguel; Philippe Moreau; Roman Hajek; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Jacob P Laubach; Antonio Palumbo; Katarina Luptakova; Dorothy Romanus; Tomas Skacel; Shaji K Kumar; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Heinz Ludwig; Michel Delforge; Thierry Facon; Hermann Einsele; Francesca Gay; Philippe Moreau; Hervé Avet-Loiseau; Mario Boccadoro; Roman Hajek; Mohamad Mohty; Michele Cavo; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Jesús F San-Miguel; Evangelos Terpos; Sonja Zweegman; Laurent Garderet; María-Victoria Mateos; Gordon Cook; Xavier Leleu; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Graham Jackson; Martin Kaiser; Katja Weisel; Niels W C J van de Donk; Anders Waage; Meral Beksac; Ulf H Mellqvist; Monika Engelhardt; Jo Caers; Christoph Driessen; Joan Bladé; Pieter Sonneveld Journal: Leukemia Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 11.528