Characterization of haematological parameters with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed myeloma, with evaluation of long-term outcomes and risk of thromboembolic events with use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: analysis of the VISTA trial

Management of Myeloma Manifestations and Complications: The Cornerstone of Supportive Care: Recommendation of the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (formerly Myeloma Canada Research Network) Consensus Guideline Consortium

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological cancer associated with significant symptomatic burden. Bone disease, renal insufficiency, cytopenias, infection, and peripheral neuropathy, among other disease manifestations and complications, impair patients' quality of life. The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Consensus Guideline Consortium, formerly Myeloma Canada Research Network Consensus Guideline Consortium, proposes national consensus recommendations for the management of MM-related manifestations and complications. To address the needs of Canadian physicians and people living with MM across the country, this document focuses on the improvement and maintenance of patient care by clarifying best-practice approaches for the prevention, detection and management of disease manifestations and complications. The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Consensus Guideline Consortium will periodically review the recommendations herein and update as necessary.

Thrombosis in hematological malignancies: mechanisms and implications

A B S T R A C T Thrombotic events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer. While the association of venous thromboembolic events with cancer is well documented, in recent years arterial events (i.e. acute myocardial infarction and ischemic strokes) have also emerged as relatively common complications among cancer patients. In hematological malignancies incorporating a heterogeneous group of diseases, the prediction of thrombosis occurrence and/or recurrence is challenging, due to unique disease characteristics. Furthermore, the treatment of thrombosis in these patients is often complicated because of disease- or therapy-related thrombocytopenia. In addition, patients with hematological cancers are poorly represented in randomized control clinical trials; hence, evidence-based guidelines are limited. This review will discuss the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events in common myeloid and lymphoproliferative diseases. Several new mechanisms contributing to cancer- associated thrombosis will be elaborated. The complicated issue of risk assessment and management of venous thrombosis in patients with hematological malignancies will be delineated.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

The effects of different schedules of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant ineligible: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are transplant ineligible, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) demonstrated superior efficacy based on the VISTA trial. In subsequent trials, twice-weekly bortezomib was limited to the first cycle or completely replaced with once-weekly bortezomib to reduce toxicity. Following a systematic literature review, the efficacy and safety of modified VMP schedules (pooled data from the once-weekly bortezomib VMP arm of the GIMEMA trial and the VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial) were compared to the VISTA schedule using naïve and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Median progression-free survival was similar between VISTA and modified VMP (20.7 months [95% CI, 18.4-24.3] vs 19.6 months [95% CI, 18.8-21.0]). Peripheral neuropathy was significantly reduced with modified VMP versus VISTA VMP (all grades: naïve, 32.1% vs 46.8% and MAIC, 32.1% vs 46.7%; both p < .0001). These findings support a modified VMP dosing schedule for patients with NDMM who are transplant ineligible.

Venous thromboembolism incidence in hematologic malignancies

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Although some very well validated scores delineate the risk of VTE by cancer subtype and other risk factors, hematologic malignancies are underrepresented in these models. This subgroup represents a unique entity that undergoes therapy that can be thrombogenic. The overall risk of VTE in patients with leukemia depends on the use of L-asparaginase treatment, older age, comorbidities and central venous catheters. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia are at particularly high risk of VTE but also have an increased risk of bleeding. Patients with aggressive lymphomas have a high incidence of VTE, roughly 10%. Patients with multiple myeloma at highest risk of VTE are those receiving immunomodulatory agents such as thalidomide or lenalidomide. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation carries a risk of thrombosis, particularly in patients developing graft versus host disease. This review summarizes the incidence of VTE in leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma and stem cell transplantation and provides practical guidance for preventing and managing VTE in patients with hematologic malignancies.

Incidence of neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in multiple myeloma: is current clinical practice adequate?

Although immunomodulatory drugs, alkylating agents, corticosteroids, protease inhibitors, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies improve multiple myeloma outcomes, treatment burden is still an issue. Neutropenia is a known complication of cytotoxic cancer therapy and is often associated with infections; it is an important consideration in myeloma given the fact that patients often have a weakened immune system. The risk of febrile neutropenia increases with severe and persisting neutropenia. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are commonly used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. Here, we review the risk and management of neutropenia associated with new and commonly used anti-myeloma agents. Few papers report the use of G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma receiving anti-cancer treatments, and fewer describe whether G-CSF was beneficial. None of the identified studies reported G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the need for G-CSF prophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Prophylaxis may be particularly useful in patients at high risk of prolonged severe neutropenia.

Erythropoietin treatment in murine multiple myeloma: immune gain and bone loss

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy, characterized by osteolytic lesions and monoclonal immunoglobulins. The anemia, accompanying the disease is often treated with recombinant human EPO. Diverse non-erythropoietic effects of EPO have led us to question its combined action on the immune system and bone in the 5T33MM mouse model. EPO administration to MM mice attenuated disease progression as demonstrated by a decrease in serum MM IgG2b, splenic CD138 expressing cells, IL-6 and RORγτ transcripts in bone marrow (BM). IFN-γ transcript levels and macrophages (F4/80⁺CD11b⁺) in the BM both increased ~1.5 fold in the EPO-treated MM mice. In-vitro, EPO stimulated phagocytosis of 5T33MM cells (+30%) by BM-derived macrophages. In contrast, high-resolution microCT analysis of distal femurs revealed EPO-associated bone loss in both healthy and 5T33MM mice. EPO significantly increased expression of the osteoclastogenic nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) in healthy mice, but not in MM mice, likely due to antagonizing effects on MM progression. Thus, in MM, EPO may act as a double-edged-sword stimulating immune response, while accelerating bone resorption, possibly via direct action on BM macrophages. This study supports a prudent approach of treating anemia in MM patients, aiming to maintain EPO-associated anti-MM effects, while considering bone damage.

European Myeloma Network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications

The European Myeloma Network provides recommendations for the management of the most common complications of multiple myeloma. Whole body low-dose computed tomography is more sensitive than conventional radiography in depicting osteolytic disease and thus we recommend it as the novel standard for the detection of lytic lesions in myeloma (grade 1A). Myeloma patients with adequate renal function and bone disease at diagnosis should be treated with zoledronic acid or pamidronate (grade 1A). Symptomatic patients without lytic lesions on conventional radiography can be treated with zoledronic acid (grade 1B), but its advantage is not clear for patients with no bone involvement on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. In asymptomatic myeloma, bisphosphonates are not recommended (grade 1A). Zoledronic acid should be given continuously, but it is not clear if patients who achieve at least a very good partial response benefit from its continuous use (grade 1B). Treatment with erythropoietic-stimulating agents may be initiated in patients with persistent symptomatic anemia (hemoglobin <10g/dL) in whom other causes of anemia have been excluded (grade 1B). Erythropoietic agents should be stopped after 6-8 weeks if no adequate hemoglobin response is achieved. For renal impairment, bortezomib-based regimens are the current standard of care (grade 1A). For the management of treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy, drug modification is needed (grade 1C). Vaccination against influenza is recommended; vaccination against streptococcus pneumonia and hemophilus influenza is appropriate, but efficacy is not guaranteed due to suboptimal immune response (grade 1C). Prophylactic aciclovir (or valacyclovir) is recommended for patients receiving proteasome inhibitors, autologous or allogeneic transplantation (grade 1A).

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.