Impact of pomalidomide therapy in multiple myeloma: a recent survey

Thrombosis in multiple myeloma: mechanisms, risk assessment and management

Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis. Pathophysiologic mechanisms include patient, disease and treatment related factors. Risk assessment models have been developed to determine whichpatients are at highest thrombotic risk and pursuant to this, risk adapted thrombosis prophylaxis has been suggested. Areas in which further basic and clinical research is imperative include the molecular and cellular mechanisms of thrombosis in myeloma, the inclusion of relevant biomarkers in risk assessment scores and controlled clinical trials of VTE prophylaxis and treatment using direct oral anticoagulants.

Synthesis and biological evaluation of camptothecin substituted norcantharimide derivatives

In this paper, a series of novel derivatives of camptothecin substituted norcantharimide was designed by mimic strategy. These compounds were synthesized in moderate yields by directly coupling CPT with N-amino acid norcantharimides. Their cytotoxicity to four human tumour cell lines (HepG2, BGC-803, SW480 and PANC-1) and normal human cell lines L-O2 and HIEC was evaluated. The synthesized CPT substituted norcantharimide analogs (3g and 3f) showed better anti-hepatocarcinoma activity than CPT. Compounds 3d, 3e, 3g, 3h and 3i also showed strong inhibition activity against BGC803.

Clinical Benefit of Long-Term Disease Control with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients

Background: We retrospectively analysed relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (PomaD) either in real life, or previously enrolled in an interventional (STRATUS, MM-010) or currently enrolled in an observational study (MM-015) to provide further insights on safety and tolerability and clinical efficacy. Methods: Between July 2013 and July 2018, 76 RRMM patients (including 33 double refractory MM) received pomalidomide 4 mg daily given orally on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (≤75 years) or 20 mg weekly for patients aged > 75 years. In nine patients a third agent was added to increase the response: Cyclophosphamide (in two fit patients) or clarithromycin (in seven frail patients). Patients received subcutaneous filgrastim as part of the prophylaxis regimen for neutropenia. Results: A median number of six (range 2–21) PomaD cycles were given. The regimen was well tolerated with grade 3–4 haematological and non-haematological adverse events in 39 (51%) and 25 (33%) patients, respectively. In patients who developed serious AE, pomalidomide dose reduction (11%, 14%) or definitive discontinuation (18%, 23%) were applied. All patients have been evaluated for response within the first two cycles. The disease control rate (DCR), i.e., those patients that had a response equal or better than stable disease (≥ SD), was high (89%), with 44% overall response rate (ORR) after six cycles. The achieved best responses were complete remission (CR, 5%), very good partial remission (VGPR, 4%), partial remission (PR, 35%), minimal response (MR, 7%), and stable disease (SD, 38%). After a median follow up of 19.6 months, median progression free survival was 9.4 months, and overall survival (OS) was 19.02 months. Univariate analysis showed that double refractory patients, or who received more than three previous lines had shorter PFS. At 18 months, regardless of the depth of response, patients with a disease control of at least six months, defined as maintenance of a best clinical and/or biochemical response to treatment for almost six months, had prolonged PFS (35.3% versus 20.6%, p = 0.0003) and OS (81.2% versus 15.9%, p < 0.0001) Conclusions: Our findings indicate that PomaD is a safe and well-tolerated regimen in real-life, associated with prolonged PFS and OS with acceptable toxicity. Moreover, Pd induced disease control in most intensively pre-treated patients and some of them achieved longer PFS than that obtained with the previous treatment.

Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison

BACKGROUND

Daratumumab (a human CD38-directed monoclonal antibody) and pomalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug) plus dexamethasone are both relatively new treatment options for patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. A matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare absolute treatment effects of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDex; 40 mg) on overall survival (OS), while adjusting for differences between the trial populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MAIC method reduces the risk of bias associated with naïve indirect comparisons. Data from 148 patients receiving daratumumab (16 mg/kg), pooled from the GEN501 and SIRIUS studies, were compared separately with data from patients receiving pomalidomide + LoDex in the MM-003 and STRATUS studies.

RESULTS

The MAIC-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for OS of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + LoDex was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.83; p = .0041) for MM-003 and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.69; p < .0001) for STRATUS. The treatment benefit was even more pronounced when the daratumumab population was restricted to pomalidomide-naïve patients (MM-003: HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; p = .0017; STRATUS: HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79; p = .0082). An additional analysis indicated a consistent trend of the OS benefit across subgroups based on M-protein level reduction (≥50%, ≥25%, and <25%).

CONCLUSION

The MAIC results suggest that daratumumab improves OS compared with pomalidomide + LoDex in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This matching adjusted indirect comparison of clinical trial data from four studies analyzes the survival outcomes of patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received either daratumumab monotherapy or pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Using this method, daratumumab conferred a significant overall survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. In the absence of head-to-head trials, these indirect comparisons provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement authorities around the relative efficacy of treatments.

Nanoparticle delivery systems, general approaches, and their implementation in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy that remains incurable, with relapse rates >90%. The main limiting factor for the effective use of chemotherapies in MM is the serious side effects caused by these drugs. The emphasis in cancer treatment has shifted from cytotoxic, non-specific chemotherapies to molecularly targeted and rationally designed therapies showing greater efficacy and fewer side effects. Traditional chemotherapy has shown several disadvantages such as lack of targeting capabilities, systemic toxicity, and side effects; low therapeutic index, as well as most anticancer drugs, has poor water solubility. Nanoparticle delivery systems (NPs) are capable of targeting large doses of chemotherapies into the target area while sparing healthy tissues, overcoming the limitations of traditional chemotherapy. Here, we review the current state of the art in nanoparticle-based strategies designed to treat MM. Many nanoparticle delivery systems have been studied for myeloma using non-targeted NPs (liposomes, polymeric NPs, and inorganic NPs), triggered NPs, as well as targeted NPs (VLA-4, ABC drug transporters, bone microenvironment targeting). The results in preclinical and clinical studies are promising; however, there remains much to be learned in the emerging field of nanomedicine in myeloma.