Efficacy of retreatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in patients receiving IMiDs for initial therapy of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Clinical efficacy of retreatment of daratumumab-based therapy (D2) in daratumumab-refractory multiple myeloma

Daratumumab demonstrates activity as a single agent and in combination with either immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, little is known about the benefit of daratumumab retreatment in daratumumab-refractory MM. This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of daratumumab-based retreatment (D2) in patients who are daratumumab refractory MM. Retrospectively, we identified 43 RRMM patients from a single-center database review. The median age was 65 years, 42% patients had high-risk cytogenetics, and 23% had an extramedullary disease, while the median time between D2 and prior daratumumab was 1 (0.25-39) month. All D2 patients received combination therapy with either pomalidomide, carfilzomib, bortezomib, or lenalidomide. The response rate, median progression-free, and overall survival were 49%, 7.97 and 32.6 months, respectively. Our study raises the possibility of re-utilizing daratumumab in combination with different classes of anti-myeloma drugs to generate responses in RRMM patients who are daratumumab-refractory.

Lenalidomide in Multiple Myeloma: Review of Resistance Mechanisms, Current Treatment Strategies and Future Perspectives

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy, accounting for approximately 1% of all cancers. Despite the initial poor prognosis for MM patients, their life expectancy has improved significantly with the development of novel agents. Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are widely used in MM therapy. Their implementation has been a milestone in improving the clinical outcomes of patients. The first molecule belonging to the IMiDs was thalidomide. Subsequently, its novel derivatives, lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM), were implemented. Almost all MM patients are exposed to LEN, which is the most commonly used IMiD. Despite the potent anti-MM activity of LEN, some patients eventually relapse and become LEN-resistant. Drug resistance is one of the greatest challenges of modern oncology and has become the main cause of cancer treatment failures. The number of patients receiving LEN is increasing, hence the problem of LEN resistance has become a great obstacle for hematologists worldwide. In this review, we intended to shed more light on the pathophysiology of LEN resistance in MM, with particular emphasis on the molecular background. Moreover, we have briefly summarized strategies to overcome LEN resistance and we have outlined future directions.

Treatment patterns and overall survival of patients with double-class and triple-class refractory multiple myeloma: a US electronic health record database study

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) resistant to multiple drug classes remain a high unmet need population. This longitudinal retrospective cohort study assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in adults with RRMM. Patients who had three or more prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (double-exposed) were further categorized as refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent (double-class refractory, n = 381) or additionally to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (triple-class refractory, n = 173). Treatment options are limited for patients with double-class or triple-class refractory disease. Retreatment is a part of standard of care. Bortezomib and lenalidomide had the highest retreatment rates among double-class and triple-class refractory patients. Survival outcomes remain poor among RRMM patients with median overall survival (OS) of 22.3 and 11.6 months for double-class refractory and triple-class refractory patients, respectively. This study highlights the need for novel efficacious therapies in this heavily pretreated RRMM population.

SUMOylation inhibition enhances multiple myeloma sensitivity to lenalidomide

Despite the potent effect of lenalidomide (Len) in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, patients develop Len resistance leading to progressive disease, demanding an urgent need to investigate the mechanisms mediating Len resistance. Our study identified SUMOylation as a potential mechanism regulating Len resistance in MM. Len-resistant MM cell line MMR10R presented much higher SUMO E1 (SAE2) expression and more global SUMOylation than Len-sensitive MM1S cell line. SUMOylation inhibition by using TAK-981, a novel and specific SUMO E1 inhibitor, significantly enhances myeloma sensitivity to Len in MM cell lines. Moreover, the enhanced anti-MM activity by TAK-981 and Len combination has been validated using primary relapsing MM patient samples. Overexpression of IRF4 and c-Myc is a major mechanism of Len resistance. Len showed limited effect on IRF4 and c-Myc level in Len-resistance cell line, but TAK-981 treatment reduced IRF4 and c-Myc expression in Len-resistant line and caused further decrease when combined with Len. We found SUMOylation inhibition decreases IRF4 at transcriptional and post-translational level. SUMOylation inhibition reduced DOT1L with decreased methylation of histone H3 lysine 79, to suppress IRF4 gene transcription. SUMOylation inhibition also reduced IRF4 protein level by enhancing degradation. Overall, our data revealed SUMOylation inhibition enhances Len sensitivity through downregulating IRF4.

Cancer therapies based on targeted protein degradation - lessons learned with lenalidomide

For decades, anticancer targeted therapies have been designed to inhibit kinases or other enzyme classes and have profoundly benefited many patients. However, novel approaches are required to target transcription factors, scaffolding proteins and other proteins central to cancer biology that typically lack catalytic activity and have remained mostly recalcitrant to drug development. The selective degradation of target proteins is an attractive approach to expand the druggable proteome, and the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant served as an early example of this concept. Following a long and tragic history in the clinic, the immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD) thalidomide was discovered to exert its therapeutic activity via a novel and unexpected mechanism of action: targeting proteins to an E3 ubiquitin ligase for subsequent proteasomal degradation. This discovery has paralleled and directly catalysed myriad breakthroughs in drug development, leading to the rapid maturation of generalizable chemical platforms for the targeted degradation of previously undruggable proteins. Decades of clinical experience have established front-line roles for thalidomide analogues, including lenalidomide and pomalidomide, in the treatment of haematological malignancies. With a new generation of 'degrader' drugs currently in development, this experience provides crucial insights into class-wide features of degraders, including a unique pharmacology, mechanisms of resistance and emerging therapeutic opportunities. Herein, we review these past experiences and discuss their application in the clinical development of novel degrader therapies.

Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients: Results of the Real-World "POWERFUL" Study

The “POWERFUL” multicenter, retrospective, and prospective study investigated the effectiveness of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM/LoDex) therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine care in Greece. Ninety-nine eligible adult patients treated with POM/LoDex according to the approved label after having received ≥2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, were consecutively enrolled between 16 November 2017 and 21 February 2019 in 18 hematology departments. Fifty patients (50.5%) started POM/LoDex as third-line treatment. During the treatment period (median: 8.3 months; range: 0.3–47.6 months), the median POM dose was 4 mg/day, and 31.3% of the patients received additional antimyeloma agents. The overall response rate was 32.3%. During a median follow-up period of 13.8 months (Kaplan–Meier estimate), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.4–14.4). The PFS was not significantly different between patients receiving POM/LoDex in the third versus later line of therapy, nor between patients receiving concomitant antimyeloma therapy versus POM/LoDEx doublet. During the prospective safety data collection period (median: 7.6 months) among patients with prospective follow-up (N = 75), POM-related adverse event incidence rate was 42.7% (serious: 18.7%; grade  ≥  3 hematological POM-related adverse events: 8.0%). Only neutropenia (13.3%) was reported at a frequency ≥10%. In conclusion, in this real-world study, POM/LoDex displayed a long PFS with no new safety signals emerging.

DNA methylation inhibition in myeloma: Experience from a phase 1b study of low-dose continuous azacitidine in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

The DNA methyltransferase inhibitor azacytidine (aza) may reactivate pathways associated with plasma cell differentiation, cell cycle control, apoptosis, and immune recognition and thereby restore sensitivity to lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We aimed to develop an aza regimen that reaches epigenetically active levels 8 times in 28 days with less bone marrow toxicity than the myeloid malignancy standard of 7 consecutive doses to enable safe combination with len. Aza was escalated from 30 mg/m² once a week up to a predefined maximum of 50 mg/m² twice a week in combination with GFR-adjusted len (≥ 60 mL/min: 25 mg, 3059 mL/min: 10 mg) day 1 to 21 every 28 days and dex 40 mg once a week followed by a limited expansion study to a total N of 23 at the highest tolerated dose. Fifty-one patients (pts) with RRMM were screened, 42 were treated and 41 were evaluable for response based on at least 1 response assessment or progression after treatment start. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (1-11) and 81% (34) were refractory to len and/or pomalidomide (pom). Two DLTs occurred in different cohorts, 1 neutropenic fever in 1/6 pts on the aza 40 mg/m² twice a week GFR ≥ 60 mL/min cohort and 1 GGT elevation in 1/6 pts on the aza 50 mg/m² GFR 30-59 mL/min cohort. An MTD was not reached and aza 50 mg/m² SC twice a week was chosen for the expansion study. At least possibly related Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 28 pts (67%) with the following in > 1 pt: neutropenia (N = 16, 38%), anemia (N = 6, 14%), lymphopenia (N = 5, 12%), thrombocytopenia (N = 4, 10%), leukopenia (N = 4, 10%), febrile neutropenia (N = 4, 10%), fatigue (N = 3, 7%), fever (N = 2, 5%), and infection (N = 2, 5%). At a median follow up time for alive pts of 60.2 months (range: 36.1-82.5 months), the overall response rate (≥ partial response) and clinical benefit response rate (≥ minor response) was 22 and 32%, respectively, with 4 very good partial responses (10%), 5 partial responses (12%), and 4 minor responses (10%). The median PFS was 3.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1-5.1 months), median TTP 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.1-7.5 months), and median OS 18.6 months (95% CI: 12.9-33.0 months). Achieving at least minor response and reaching TTP > 6 months was associated with approximately 35% lower median plasma levels of the enzyme that inactivates aza, plasma cytidine deaminase (CDA, P< .0001). Two of the len refractory pts achieved longer disease control than with any prior regimen and 1 responded immediately after progression on len, bortezomib, and prednisone. Analyses of the methylation state of over 480,000 CpG sites in purified myeloma cells at screening were possible in 11 pts and on day 28 in 8 of them. As in other studies, the majority of differentially methylated CpGs compared to normal plasma cells were hypomethylated in myeloma. Treatment decreased the number of CpGs that were differentially methylated in normal plasma cells by > 0.5% in 6 and by > 5% in 3 of the 8 pts, most pronounced in 2 pts with clinically convincing aza contribution who achieved a reduction in overall differentially methylated CpGs by 23 and 68%, respectively, associated with increased expression of immunoglobulin genes. The study demonstrated tolerability of twice a week SC aza at 50 mg/m² with len and dex in RRMM and suggested aza may help overcome the len/pom refractory state, possibly by activating differentiation pathways. Relatively low response rates and association of clinical benefit with low plasma levels of the aza inactivating enzyme CDA suggest the aza regimen will need to be optimized further and pt selection may be required to maximize benefit.

Deep Phenotyping Reveals Distinct Immune Signatures Correlating with Prognostication, Treatment Responses, and MRD Status in Multiple Myeloma

Despite recent advances, Multiple Myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease with apparent heterogeneity that may explain patients' variable clinical outcomes. While the phenotypic, (epi)genetic, and molecular characteristics of myeloma cells have been thoroughly examined, there is limited information regarding the role of the bone marrow (BM) microenvironment in the natural history of the disease. In the present study, we performed deep phenotyping of 32 distinct immune cell subsets in a cohort of 94 MM patients to reveal unique immune profiles in both BM and peripheral blood (PB) that characterize distinct prognostic groups, responses to induction treatment, and minimal residual disease (MRD) status. Our data show that PB cells do not reflect the BM microenvironment and that the two sites should be studied independently. Adverse ISS stage and high-risk cytogenetics were correlated with distinct immune profiles; most importantly, BM signatures comprised decreased tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and erythroblasts, whereas the unique Treg signatures in PB could discriminate those patients achieving complete remission after VRd induction therapy. Moreover, MRD negative status was correlated with a more experienced CD4- and CD8-mediated immunity phenotype in both BM and PB, thus highlighting a critical role of by-stander cells linked to MRD biology.

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

The therapeutic strategy for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) integrates a holistic approach regarding patient, disease, and drug-related factors. Patient-related factors include age, frailty status, and underlying comorbidities, especially cardiovascular and renal diseases and peripheral neuropathies that affect tolerability to multiple drug combinations or transplantations. Disease-related factors encompass these multiple patient-related factors, particularly the aggressiveness of the disease and cytogenetics. Regarding drug-related factors, the approval of novel proteasome inhibitors (such as carfilzomib and ixazomib), immunomodulatory agents (such as pomalidomide), monoclonal antibodies (such as daratumumab and elotuzumab), and new classes of drugs increasingly makes the choice treatment more complex and necessitates a comprehensive summary and an update of the efficacy and toxicities of each antimyeloma drug and its combinations. Further, careful monitoring of the side effects and supportive care throughout the course of treatment are important to achieve better outcomes for patients with RRMM.

Limited treatment options in refractory multiple myeloma: promising therapeutic developments

Introduction: Combinations of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies are highly active against multiple myeloma. Consequently, several combinations have moved from the relapsed to the front-line setting. In the context of lenalidomide and bortezomib being used upfront, salvage options need to be evaluated.Areas covered: This manuscript reviews available data for the treatment of patients progressing on optimal frontline strategies, with a focus on the role of second-generation proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators, monoclonal antibodies and immunotherapy.Expert opinion: Remarkable progress has been made in myeloma treatment due to the integration of immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors and more recently monoclonal antibodies in the front-line setting. However, we work on the assumption that most individuals will eventually relapse. Optimized upfront therapy negatively selects more resistant patients among still relapsing individuals. Bortezomib and lenalidomide-exposed patients are under-represented in trials leading to currently approved combinations. Evidence needs to be reviewed taking into account how the improvement of frontline therapy has modified the characteristics of patients at the time of relapse. Second generation immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies and other agents have shown efficacy in this new landscape. Immunotherapeutic agents, including CAR-T cells are promising for patients failing standard combinations, despite current data are still immature.

Analysis of the Efficacy of Thalidomide Plus Dexamethasone-Based Regimens in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Who Received Prior Chemotherapy, Including Bortezomib and Lenalidomide: KMM-166 Study

BACKGROUND

For patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that relapsed after treatment with bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens, there were no other treatment options in Korea until 2016. We aimed to determine the efficacy of thalidomide plus dexamethasone-based regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in Korea for patients with RRMM treated with thalidomide-based regimens who previously received bortezomib and immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), including thalidomide and lenalidomide.

RESULTS

In 47 patients with RRMM, the median age was 64 years and the median number of previous treatment lines, including bortezomib and IMiDs, was 3. Primary resistance to bortezomib and lenalidomide was observed in 12 (26%) and 8 (17%) patients, respectively. The most common regimen was a combination of thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone. The overall response rate was 38%; 2 patients (4%) experienced a complete response, and 2 patients (4%) experienced a very good partial response. The overall response rate of patients previously exposed to thalidomide was 53%. The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months, and overall survival was 9.2 months. Patients with disease that responded to the thalidomide-based regimen had better progression-free survival compared to those who did not (median, 8.8 vs. 2.5 months; P = .008). The most common adverse events were anemia (51%) for hematologic toxicities and peripheral neuropathy (30%) for nonhematologic toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Thalidomide-based regimens are potential salvage treatment options for patients with RRMM, even those with disease with prior resistance to IMiDs.

Clinical efficacy of daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma: Utility of re-treatment with daratumumab among refractory patients

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of daratumumab (DARA) both as a monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens in multiple myeloma (MM) has been established in clinical trials. This article presents a retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of DARA in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (ie, daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DARA-POM-D]) and, more importantly, the long-term follow-up of a cohort that was naive to DARA and POM as well as a cohort in which the utility of re-treatment was evaluated among patients who were DARA- and/or POM-refractory.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM treated with DARA-POM-D at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from January 2015 through July 2016 were included in the analysis. The study was approved by Emory University's institutional review board. All received prior proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and were refractory to their last line of therapy.

RESULTS

All patients were lenalidomide-refractory, and 91% were bortezomib-refractory. Two cohorts were identified on the basis of prior exposure to DARA and/or POM. Cohort 1 (12 patients) was DARA- and POM-naive, and cohort 2 (22 patients) was DARA- and/or POM-refractory. A subgroup of 12 patients in cohort 2 (cohort 3) was DARA- and POM-refractory. The combination's tolerability was consistent with the results of the published phase 1b study (EQUULES) that evaluated the combination and no new safety signals were observed. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 91.7%, 40.9%, and 33.3% in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Deep responses, including 4 stringent complete responses, were observed in cohort 1. In cohort 2, the ORR comprised 8 partial responses (PRs) and 1 very good PR. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in cohort 1 at a median follow-up of 41 months, and it was 3.2 months in cohort 2. DARA-POM-D not only was effective in DARA- and POM-naive patients but also produced clinical responses in a third of patients re-treated with these drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

A better than quadrupled PFS benefit observed in cohort 1 in comparison with the previously reported benefit in the EQUULEUS trial (which led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of the DARA-POM-D combination) highlights the fact that the introduction of monoclonal antibody combination strategies and IMiDs as earlier lines of therapeutic options potentially could deliver better clinical outcomes. One-third of patients refractory to separate lines of DARA and/or POM responded when they were re-treated with a combination, and this resulted in survival benefits equivalent to those of other antimyeloma agents/combinations available for DARA-refractory patients.

Efficacy of retreatment with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors following daratumumab monotherapy in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients

This single‐centre retrospective observational study analysed the efficacy of retreatment with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) after treatment with daratumumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In total 55 patients were treated with daratumumab monotherapy between 2010 and 2017. From this group 29 (53%) IMiD‐refractory patients were retreated with an IMiD after daratumumab and 6 (11%) PI‐refractory patients were retreated with a PI‐based regimen. For the IMiD‐refractory patients the overall response rate (ORR) was 52% (15/29 patients, partial response or better) upon IMiD retreatment, whereas the ORR to PI retreatment was 67% (4/6 patients) in the PI‐refractory group. The immunomodulatory effects of daratumumab may play a role in these high response rates in previously refractory patients. Due to the >6 month‐long persistence of daratumumab in the plasma the subsequent therapies can effectively be considered as combination therapy. Furthermore, the excellent tolerability of daratumumab treatment may enable patients to recover from prior lines of treatment and receive full dosing of subsequent therapies. In conclusion, a high proportion of RRMM patients benefitted from retreatment with IMiDs and PIs after daratumumab treatment. These retreatment options should therefore be explored in RRMM patients progressing on daratumumab monotherapy.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation and subsequent treatments as a comprehensive strategy for long-term survival of multiple myeloma patients

We evaluated 71 patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). Forty-three patients (61%) received allo-HCT after the first line of therapy. Fifty-eight patients (82%) had chemosensitive disease at the time of allo-HCT. A HLA-matched related or unrelated donor was available for 68 patients (96%). Non-myeloablative or reduced-intensity conditioning regimen and peripheral blood hematopoietic cells as a graft source were used in most patients. The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD at day +100 and chronic GVHD at 5 years was 13% (95% CI 7-23%) and 35% (95% CI 24-46), respectively. Non-relapse mortality and relapse/progression incidence at 5 years were 12% (95% CI 5-23) and 65% (95% CI 49-76), respectively. With a median follow-up in survivors of 100 months (range 16-186), the 5-year PFS and OS were 39% (95% CI 27-52) and 60% (95% CI 55-77), respectively. On multivariate analysis: age >55 years was associated with both a reduced PFS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.87) and OS (RR 5.53, 95% CI 2.22-13.76); chemorefractory disease at allo-HCT was associated with both reduced PFS (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.37-7.00) and OS (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.23-8.22). At relapse, 24 patients (56%) received bortezomib, 28 (65%) lenalidomide, 11 (26%) pomalidomide, 16 (37%) donor lymphocytes infusion as part of salvage therapy after allo-HCT relapse. Median PFS from time of salvage treatment was 7 months (range 0-113 months) for bortezomib-based therapy, 14 months (range 0-79 months) for lenalidomide and 10 months (range 1-28) for pomalidomide. Allo-HCT is a feasible and effective strategy in selected patients with MM and could be an effective platform for subsequent therapies.

Estimating the Economic Impact of Adding Panobinostat to a U.S. Formulary for Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Budget Impact and Cost-Benefit Model

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is an incurable B-cell malignancy with a natural history that involves alternating periods of remission and subsequent relapse. For relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), the typical patient currently receives more lines of therapy than has been feasible in the past, translating into longer progression-free survival (PFS). Consequently, cost issues have become more prominent because patients may be offered newer and more expensive therapies during a more prolonged overall treatment course.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the economic impact of adding panobinostat to a U.S. health plan formulary as a treatment option with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with RRMM previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), using a budget impact and cost-benefit model.

METHODS

Total costs of commonly used salvage therapy regimens were combined with market share data and population prevalence estimates of RRMM to yield the total cost of treatment, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer (commercial or Medicare) with a time horizon of 1 year. Comparator treatment regimens included bortezomib-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone, carfilzomib monotherapy, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Costs (2015 U.S. dollars) included drug costs for oral oncology agents, medical and administration costs for injectable oncology agents, costs of adverse event (AE) prophylaxis and monitoring, and costs of grade 3/4 AEs.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, the annual number of RRMM patients with previous PI and IMiD treatments was estimated at 16 and 118 for a commercial and Medicare plan, respectively. Introduction of panobinostat as part of the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen was not expected to result in a substantial budget impact to either commercial or Medicare plans, with an incremental cost < $0.01 per member per month. Panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had a low cost per treated patient per month without progression, owing to the minimal increase in expenditure over existing bortezomib-based regimens and long median PFS, compared with median duration of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding panobinostat to a plan formulary as a treatment option is expected to be cost neutral (and potentially cost saving in the context of new and more expensive treatment regimens). With a low cost per month without progression, panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone represents good value for the money.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was sponsored by Novartis, East Hanover, New Jersey. Bloudek and Kish are employees of Xcenda, a consulting company contracted by Novartis to conduct this analysis. Roy, Globe, and Kuriakose are employees of Novartis. Siegel is on the advisory boards and speaker's bureau of Celgene, Onyx/Amgen, Millennium/Takeda, and Novartis and is on the advisory boards of Merck. Jagannath is a consultant to Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Celgene. Orloski is a contractor to Xcenda and provided medical writing support, which was funded by Novartis. Study design and concept were contributed by Bloudek, Roy, and Kish, assisted by Globe. Bloukek took the lead in data collection, along with Kish, and data interpretation was performed by Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, and Kuriakose. The manuscript was written primarily by Orloski, along with Roy and Kish, and revised by Roy, along with Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, Orloski, and Kuriakose.

Sequencing of nontransplant treatments in multiple myeloma patients with active disease

The approval of several different classes of drugs in recent years has resulted in a dramatic expansion of treatment options for multiple myeloma patients, improving both survival and quality of life. Lenalidomide and bortezomib are now core components of treatment both at time of diagnosis and at relapse. Next-generation immunomodulatory drugs, like pomalidomide, and newer proteasome inhibitors like carfilzomib and ixazomib are available for use at relapse. Drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat and the monoclonal antibodies targeting SLAMF7 (elotuzumab) and CD38 (daratumumab) are significant steps forward. Recent clinical trials describing novel combinations of these drugs have demonstrated unprecedented improvements in efficacy while maintaining tolerability. All of these options provide not only a challenge for choice of therapy, but also the opportunity to aim for increasing depth of response. This chapter will describe an approach on how to sequence and incorporate these therapies, focusing on patients where high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant are deferred or not applicable.

Multiple myeloma treatment at relapse after autologous stem cell transplantation: A practical analysis

Over the past decade, significant advances have been made in the field of multiple myeloma. Introduction of the so-called novel agents, proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), and improved supportive care have resulted in significantly better outcome. Standard first line treatment in fit patients include PI and IMiD based induction, high dose melphalan with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and consolidation/maintenance. However, despite these progresses MM remains incurable for the majority of patients and most patients will relapse. Next generation PI (carfilzomib, ixazomib) and IMiD (pomalidomide) and new therapeutic classes: monoclonal antibody (elotuzumab, daratumumab) and pan-deacetylase inhibitors (panobinostat) have been successfully evaluated in relapse multiple myeloma. Some of these new agents are now approved for multiple myeloma treatment at relapse. However choosing the most appropriate treatment at relapse may be difficult. This review sum up the most important studies and provide evidence to choose the most relevant therapeutic strategy for relapse after ASCT, based on disease, patient and previous treatment related parameters.

Evolving paradigms in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: increased options and increased complexity

The use of modern therapies such as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide coupled with upfront high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has resulted in improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). However, patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) often have poorer clinical outcomes and might benefit from novel therapeutic strategies. Emerging therapies, such as deacetylase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies and new proteasome inhibitors, appear promising and may change the therapeutic landscape in RRMM. A limited number of studies has shown a benefit with salvage ASCT in patients with RRMM, although there remains ongoing debate about its timing and effectiveness. Improvement in transplant outcomes has re-ignited a debate on the timing and possible role for salvage ASCT and allogeneic stem cell transplant in RRMM. As the treatment options for management of patients with RRMM become increasingly complex, physicians must consider both disease- and patient-related factors in choosing the appropriate therapeutic approach, with the goal of improving efficacy while minimizing toxicity.

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

The approach to the patient with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) requires a careful evaluation of the results of previous treatments, the toxicities associated with them and an assessment of prognostic factors. Since the majority of patients will have received prior therapy with drug combinations including a proteasome inhibitor and/or an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), it is the physician's task to choose the right moment for the start of therapy and define with the patient which goals need to be achieved. The choice of regimen is usually based on prior responsiveness, drugs already received, prior adverse effects, the condition of the patient and expected effectiveness and tolerability. Many double and triple drug combinations are available. In addition, promising new drugs like pomalidomide, carfilzomib and monoclonal antibodies are, or will be, available shortly, while other options can be tried in clinical studies. Finally, supportive care and palliative options need to be considered in some patients. It is becoming increasingly more important to consider the therapeutic options for the whole duration of the disease rather than take a step by step approach, and to develop a systematic approach for each individual patient.

Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Survival outcomes of patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) have improved over the last decade due to the introduction of novel agents such as the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide, lenalidomide (Len) and pomalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib (BTZ) and carfilzomib [1, 2]. However, despite these major advances, MM remains largely incurable and almost all patients relapse and require additional therapy [3]. The successful introduction of next generation novel agents including oral proteasome inhibitors, deacetylase inhibitors, and especially monoclonal antibodies as part of immunotherapy promises to further improve outcome.

Evaluation of immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: single center experience

OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma (MM) comprises 1% of all cancers and 10% of hematologic malignancies and known as an incurable disease. The introduction of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) has brought a major shift in therapeutic paradigm in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory MM patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between response status and hematological parameters in patients with MM treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients who were treated with IMiDs in Ege University, School of Medicine, Department of Hematology, between 2005 and 2012, were evaluated, retrospectively.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We could not find any difference between the hematological parameters before and after the treatment neither with thalidomide nor lenalidomide. However, the heterogenity of our groups, the difference in treatment strategies and potential side effects would have an impact on this result. It is needed to perform prospective clinical trials to prove that whether correction of hematological parameters would reflect the response status in patients with myeloma that treated with IMiDs.

Clinical characteristics of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

Although survival outcomes have improved over the last decade for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), few patients remain free of disease and most inevitably relapse. Selecting a treatment for patients with relapsed MM is challenging given the number and diversity of regimens patients may have previously received, which can affect subsequent therapeutic choices. Importantly, a number of patient- and disease-related factors can also have an effect on treatment choice, treatment efficacy, and tolerability; thus, an understanding of the heterogeneity of patients in the setting of relapsed MM is important for appropriate treatment selection. Here, we review select patient and disease characteristics reported in key interventional and observational studies in relapsed MM (including age, sex, race, and the presence of high-risk disease, renal impairment, or peripheral neuropathy at baseline) to examine common and disparate features of patients with relapsed MM. As therapeutic regimens can have varying efficacy and/or tolerability in patients depending on these factors, we also provide treatment recommendations for patients with select baseline characteristics.

Estimating the Costs of Therapy in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Model Framework

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a progressive cancer for which there is no cure. Despite treatment, almost all patients eventually experience periods of disease relapse and remission. With the increasing use of novel therapies, including bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and panobinostat, benchmarks for assessing the value of these therapies in treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are needed for physicians and payers alike.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a model framework and to calculate an annual estimate of the total costs per patient for the treatment of patients with RRMM using 7 common treatment regimens, including bortezomib plus dexamethasone; panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; lenalidomide plus dexamethasone; lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; carfilzomib; carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone; and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone.

METHODS

The expenditures for drugs and their administration, for prophylaxis and adverse event monitoring, and for the treatment of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were included in the calculations of the total pharmacy and medical costs. The drug costs were based on published pricing and labeled dosing schedules; the adverse event prophylaxis and monitoring costs were obtained from peer-reviewed publications; and the adverse event incidence rates were obtained from each regimen's prescribing information and from clinical trials. All the costs were summed over the duration of therapy for which the drugs were administered and were calculated separately for commercial and Medicare plans. The duration of therapy for each regimen was the time for which a patient had to be receiving the regimen to obtain 12 months of progression-free survival based on the duration-of-therapy to progression-free survival ratio observed from published clinical trials and/or the drug's labeling.

RESULTS

The pharmacy costs were highest for pomalidomide plus dexamethasone, whereas the medical costs were highest for the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. The total cost associated with available treatments for RRMM was highest for regimens that included lenalidomide (approximate range, $126,000-$256,000). Only bortezomib plus dexamethasone and the combination of panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone had total costs that were lower than $125,000 per patient.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first model developed to comprehensively estimate the costs of managing RRMM with all currently approved and guideline-recommended regimens in the United States. As such, it provides the framework and basis for further budget impact analyses and for cost-effectiveness comparisons with these regimens.

Management of relapsed multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplant

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains a standard of care for multiple myeloma patients who are eligible to receive high-dose therapy, recognizing that the optimal timing and integration of this approach is now under study in a number of randomized trials. Despite the improved response rates with induction therapy consisting of immunomodulatory drugs and/or proteasome inhibitors, as well as the increasing use of post-ASCT maintenance therapy, most myeloma patients relapse and die of their disease. Here we discuss the options for managing post-ASCT relapse, including the role of various salvage regimens in the setting of relapsed and refractory myeloma, salvage ASCT, and salvage allogeneic SCT.

Current treatment landscape for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

Recent developments in the treatment of multiple myeloma have led to improvements in response rates and to increased survival; however, relapse is inevitable in almost all patients. Recurrence of myeloma is typically more aggressive with each relapse, leading to the development of treatment-refractory disease, which is associated with a shorter survival. Several phase II and III trials have demonstrated the efficacy of recently approved agents in the setting of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, including immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, and proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib and carfilzomib. Currently, however, there is no standard treatment for patients with relapsed and/or refractory disease. This Review discusses the current treatment landscape for patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma and highlights disease-related and patient-related factors--such as pre-existing comorbidities or toxicities--that are important considerations for clinicians when selecting an appropriate treatment regimen.

Efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in relapse/refractory multiple myeloma--real life experience of a tertiary cancer center

Lenalidomide was approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) based on MM009 and MM010 clinical trials. However, its effectiveness and safety profile in real clinical practice should be further assessed. We retrospectively evaluated 90 consecutive patients treated in our center with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LenDex) between 2007 and 2012. The overall response rate to this treatment was 68 % and the median duration of response was 13.6 months. Patients treated in first relapse and those treated with LenDex longer than 1 year achieved the best responses. Cytogenetics was associated with PFS and best response to treatment was the only variable associated with longer PFS and OS in univariate and multivariate analyses. Our analysis confirmed that LenDex is effective in rrMM patient, well tolerated, and applicable to the majority of patients outside clinical trials; patients achieving a complete response, even in the context of relapse, have a longer survival; quality of response is better when lenalidomide is used in second line than later on and it is a good surrogate marker for OS. Accordingly, CR should be aimed in the rrMM setting, especially in fit patients. Previous treatment with thalidomide should not hamper the option for lenalidomide therapy.

Treatment with lenalidomide (Revlimid®), cyclophosphamide (Endoxan®) and prednisone (REP) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: results of a single centre retrospective study

Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) combined with intermittent dexamethasone (the RD regimen) is one of the current standards for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, since the disease in the majority of patients will become resistant to RD, or treatment with RD needs to be discontinued due to side effects, we evaluated the combination lenalidomide, low-dose oral cyclophosphamide, with prednisone (REP) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM previously exposed to RD. For this purpose, we performed a single centre retrospective study of the efficacy of REP in 19 patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Overall response rate (partial response or better) with REP was 68% compared with 83% with RD, but with a shorter time to response with the triplet REP. Time to progression after REP was 6 months. Overall the REP regimen was better tolerated compared to RD. We conclude that the REP regimen is an effective treatment regimen for patients with relapsed/refractory MM with good tolerance, warranting further exploration in prospective randomized trials.

Long-term disease control in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma after suspension of lenalidomide therapy

There are no systematic data regarding nonmaintained induction for those patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who do not receive consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation. Of 173 patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LenDex) as primary therapy, 31 patients had their lenalidomide discontinued for reasons other than progression or alternate therapy. Median progression free survival (PFS) from the time of discontinuing lenalidomide was longer in patients who received lenalidomide ≥ 1 year (39 vs. 13 months, P < 0.05); there was no difference in PFS for those treated for 1-2 years as compared to ≥ 2 years. Among those taking lenalidomide for ≥ 1 year PFS was superior in patients who were in very good partial response (VGPR) or better as compared to those with partial response (48.4 versus 14.8 months, P < 0.05). All patients who progressed and were rechallenged with LenDex responded. These analyses illustrate that discontinuation of lenalidomide after 1 year among those patients achieving a ≥VGPR can result in long-term disease control.

Replacement of bortezomib with carfilzomib for multiple myeloma patients progressing from bortezomib combination therapy

In this open-label, intra-patient phase I/II trial, bortezomib was replaced with carfilzomib (escalated from 20 to 45 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 of a 28-day cycle) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients who progressed while on or within 12 weeks of receiving a bortezomib-containing combination regimen. Study objectives included determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Of 38 registered patients, 37 were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety. Thirty-one carfilzomib-based regimens using 14 different drug combinations were tested. One regimen (carfilzomib (45 mg/m(2)), ascorbic acid (1000 mg) and cyclophosphamide (2.2 mg/kg)) reached MTD. ORR and CBR were 43.2 and 62.2%, respectively. Median progression-free survival, time to progression and OS were 8.3, 9.9 and 15.8 months, respectively. Hematologic adverse events (AEs; ⩾grade 3) included lymphopenia (35.1%), thrombocytopenia (24.3%), anemia (10.8%) and neutropenia (10.8%). Nonhematologic AEs (⩾grade 3) included fever (5.4%) and hypokalemia (5.4%). These results demonstrate that replacing bortezomib with carfilzomib is safe and can be effective for MM patients failing bortezomib-containing combination regimens. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT01365559).

Disease control in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: what is the optimal duration of therapy?

Novel agents such as thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide have improved outcomes and extended survival in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). These agents appear to be most effective when used at first relapse rather than later in the treatment sequence; however, the optimal duration of therapy has not been defined. Continuous therapy from relapse to disease progression may be able to maintain suppression of residual disease, thereby extending overall survival. This article reviews the currently available data on treatments, including novel agents for patients with RRMM, focusing on the duration of therapy required to improve clinical outcomes.

Practical approaches to the use of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma: a canadian consensus

In Canada, lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Len/Dex) is approved for use in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Our expert panel sought to provide an up-to-date practical guide on the use of lenalidomide in the managing RRMM within the Canadian clinical setting, including management of common adverse events (AEs). The panel concluded that safe, effective administration of Len/Dex treatment involves the following steps: (1) lenalidomide dose adjustment based on creatinine clearance and the extent of neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, (2) dexamethasone administered at 20-40 mg/week, and (3) continuation of treatment until disease progression or until toxicity persists despite dose reduction. Based on available evidence, the following precautions should reduce the risk of common Len/Dex AEs: (1) all patients treated with Len/Dex should receive thromboprophylaxis, (2) erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) should be used cautiously, and (3) females of child-bearing potential and males in contact with such females must use multiple contraception methods. Finally, while Len/Dex can be administered irrespective of prior therapy and in all prognostic subsets, patients with chromosomal deletion 17(p13) have less favorable outcomes with all treatments, including Len/Dex. New directions for the use of lenalidomide in RRMM are also considered.

Molecular mechanism of action of immune-modulatory drugs thalidomide, lenalidomide and pomalidomide in multiple myeloma

Although several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the activity of thalidomide, lenalidomide and pomalidomide in multiple myeloma (MM), including demonstrable anti-angiogenic, anti-proliferative and immunomodulatory effects, the precise cellular targets and molecular mechanisms have only recently become clear. A landmark study recently identified cereblon (CRBN) as a primary target of thalidomide teratogenicity. Subsequently it was demonstrated that CRBN is also required for the anti-myeloma activity of thalidomide and related drugs, the so-called immune-modulatory drugs (IMiDs). Low CRBN expression was found to correlate with drug resistance in MM cell lines and primary MM cells. One of the downstream targets of CRBN identified is interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4), which is critical for myeloma cell survival and is down-regulated by IMiD treatment. CRBN is also implicated in several effects of IMiDs, such as down-regulation of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and T cell immunomodulatory activity, demonstrating that the pleotropic actions of the IMiDs are initiated by binding to CRBN. Future dissection of CRBN downstream signaling will help to delineate the underlying mechanisms for IMiD action and eventually lead to development of new drugs with more specific anti-myeloma activities. It may also provide a biomarker to predict IMiD response and resistance.

Novel agents derived from the currently approved treatments for MM: novel proteasome inhibitors and novel IMIDs

INTRODUCTION

Several novel proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory agents (IMIDs) with similar, but not exactly the same, mechanisms of action than their predecessors have been developed in the last years with three different aims: to increase the efficacy; to overcome the resistance and to exhibit a better toxicity profile.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the mechanism of action of novel PIs (carfilzomib, ONX-0912, MLN-9708, marizomib and CEP-18770) and IMIDs (pomalidomide), stressing the similarities and differences with their parental drugs. It also reviews their most updated clinical results. A search of the recent literature in published papers and abstracts from the most important oncology scientific meetings (ASCO and ASH) has been performed.

EXPERT OPINION

Novel PIs and IMIDs show clinical activity as single agents and in combination with dexamethasone, with similar or even higher efficacy than their predecessors; moreover, they may even overcome resistance to their parental drugs, indicating that there are some differences in their mechanisms of action and resistance. The investigation of these mechanisms of resistance and ways to overcome it would allow the optimization of the sequential use of these agents, and the design of novel therapeutic strategies and more appropriate scientifically based combinations.

European perspective on multiple myeloma treatment strategies: update following recent congresses

The management of multiple myeloma has undergone profound changes over the recent past as a result of advances in our understanding of the disease biology as well as improvements in treatment and supportive care strategies. Notably, recent years have seen a surge in studies incorporating the novel agents thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide into treatment for different disease stages and across different patient groups. This article presents an update to a previous review of European treatment practices and is based on discussions during an expert meeting that was convened to review novel agent data published or presented at medical meetings until the end of 2011 and to assess their impact on treatment strategies.

Treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a focus on drug sequencing and 'retreatment' approaches in the era of novel agents

Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved over the last decade, most notably with the introduction of highly effective novel agents. It is now possible to aim for deep disease responses in a greater number of patients in an attempt to prolong remission duration and survival. Initially introduced in the relapsed setting, the novel agents, namely thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide, are now being increasingly incorporated into upfront treatment strategies, raising questions about the feasibility of 'retreatment' with such agents. Also, in a disease that is characterized by multiple relapses, the 'sequencing' of the different effective options is an important question. In the frontline setting, the first remission is likely to be the period during which patients will enjoy the best quality of life. Thus, the goal should be to achieve a first remission that is the longest possible by using the most effective treatment upfront. At relapse, the challenge is to select the optimal treatment for each patient while balancing efficacy and toxicity. The decision will depend on both disease- and patient-related factors. This review aimed to assess the available research data addressing 'retreatment' approaches, drug 'sequencing' and the long-term impact of upfront therapy with novel drugs.