Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide vs melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (ECOG E1A06) in untreated multiple myeloma

Lenalidomide or Thalidomide for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview of evidence of efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of lenalidomide or thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in 5 databases until July 2022. We included systematic reviews with network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of lenalidomide compared with thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. The results were focused on the lenalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (RDc) versus thalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (TDc) and induction with melphalan + prednisone + lenalidomide, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R) versus induction with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide, followed by maintenance with thalidomide (MPT-T) regimens.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Only 1 study did not show any weakness in critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. For overall survival, RDc proved to be superior to TDc; however, no study showed significant difference between MPR-R and MPT-T. For progression-free survival, 2 of 3 studies showed that RDc is better than TDc; however, no difference between MPR-R and MPT-T was found. Regarding safety, these lenalidomide-based regimens had a lower risk for neurologic adverse events, with an increased risk of hematologic adverse events. No health-related quality of life meta-analyses were found.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy and safety, lenalidomide-based regimen is a good option for treatment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the public health system of Brazil, especially for those patients who develop severe neuropathy with thalidomide.

QoL during KTd or KRd induction followed by K maintenance or observation in transplant noneligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of the randomized AGMT 02 study

Understanding the impact of induction and maintenance therapy on patients' quality of life (QoL) is important for treatment selection. This study aims to compare patient-reported QoL between patients treated with KTd or KRd induction therapy and K maintenance therapy or observation. QoL was assessed using the EORTC QOL-C 30 and QOL-MY20 questionnaires in the AGMT-02 study, in which 123 patients with newly diagnosed transplant ineligible multiple myeloma were randomized to nine cycles of either KTd or KRd induction therapy, followed by 12 cycles of K maintenance therapy, or observation. Longitudinal assessments showed statistically significant improvements in global health-related QoL, various disease symptoms and pain for both treatment regimens. KTd improved insomnia and fatigue, and KRd improved physical functioning. Cross-sectional comparisons indicated a "slight" superiority of KTd over KRd in several scales, with the exception of higher neuropathy scores with KTd. During maintenance, longitudinal comparisons showed no statistically significant changes. Cross-sectional comparisons revealed a "slight" improvement in cognitive functioning during carfilzomib therapy, but a worsening in most other QoL scales. Induction therapy led to improvements in most QoL items, while maintenance therapy with K maintenance was associated with "slight" or "moderate" impairments in several QoL scales compared with the observation group.

Current trends and future prospects of drug repositioning in gastrointestinal oncology

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers comprise a significant number of cancer cases worldwide and contribute to a high percentage of cancer-related deaths. To improve survival rates of GI cancer patients, it is important to find and implement more effective therapeutic strategies with better prognoses and fewer side effects. The development of new drugs can be a lengthy and expensive process, often involving clinical trials that may fail in the early stages. One strategy to address these challenges is drug repurposing (DR). Drug repurposing is a developmental strategy that involves using existing drugs approved for other diseases and leveraging their safety and pharmacological data to explore their potential use in treating different diseases. In this paper, we outline the existing therapeutic strategies and challenges associated with GI cancers and explore DR as a promising alternative approach. We have presented an extensive review of different DR methodologies, research efforts and examples of repurposed drugs within various GI cancer types, such as colorectal, pancreatic and liver cancers. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of employing the DR approach in GI cancers to inform future research endeavors and clinical trials in this field.

Revisiting the Role of Alkylating Agents in Multiple Myeloma: Up-to-Date Evidence and Future Perspectives

From the 1960s to the early 2000s, alkylating agents (e.g., melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and bendamustine) remained a key component of standard therapy for newly-diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Later on, their associated toxicities (including second primary malignancies) and the unprecedented efficacy of novel therapies have led clinicians to increasingly consider alkylator-free approaches. Meanwhile, new alkylating agents (e.g., melflufen) and new applications of old alkylators (e.g., lymphodepletion before chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapy) have emerged in recent years. Given the expanding use of antigen-directed modalities (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T therapy), this review explores the current and future role of alkylating agents in different treatment settings (e.g., induction, consolidation, stem cell mobilization, pre-transplant conditioning, salvage, bridging, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy) to ellucidate the role of alkylator-based regimens in modern-day MM management.

Does Therapeutic Repurposing in Cancer Meet the Expectations of Having Drugs at a Lower Price?

Therapeutic repurposing emerged as an alternative to the traditional drug discovery and development model (DDD) of new molecular entities (NMEs). It was anticipated that by being faster, safer, and cheaper, the development would result in lower-cost drugs. As defined in this work, a repurposed cancer drug is one approved by a health regulatory authority against a non-cancer indication that then gains new approval for cancer. With this definition, only three drugs are repurposed for cancer: Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine (superficial bladder cancer, thalidomide [multiple myeloma], and propranolol [infantile hemangioma]). Each of these has a different history regarding price and affordability, and it is not yet possible to generalize the impact of drug repurposing on the final price to the patient. However, the development, including the price, does not differ significantly from an NME. For the end consumer, the product's price is unrelated to whether it followed the classical development or repurposing. Economic constraints for clinical development, and drug prescription biases for repurposing drugs, are barriers yet to be overcome. The affordability of cancer drugs is a complex issue that varies from country to country. Many alternatives for having affordable drugs have been put forward, however these measures have thus far failed and are, at best, palliative. There are no immediate solutions to the problem of access to cancer drugs. It is necessary to critically analyze the impact of the current drug development model and be creative in implementing new models that genuinely benefit society.

Post-marketing safety of immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: A pharmacovigilance investigation based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Objective: In recent years, the emergence of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) has significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM); however, serious adverse events (AEs) have hindered their safe clinical application. This study aimed to characterize the safety profiles and differences in IMiDs through a disproportionality analysis using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a post-marketing surveillance database. Methods: This study filtered reports of thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide as primary suspect drugs in FAERS files from January 2013 to December 2021. AEs in the reports were retrieved according to the preferred terms (PTs) of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Furthermore, we detected safety signals using the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and Bayesian belief propagation neural network (BCPNN). When all three algorithms showed an association between the target drug and the AE, a positive signal was generated. Results: We extracted 9,968 thalidomide, 231,926 lenalidomide, and 55,066 pomalidomide AE reports. AEs were more common in male patients and in those >44 years old. Important safety signals were detected based on the system organ classes (SOC), including thalidomide (cardiac disorders: ROR, 2.87; PRR, 2.79; IC 1.22), lenalidomide (gastrointestinal disorders: ROR, 2.38; PRR, 2.27; IC 0.75), and pomalidomide (respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders: ROR, 2.14; PRR, 2.09; IC 0.85). Within the PT level, we identified novel risk signals: the thalidomide-induced second primary malignancy (SPM) signal was significant; lenalidomide reduced the success rate of hematopoietic stem cell collection; and three IMiDs may cause human chorionic gonadotropin increase, but this needs to be proven by clinical data. Pneumonia, sepsis, and renal failure are common risk factors for death due to IMiDs. Compared with thalidomide and lenalidomide, pomalidomide has a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is beneficial to patients with renal insufficiency. Conclusion: Mining data from FAERS resulted in novel AE signals, including adenocarcinoma of colon, harvest failure of blood stem cells, and increased levels of human chorionic gonadotropin. Further investigation is required to verify the significance of these signals. Moreover, IMiDs showed differences in safety reports, which should be emphasized by clinicians.

A Prospective Single-Arm Study of Melphalan, Prednisolone and Lenalidomide (MPL) as First Line Treatment in Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma – An Institutional Study

Introduction Multiple myeloma in the elderly population is rising in India. Such frail transplant-ineligible patients are less frequently included in clinical trials. Moreover, novel agents are not accessible to everyone. Melphalan-based chemotherapy regimens are frequently used in elderly myeloma patients. Our study revisited the role of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPL) as front-line therapy in this subgroup of patients.

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the response, tolerance, and outcome of MPL in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Materials and Methods This prospective study was conducted at the Department of Medical Oncology at a tertiary cancer center during January 2012 to September 2013. Newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma >60 years who were transplant ineligible formed the study subjects. Eligible patients received oral melphalan 0.18 mg/kg from D1 to 4, prednisone 2 mg/kg from D1 to 4, and lenalidomide 10 mg from D1 to 21 q28 days. Patients who achieved complete response/very good partial response (CR/VGPR) after 6 cycles of MPL received maintenance with lenalidomide 10 mg from D1 to 21 q28 days (MPL-L) until progression or 1 year whichever was earlier. Quality of life was assessed using the Eq. 5D questionnaire.

Results Out of 46 patients, 25 were males and 21 were females. Median age was 67 years (range: 60—83 years). Majority had immunoglobulin G myeloma, followed by immunoglobulin A subtype. The median quality of life score at baseline was 50 (range: 30–70). Forty patients completed six cycles of MPL. The main toxicity was grade 1 to 2 hematological. There were no treatment-related deaths. Twenty-two (55%) achieved CR, 5 (13%) achieved VGPR, 4 (10%) achieved partial response, 6 (15%) achieved stable disease, and 3 (7%) had progressive disease. Twenty-seven patients received lenalidomide maintenance. At a median follow-up of 55 months, the 2- and 5-year progression-free survival was 60 and 18%, respectively. The overall survival at 2 and 5 years were 80 and 53%, respectively. The median number of subsequent lines of treatment was 2 (range: 1–4). The quality of life was improved and preserved in all study subjects. At 8 years, three patients had second malignant neoplasms and seven are alive.

Conclusion MPL-L is a well-tolerated and effective regimen in elderly myeloma with good overall response rates.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review of Studies Published Between 2014 and 2021

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic literature review to identify the most recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple myeloma (MM) with a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint, and to summarize both clinical and PRO results, as well as to examine the quality of reporting by phase of disease. We also aimed to describe main type of PRO analysis used and interpretation of clinical significance of PRO findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs of cancer-directed therapy in patients with MM published between January 2014 and April 2021.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 19,798 patients enrolled were identified in our review. In all studies, PROs were secondary or exploratory endpoints. Half of the studies (n = 16) included newly diagnosed patients, 15 RCTs included patients with relapsed/refractory MM, and one study included patients with smoldering MM. Progression-free survival was the most frequently used primary endpoint. All studies provided unique PRO information that could be used to more comprehensively assess the risk/benefit of the newly tested drugs. However, the identified RCTs were heterogeneous regarding the presentation, and interpretation of PRO results.

CONCLUSION

The number of RCTs including PROs in MM research has notably increased in recent years. However, more consistency in the methodological approach to PRO assessment, and interpretation of outcomes is needed to ensure that PRO findings will be more impactful on patient care.

What's Old is New: The Past, Present and Future Role of Thalidomide in the Modern-Day Management of Multiple Myeloma

Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have become an integral part of therapy for both newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). IMiDs bind to cereblon, leading to the degradation of proteins involved in B-cell survival and proliferation. Thalidomide, a first-generation IMiD, has little to no myelosuppressive potential, negligible renal clearance, and long-proven anti-myeloma activity. However, thalidomide's adverse effects (e.g., somnolence, constipation, and peripheral neuropathy) and the advent of more potent therapeutic options has led to the drug being less frequently used in many countries, including the US and Canada. Newer-generation IMiDs, such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, are utilized far more frequently. In numerous previous trials, salvage therapy with thalidomide (50-200 mg/day) plus corticosteroids (with or without selected cytotoxic or targeted agents) has been shown to be effective and well-tolerated in the RRMM setting. Hence, thalidomide-based regimens remain important alternatives for heavily pretreated patients, especially for those who have no access to novel therapies and/or are not eligible for their use (due to renal failure, high-grade myelosuppression, or significant comorbidities). Ongoing and future trials may provide further insights into the current role of thalidomide, especially by comparing thalidomide-containing regimens with protocols based on newer-generation IMiDs and by investigating thalidomide's association with novel therapies (e.g., antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, and chimeric antigen receptor T cells).

Treatment Regimens for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.

METHODS

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.

RESULTS

A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

Current approaches to management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Major developments in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) over the past decade have led to a continued improvement in survival. Significant progress has been made with deeper and longer remissions seen with newer treatment approaches-both for induction as well as maintenance therapy. The treatment approach to MM is guided by several factors including patient age, frailty, comorbidities, eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and risk stratification into standard-risk or high-risk MM. High-risk MM is defined by the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del (17p), TP53 mutation, or gain (1q). Transplant eligible patients should receive 4-6 cycles of induction followed by stem cell collection. Patients can then undergo ASCT, or continue induction therapy and shift to maintenance, delaying ASCT till first relapse. Transplant ineligible patients should receive induction therapy followed by maintenance. For induction therapy prior to ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-IMiD combination remains standard with monoclonal antibody-based quadruplets preferred in high-risk patients. Among transplant ineligible patients, those with standard-risk MM should receive DRd continued until disease progression, while bortezomib containing regimens (VRd or VRd lite) can be considered for high-risk patients. Finally, standard-risk patients should receive lenalidomide maintenance after induction/ASCT, while proteasome inhibitor-IMiD combinations should be used for high-risk patients.

Practical guidance for new multiple myeloma treatment regimens: A nursing perspective

As is the case for solid tumors, treatment paradigms have shifted from non-specific chemotherapeutic agents towards novel targeted drugs in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, multiple targeted therapies are available to treat patients augmenting the arsenal of modalities which also includes chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCST) and chimeric antigen T-cell therapy (CAR-T). These novel, targeted agents have dramatically increased optimism for patients, who may now be treated over many years with successive regimens. As fortunate as we are to have these new therapies available for our patients, this advantage is juxtaposed with the challenges involved with delivering them safely. While each class of agents has demonstrated efficacy, in terms of response rates and survival, they also exert class effects which pose risks for toxicity. In addition, newer generation agents within the classes often have slightly different toxicity profiles than did their predecessors. These factors must be addressed, and their risks mitigated by the multidisciplinary team. This review presents a summary of the evolution of drug development for MM. For each targeted agent, the efficacy data from pivotal trials and highlights of the risks that were demonstrated in trials, as well as during post-marketing surveillance, are presented. Specific risks associated with agents within the classes, that are not shared with all new class members, are described. A table presenting these potential risks, with recommended nursing actions to mitigate toxicity, is provided as a quick reference that nurses may use during the planning, and provision, of patient care.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Efficacy of first-line treatment options in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite major therapeutic advances, the rational choice of the most appropriate first-line regimen in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (TIE-MM) is currently undefined.

AIM

We aimed to identify the most effective first-line treatment for TIE-MM patients.

METHODS

A total of 37 articles, including 34 treatments and 16,681 patients, were included in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. The outcomes of interest were risk ratios (RR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Based on surface under cumulative ranking curve values, daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (Dara-VMP) and daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Dara-Rd28) showed superiority compared to other combinations regarding 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month PFS. Dara-VMP also ranked first for 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month OS.

CONCLUSION

Our finding supports the incorporation of daratumumab into first-line regimens. Additionally, these results highlight the relative benefit of incorporating novel agents like monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory derivatives, and proteasome inhibitors in combination with the currently existing treatment options.

Replication of Oncology Randomized Trial Results using Swedish Registry Real World-Data: A Feasibility Study

Nationwide healthcare registries are potential important real-world data (RWD) sources for assessing drug effectiveness in oncology. However, it is unclear whether registry-derived RWD are suitable for clinical development. In this study, we replicate results from the comparator arm of two previously published oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using RWD from Swedish nationwide healthcare registries. For replication 1, the RCT included 553 patients and the RWD included 283 patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular cancer. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.1-13.2) months in the RCT and 8.2 (95% CI: 7.0-9.9) months in the RWD, unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.75 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88). For time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD), the HR was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.16). For replication 2, the RCT included 154 patients and the RWD included 704 patients treated with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide for untreated multiple myeloma. The median OS was 52.6 (95% CI: 40-not applicable) months in the RCT and 36.9 (95% CI: 33.8-40.5) months in the RWD, unadjusted HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.51-0.87). For TTD, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74-1.06). The results were similar when applying various propensity-based confounding adjustments. In conclusion, OS was shorter in the RWD, whereas TTD was similar. Importantly, the data necessary (ex: eligibility criteria and baseline confounders) for replicating RCTs was mostly not available and these results further underscore the importance of developing frameworks for capturing relevant patient-level RWD for clinical and regulatory decision making in oncology.

Rapid Progress in the Use of Immunomodulatory Drugs and Cereblon E3 Ligase Modulators in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Over the past two decades, the improvement in our understanding of the biology of MM and the introduction of new drug classes, including immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PI), and monoclonal antibodies (MoAb), have significantly improved outcomes. The first IMiD introduced to treat MM was thalidomide. The side effects observed during treatment with thalidomide initiated work on the synthesis of IMiD analogs. Subsequently, lenalidomide and pomalidomide were developed, both with different safety profiles, and they have better tolerability than thalidomide. In 2010, the cereblon (CRBN) protein was discovered as a direct target of IMiDs. By binding to CRBN, IMiDs change the substrate specificity of the CRBN E3 ubiquitin ligase complex, which results in the breakdown of internal Ikaros and Aiolos proteins. Most clinical trials conducted, both in newly diagnosed, post-transplant maintenance and relapsed/refractory MM, report a beneficial effect of IMiDs on the extension of progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with MM. Due to side effects, thalidomide is used less frequently. Currently, lenalidomide is used at every phase of MM treatment. Lenalidomide is used in conjunction with other agents such as PIs and MoAb as induction and relapsed therapy. Pomalidomide is currently used to treat relapsed/refractory MM, also with PIs and monoclonal antibodies. Current clinical trials are evaluating the efficacy of IMiD derivatives, the CRBN E3 ligase modulators (CELMoDs). This review focuses on the impact of IMiDs for the treatment of MM.

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

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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%).

RESULTS

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. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients.

CONCLUSION

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.

Lenalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible patients of all ages in the randomized, phase III, Myeloma XI trial

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n = 2042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before ASCT to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.96; P = 0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15) and ultra high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n = 451) or observation (n = 377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; P < 0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.

Evolution of Treatment Paradigms in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

The plasma cell neoplasm multiple myeloma (MM) is currently considered incurable. However, significant advances in treatment options over the past 20 years have led to unprecedented response rates to initial therapy as well as prolonged survival rates. Induction regimens have evolved from alkylator-based therapies to those consisting of immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors. The combination of bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) has emerged as a standard regimen for both transplant-eligible (TE) and transplant-ineligible (TI) patient populations. More recent efforts have focused on the incorporation of monoclonal antibody therapy into the newly diagnosed setting, particularly anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the TI patient population, the combination of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone is now considered another standard therapy. In the TE setting, it remains to be determined whether the addition of daratumumab to the VRd backbone results in improved long-term outcomes. Recent studies have confirmed the progression-free survival benefit of upfront autologous stem cell transplant and have established lenalidomide maintenance as a standard of care. Multiple studies are evaluating whether inclusion of monoclonal antibody therapy in the maintenance setting will improve outcomes. The optimal management of newly diagnosed patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains to be determined. We discuss the emerging therapies that will likely shape management of newly diagnosed MM in the future.

Role of pyroptosis in cancer cells and clinical applications

Chemotherapy drugs usually inhibit tumor cell growth through the apoptosis pathway. However, tumor cells become resistant to chemotherapy drugs by evading apoptosis. It is necessary to find new ways to inhibit tumor growth through other types of death. Pyroptosis is a recently identified inflammatory cell death that plays an important role in a variety of diseases, including cancer. In this review, we will systematically review recent progress in the pyroptosis signaling pathway, the role of inflammasomes in cancer in the context of pyroptosis, the role of gasdermin proteins in cancer and the role of pyroptosis in tumor immunity. We will also discuss the application of the pyroptosis pathway in clinical studies. Finally, we hope to provide new strategies for pyroptosis in the clinic.

How I manage frontline transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma

The Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a plasma cells hematological malignancy with a median age of 69 years at diagnosis. The autologous stem cell transplantation is the standard of care for this disease but less than half of newly diagnosed patients are assessed for this treatment due to comorbidities or complications of disease. The management of transplant ineligible MM patients is based on the balance safety and efficacy of the new available regimen and a careful assessment of the frailty status is mandatory to define the goals. In this review we discuss of the clinical dilemmas in the management and define how to manage them based on the evidence from clinical trials and "real life" experience.

Repurposing old drugs to fight multidrug resistant cancers

Overcoming multidrug resistance represents a major challenge for cancer treatment. In the search for new chemotherapeutics to treat malignant diseases, drug repurposing gained a tremendous interest during the past years. Repositioning candidates have often emerged through several stages of clinical drug development, and may even be marketed, thus attracting the attention and interest of pharmaceutical companies as well as regulatory agencies. Typically, drug repositioning has been serendipitous, using undesired side effects of small molecule drugs to exploit new disease indications. As bioinformatics gain increasing popularity as an integral component of drug discovery, more rational approaches are needed. Herein, we show some practical examples of in silico approaches such as pharmacophore modelling, as well as pharmacophore- and docking-based virtual screening for a fast and cost-effective repurposing of small molecule drugs against multidrug resistant cancers. We provide a timely and comprehensive overview of compounds with considerable potential to be repositioned for cancer therapeutics. These drugs are from diverse chemotherapeutic classes. We emphasize the scope and limitations of anthelmintics, antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, antimalarials, antihypertensives, psychopharmaceuticals and antidiabetics that have shown extensive immunomodulatory, antiproliferative, pro-apoptotic, and antimetastatic potential. These drugs, either used alone or in combination with existing anticancer chemotherapeutics, represent strong candidates to prevent or overcome drug resistance. We particularly focus on outcomes and future perspectives of drug repositioning for the treatment of multidrug resistant tumors and discuss current possibilities and limitations of preclinical and clinical investigations.

Management of newly diagnosed transplant ineligible multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a chronically managed blood cancer with a median age of 69 years at the time of diagnosis. Although high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains a standard of care for eligible patients, more than half of the newly diagnosed MM patients are deemed ineligible due to comorbidities or complications of the disease by itself. In this setting, where ASCT is deemed inappropriate, patients could still achieve durable and deep responses if given the appropriate treatment plan. The key concepts of optimizing induction and maintenance strategies while minimizing side-effects are discussed in this review, especially in the context of employing novel agent combinations. It is important to understand the balance between safety and efficacy for each regimen, utilizing maintenance strategy and the best supportive care measures (bone health, infection prevention, and treatment, pain management, etc.). Here, we examine the evidence behind each of those principles and review results from clinical trials for transplant-ineligible (TI) MM.

Challenges and Strategies in the Management of Multiple Myeloma in the Elderly Population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Approximately one half of the patient-population in multiple myeloma (MM) is > 70 years at diagnosis. Despite notable strides in the management and improved survival, MM remains incurable, with an increasing proportion of elderly patients comprising the relapsed-refractory cohort.

RECENT FINDINGS

The arbitrary age cutoff at 65 years to define the elderly patient-population has evolved to a more nuanced categorization, incorporating a comprehensive assessment for determining frailty prior to commencing treatment. This step is critical in determining the therapy-intensity, including transplant-eligibility, to minimize toxicity. Dose-modifications are crucial, as the merits of continuous therapy are becoming evident in this patient-population. Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) combination has emerged as standard of care for newly diagnosed MM. Fixed-duration Rd followed by reduced-dosed continuous R may be considered in select frail patients with standard-risk MM. Herein, we review the unique challenges encountered in elderly MM and discuss strategies for optimal management.

Overcoming cancer therapeutic bottleneck by drug repurposing

Ever present hurdles for the discovery of new drugs for cancer therapy have necessitated the development of the alternative strategy of drug repurposing, the development of old drugs for new therapeutic purposes. This strategy with a cost-effective way offers a rare opportunity for the treatment of human neoplastic disease, facilitating rapid clinical translation. With an increased understanding of the hallmarks of cancer and the development of various data-driven approaches, drug repurposing further promotes the holistic productivity of drug discovery and reasonably focuses on target-defined antineoplastic compounds. The "treasure trove" of non-oncology drugs should not be ignored since they could target not only known but also hitherto unknown vulnerabilities of cancer. Indeed, different from targeted drugs, these old generic drugs, usually used in a multi-target strategy may bring benefit to patients. In this review, aiming to demonstrate the full potential of drug repurposing, we present various promising repurposed non-oncology drugs for clinical cancer management and classify these candidates into their proposed administration for either mono- or drug combination therapy. We also summarize approaches used for drug repurposing and discuss the main barriers to its uptake.

Efficacy and safety of frontline regimens for older transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Several treatment options are available for the management of older adults with newly diagnosed patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for hematopoietic cell transplantation (tiMM). We aimed to identify treatment options that provide the best balance in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases and meeting libraries for search terms reflecting newly diagnosed and older and/or transplant-ineligible patients from inception to October 21, 2018. Phase II/III randomized trials comparing at least two first line treatment regimens for newly diagnosed tiMM were included. We extracted data on efficacy (progression free survival, PFS, overall survival and overall response rate) and safety (grade ¾ toxicities) and conducted network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods and random effects models. Relative ranking of treatment regimens was assessed using Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

RESULTS

We identified 27 trials involving 12,194 patients. For PFS, the four most effective regimens were: Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Melphalan and Prednisone (SUCRA 0.960) followed by Daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara_RD, SUCRA 0.847), Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide (SUCRA 0.834) and Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (SUCRA 0.739). Among these four most efficacious regimens, toxicity profile was most favorable for Dara_RD (median additional AEs per patient vs dexamethasone = 0.74; 95% CrI 0.51-1.17; SUCRA 0.430).

CONCLUSION

Among first line tiMM regimens, increasing efficacy is associated with increased toxicity. We provide relative ranking of these regimens for both efficacy and safety. Future studies should incorporate geriatric assessments and frailty biomarkers to refine treatment decision-making for each individual patient.

Updated Perspectives on the Management of Multiple Myeloma in Older Patients: Focus on Lenalidomide

Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy that predominantly affects older adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years old. A mainstay of multiple myeloma treatment is lenalidomide, which is an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) that changed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma. This is particularly true for older adults who do not undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Several pivotal trials summarized in this review demonstrate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in older adults with multiple myeloma, including significant improvements in response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival in the first-line and relapsed/refractory settings. Potential adverse effects include venous thromboembolism, cytopenias, and second malignancies and the doses tolerated in real-world older patients are often lower than those utilized in clinical trials enrolling select older patients. Given the heterogeneity of aging, several approaches to measuring frailty have been developed and validated to aid in predicting which older adults may benefit from empiric dose reduction to reduce the risk of toxicity and improve the tolerability of treatment. A number of randomized trials have explored a range of approaches utilizing lenalidomide in older adults in both the up-front and relapsed setting, ranging from attenuated maintenance strategies through quadruplet combination therapies including proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. This wealth of literature provides a great number of options, which can make it difficult for a clinician to determine a single optimal recommendation for an individual patient. While lenalidomide is currently part of standard of care, the treatment of multiple myeloma is growing rapidly. There is a need to expand clinical trials participation to older adults with multiple myeloma. Incorporation of validated comprehensive geriatric assessments in clinical trials for multiple myeloma could provide a more accurate depiction of the older patient population and is an area for future exploration.

The tale of lenalidomide clinical superiority over thalidomide and regulatory and cost-effectiveness issues

In April 2017, the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA-Brazil) approved lenalidomide (LEN) for multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndrome. ANVISA had rejected the first application in 2010, and denied a request for reconsideration in 2012. The reason for rejection was the lack of comparative effectiveness studies proving that LEN was more effective than thalidomide (THAL), a strictly controlled drug regulated by Federal law 10.651/2003 and dispensed to patients (at no costs) through public health system units and hospitals. ANVISA unexplained retreat on the LEN approval for marketing was an unquestionable triumph of the lobbying that ensued the denial, at the forefront of which were politicians, Congress members, patient organizations and medical societies. Two randomized (phase III) trials and three observational (case-control and population-based cohort) compared the effectiveness of THAL- versus LEN-based therapies in MM. Overall, these studies showed no difference in efficacy between LEN- and THAL-based therapies. LEN caused less neuropathy, and more severe hematologic adverse effects. It is much costlier than THAL, and substitution of THAL by LEN shall raise considerably public healthcare costs in Brazil.

Developments in continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

The evolving paradigm of continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches in multiple myeloma (MM) offers prolonged disease control and improved outcomes compared to traditional fixed-duration approaches. Potential benefits of long-term strategies include sustained control of disease symptoms, as well as continued cytoreduction and clonal control, leading to unmeasurable residual disease and the possibility of transforming MM into a chronic or functionally curable condition. "Continuous therapy" commonly refers to administering a doublet or triplet regimen until disease progression, whereas maintenance approaches typically involve single-agent or doublet treatment following more intensive prior therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or doublet, triplet, or even quadruplet induction therapy. However, the requirements for agents and regimens within these contexts are similar: treatments must be tolerable for a prolonged period of time, should not be associated with cumulative or chronic toxicity, should not adversely affect patients' quality of life, should ideally be convenient with a minimal treatment burden for patients, and should not impact the feasibility or efficacy of subsequent treatment at relapse. Multiple agents have been and are being investigated as long-term options in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), including the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide and thalidomide, the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab, and isatuximab. Here we review the latest results with long-term therapy approaches in three different settings in NDMM: (1) maintenance treatment post ASCT; (2) continuous frontline therapy in nontransplant patients; (3) maintenance treatment post-frontline therapy in the nontransplant setting. We also discuss evidence from key phase 3 trials. Our review demonstrates how the paradigm of long-term treatment is increasingly well-established across NDMM treatment settings, potentially resulting in further improvements in patient outcomes, and highlights key clinical issues that will need to be addressed in order to provide optimal benefit.

Venous thromboembolism risk with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens despite thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide-based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide-based regimens in patients with myeloma.

METHODS

The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: "lenalidomide," "venous thromboembolism," and "multiple myeloma." Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide-based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk-stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles (95% CI, 0.9-1.7 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6] events/100 patient-cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.7] events per 100 patient-cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3] events per 100 patient-cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide-based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

Drug repurposing for cancer therapy, easier said than done

Drug repurposing for cancer therapy is currently a hot topic of research. Theoretically, in contrast to the known hurdles of developing new molecular entities, the approach of repurposing has several advantages. Mostly, it is said that it is faster, safer, easier, and cheaper. In the real world, however, there are only three repurposed drugs so far, that are listed in widely recognized cancer guidelines, but a large number of them are being studied. Among the many barriers to repurposing cancer drugs, economical-driven are the most important that difficult the clinical development of them. In this review, we provide an overview of the current status of drug repurposing for cancer therapy and the barriers that need to be overcome to realize the benefit of this approach. It means to have repositioned drugs for cancer therapy accepted as standard therapy for cancer indications at low cost.

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.

Relative efficacy of treatment options in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

Established treatments for transplant-ineligible (TNE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) include melphalan and prednisone (MP) combined with either bortezomib (VMP) or thalidomide (MPT), or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). New treatments for TNE NDMM include Rd plus bortezomib (RVd) and daratumumab plus VMP (VMP + D), daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D + Rd). Relative efficacy of these treatments was compared using a network meta-analysis. Eight trials identified by a systematic literature review were included in the primary analysis; hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used. Rd was superior to other MP-based regimens for OS and PFS. There was strong evidence that, compared with Rd, both D + Rd and RVd improved PFS (HR 0.57; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.43, 0.73 and HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.56, 0.91, respectively). However, there was strong evidence only for RVd in respect to OS (HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.52, 0.96).

Health-related quality of life in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with either thalidomide or lenalidomide-based regimen until progression: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study

Data on the impact of long term treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. The HOVON-87/NMSG18 study was a randomized, phase 3 study in newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients with multiple myeloma, comparing melphalan-prednisolone in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide, followed by maintenance therapy until progression (MPT-T or MPR-R). The EORTC QLQ-C30 and MY20 questionnaires were completed at baseline, after three and nine induction cycles and six and 12 months of maintenance therapy. Linear mixed models and minimal important differences were used for evaluation. 596 patients participated in HRQoL reporting. Patients reported clinically relevant improvement in global quality of life (QoL), future perspective and role and emotional functioning, and less fatigue and pain in both arms. The latter being of large effect size. In general, improvement occurred after 6–12 months of maintenance only and was independent of the World Health Organisation performance at baseline. Patients treated with MPR-R reported clinically relevant worsening of diarrhea, and patients treated with MPT-T reported a higher incidence of neuropathy. Patients who remained on lenalidomide maintenance therapy for at least three months reported clinically meaningful improvement in global QoL and role functioning at six months, remaining stable thereafter. There were no clinically meaningful deteriorations, but patients on thalidomide reported clinically relevant worsening in neuropathy. In general, HRQoL improves both during induction and maintenance therapy with immunomodulatory drugs. The side effect profile of treatment did not negatively affect global QoL, but it was, however, clinically relevant for the patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NTR1630).

Quality of life outcomes in multiple myeloma patients: a summary of recent clinical trials

Introduction: Management of multiple myeloma (MM) has improved over recent years. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data is becoming increasingly important, owing to improved survival outcomes. Areas covered: The authors performed an expert review of the literature to identify evidence-based data available on HRQoL in frontline and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients. Expert opinion: De-novo patients should be informed that the HRQoL is expected to improve during first-line treatment with different degrees of possible deterioration during the first cycles. Achievement of a maximal response should be strongly considered, particularly in the frontline setting, but must also be balanced with tolerability, HRQoL, and patient preferences. The same degree of improvement in HRQoL cannot be expected during conventional relapse treatments, where patients should be prepared only for stabilization of HRQoL. However, focusing attention only on measures such as toxicity may provide just a partial view of overall treatment effectiveness. Nonetheless, the authors believe the added value of taking into consideration the patient's perspectives and the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of treatment effects should be considered mandatory. The incorporation of quality of life assessment into clinical and research practice has the potential of improving treatment outcomes.

Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the treatment of multiple myeloma to practicing physicians and others.

METHODS

ASCO and Cancer Care Ontario convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and some phase II studies published from 2005 through 2018. Outcomes of interest included survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 124 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed for patients with multiple myeloma who are transplantation eligible and those who are ineligible and for patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Should Overall Survival Remain an Endpoint for Multiple Myeloma Trials?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the traditional gold standard for demonstrating clinical benefit of a therapy has been to show prolongation of overall survival (OS), there are multiple factors which can hinder the use of OS as a primary endpoint in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we analyze recent myeloma RCTs and evaluate the issues relevant to current and future myeloma RCT design.

RECENT FINDINGS

A review of recent phase III RCTs that led to approval of new agents/combinations reveals that none were designed with OS as the primary endpoint, but instead utilized time to progression (TTP) or progression-free survival (PFS). These studies illuminate the inherent difficulties of designing trials with the primary endpoint of OS/PFS in a disease characterized by increasingly prolonged survival times, availability of effective salvage therapies, and competing events such as co-morbid conditions. Alternative primary endpoints other than OS or PFS need to be developed for future myeloma RCTs. Validated surrogate endpoints with novel clinical trial designs will help improve the feasibility of conducting comparative clinical trials in a timely manner.

Thalidomide maintenance therapy in Japanese myeloma patients: a multicenter, phase II clinical trial (COMET study)

A prospective, multicenter, phase II study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of thalidomide maintenance therapy at different doses in Japanese multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This study included 34 patients (median age, 74 years) who were previously treated with not more than three prior therapies and whose response status was evaluated as at least stable disease. They were randomized into Group A (no maintenance; 12 patients), Group B (50 mg thalidomide maintenance; 12 patients), and Group C (100 mg thalidomide maintenance; 10 patients), respectively. Thalidomide maintenance therapy resulted in improved depth of response in three cases (13.6%) and sustained response after induction therapy in eight cases (36.4%). Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.0%, 33.3%, and 77.8% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively, and was significantly higher in Group C than in Group A (p = 0.005). There was no difference in the incidence of hematological or non-hematological adverse events between Groups B and C. The current study demonstrates that maintenance with daily thalidomide at 100 mg, but not 50 mg, improved depth of response and prolonged PFS, and that this treatment was feasible for use in Japanese MM patients.

Methodological aspects of health-related quality of life measurement and analysis in patients with multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable but treatment-sensitive cancer. For most patients, this means treatment with multiple lines of anti-myeloma therapy and a life with disease- and treatment-related symptoms and complications. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues play an important role in treatment decision-making. Methodological challenges in longitudinal HRQoL measurements and analyses have been identified, including non-responses (NR) to scheduled questionnaires. Publications were identified for inclusion in a systematic review of longitudinal HRQoL studies in MM, focussing on methodological aspects of HRQoL measurement and analysis. Diversity in timing of HRQoL data collection and applied statistical methods were noted. We observed a high rate of NR, but the impact of NR was investigated in only 8/23 studies. Thus, evidence-based knowledge of HRQoL in patients with MM is compromised. To improve quality of HRQoL results and their implementation in daily practice, future studies should follow established guidelines.

Navigating the treatment landscape in multiple myeloma: which combinations to use and when?

Multiple myeloma is one of the most common hematological malignancies, affecting mainly elderly patients. The treatment landscape for the management of this disease has evolved significantly over the past 15 years, and a vast array of therapeutics is now available, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies. As a result, deciding which drugs to use and when, and whether these should be used in a particular order or combination, can be challenging. Although combination regimens are often associated with deeper responses and better long-term outcomes than monotherapy, and are becoming the standard of care, they may result in significant incremental toxicity; hence, a sequential approach may be more appropriate for some patients. In particular, treatment choices can vary depending on whether the patient has newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, is eligible for transplant, has relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, or is considered to have high-risk disease. In this review, we discuss factors to be taken into account when making treatment decisions in each of these settings. We also briefly discuss possible therapeutic strategies involving agents that may become available in the future.

Addition of Cyclophosphamide "On Demand" to Lenalidomide and Corticosteroids in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma-A Retrospective Review of a Single-center Experience

INTRODUCTION

The combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len-Dex) is an established regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma. To prolong the benefit of this effective regimen, the Myeloma Program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre has routinely added a third agent, oral cyclophosphamide (Cy) given weekly, to Len-Dex at disease progression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the present report, we describe the cases of 53 patients who had received Len-Dex-Cy for a minimum of 4 weeks from January 2007 to December 2014 after progression with Len-Dex alone. The dose of added Cy ranged from 250 to 500 mg weekly. The median number of previous regimens, including Len-Dex, was 2 (range, 2-4); 80% of patients had undergone previous autologous stem cell transplantation.

RESULTS

The overall rate of response equal to or greater than a partial response was 34%, and clinical benefit (stable disease or better) was observed in 87% of the patients. The median duration of Len-Dex-Cy therapy was 6.9 months (range, 0.9-55.1 months). The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months (range, 4.2-8.1 months) from the addition of Cy and 24.1 months (range, 15.9-32.0 months) from start of Len-Dex.

CONCLUSION

The addition of Cy for patients with myeloma developing progression with Len-Dex was an inexpensive option with manageable toxicity that resulted in a clinically meaningful extension of disease control.