Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for stem cell transplantation: results from the randomized phase III ALCYONE trial

Quality of life gains in frail and intermediate-fit patients with multiple Myeloma: Findings from the prospective HOVON123 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Frailty in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients is associated with treatment-related toxicity, which negatively affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Currently, data on changes in HRQoL of frail and intermediate-fit MM patients during active treatment and post-treatment follow-up are absent.

METHODS

The HOVON123 study (NTR4244) was a phase II trial in which NDMM patients ≥ 75 years were treated with nine dose-adjusted cycles of Melphalan-Prednisone-Bortezomib (MPV). Two HRQoL instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -MY20) were obtained before start of treatment, after 3 and 9 months of treatment and 6 and 12 months after treatment for patients who did not yet start second-line treatment. HRQoL changes and/or differences in frail and intermediate-fit patients (IMWG frailty score) were reported only when both statistically significant (p < 0.005) and clinically relevant (>MID).

RESULTS

137 frail and 71 intermediate-fit patients were included in the analysis. Compliance was high and comparable in both groups. At baseline, frail patients reported lower global health status, lower physical functioning scores and more fatigue and pain compared to intermediate-fit patients. Both groups improved in global health status and future perspective; polyneuropathy complaints worsened over time. Frail patients improved over time in physical functioning, fatigue and pain. Improvement in global health status occurred earlier than in intermediate-fit patients.

CONCLUSION

HRQoL improved during anti-myeloma treatment in both intermediate-fit and frail MM patients. In frail patients, improvement occurred faster and, in more domains, which was retained during follow-up. This implies that physicians should not withhold safe and effective therapies from frail patients in fear of HRQoL deterioration.

Daratumumab in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of clinically relevant subgroups in GRIFFIN

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract.

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.

Daratumumab and antineoplastic therapy versus antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for transplant

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant, the recommended treatment combinations in first-line therapy generally consist of combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, and proteasome inhibitors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody recently developed and approved for the treatment of people diagnosed with MM. Multiple myeloma cells uniformly over-express CD-38, a 46-kDa type II transmembrane glycoprotein, making myeloma cells a specific target for daratumumab.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of daratumumab in addition to antineoplastic therapy compared to antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligible for transplant.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, EU Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings from 2010 to September 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with daratumumab added to antineoplastic therapy versus the same antineoplastic therapy alone in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials with less than 80% adult participants, unless there were subgroup analyses of adults with MM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies for eligibility. We documented the process of study selection in a flowchart as recommended by the PRISMA statement. We evaluated the risk of bias in included studies with RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four open-label, two-armed randomised controlled trials (34 publications) involving a total of 1783 participants. The ALCYONE, MAIA, and OCTANS trials were multicentre trials conducted worldwide in middle- and high-income countries. The AMaRC 03-16 trial was conducted in one high-income country, Australia. The mean age of participants was 69 to 74 years, and the proportion of female participants was between 40% and 54%. All trials evaluated antineoplastic therapies with or without daratumumab. In the ALCYONE and OCTANS trials, daratumumab was combined with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. In the AMaRC 03-16 study, it was combined with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and in the MAIA study, it was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. None of the included studies was blinded (high risk of performance and detection bias). One study was published as abstract only, therefore the risk of bias for most criteria was unclear. The other three studies were published as full texts. Apart from blinding, the risk of bias was low for these studies. Overall survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases overall survival when compared to the same treatment without daratumumab (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.76, 2 studies, 1443 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 36 months, 695 per 1000 participants survived in the control group, whereas 792 per 1000 participants survived in the daratumumab group (95% CI 758 to 825). Progression-free survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases progression-free survival when compared to treatment without daratumumab (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, 3 studies, 1663 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 24 months, progression-free survival was reached in 494 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 713 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group (95% CI 664 to 760). Quality of life Treatment with daratumumab may result in a very small increase in quality of life after 12 months, evaluated on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale (GHS), when compared to treatment without daratumumab (mean difference 2.19, 95% CI -0.13 to 4.51, 3 studies, 1096 participants, low-certainty evidence). The scale is from 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating a better quality of life. On-study mortality Treatment with daratumumab probably decreases on-study mortality when compared to treatment without daratumumab (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 366 per 1000 participants in the control group and 264 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group died (95% CI 227 to 304). Serious adverse events Treatment with daratumumab probably increases serious adverse events when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 505 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 596 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced serious adverse events (95% CI 515 to 692). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3) Treatment with daratumumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 953 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 963 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 943 to 972). Treatment with daratumumab probably increases the risk of infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.78, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 224 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 340 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 291 to 399).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall analysis of four studies showed a potential benefit for daratumumab in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and a slight potential benefit in quality of life. Participants treated with daratumumab probably experience increased serious adverse events. There were likely no differences between groups in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3); however, there are probably more infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) in participants treated with daratumumab. We identified six ongoing studies which might strengthen the certainty of evidence in a future update of this review.

A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology

OBJECTIVES

This literature review provides an overview of meaningful change thresholds for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) used across hematological cancers and solid tumors (melanoma, lung, bladder, and prostate).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant oncology publications from 2016 to 2021. Label claims from the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for 7 recently approved drugs (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, glasdegib, gilteritinib, tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and daratumumab plus hyaluronidase-fihj) were reviewed.

RESULTS

Publications providing guidance on meaningful change thresholds for the QLQ-C30 displayed a growing trend away from broad "legacy" thresholds of 10 points for all QLQ-C30 scales), toward deriving "contemporary" thresholds (eg, subscale specific, population specific). Contemporary publications generally provide guidance on selecting thresholds for specific scales that account for improved or worsening thresholds (eg, QLQ-C30 subscales). This trend was not clear for FACT-G, with less new guidance available. Most clinical trials used in regulatory label submissions have used thresholds of 10 points for the QLQ-C30 subscales and 3 to 7 points for the FACT-G total score. Despite the availability of more recent guidelines, contemporary meaningful change thresholds seem slow to emerge in the published literature and regulatory labels.

CONCLUSIONS

Trialists should consider using contemporary thresholds, rather than legacy thresholds, for QLQ-C30 endpoints. Thresholds derived for a similar patient-population should be used where available. Further work is required to provide these across a broader range of cancer sites.

Adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Glucocorticoids as a drug class are widely used in the treatment of many conditions including more recently as one of the mainstay treatments for the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The physiological adverse effects are well described. However, less is known and understood about the potentially deleterious neuro-cognitive effects of this class of medication.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of the literature using two separate search strategies. The first focussed on the rates of reporting of adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoid use in randomised controlled trials. The second looked at those studies focussing directly on adverse cognitive effects associated with the use of glucocorticoids. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was searched for randomised controlled trials utilising glucocorticoids as a part of a treatment regimen. Additionally, these databases were also used to search for articles looking directly at the adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids.

RESULTS

Of the forty-three RCTs included as a part of the first search strategy, only one (2.3%) included specific documentation pertaining to cognitive side effects. As a part of the twenty studies included in the second search strategy, eleven of the included studies (55%) were able to demonstrate a correlation between glucocorticoid use and decreased cognition. Most studies within this strategy showed that GCs predominately affected hippocampus-dependent functions such as memory, while sparing executive function and attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data reporting of adverse clinical effects of glucocorticoid use is poor in recent RCTs. Given the demonstrable effect on predominately hippocampal-dependent cognitive functions evident within the literature, more thorough documentation is needed within clinical research to fully appreciate the potentially widespread nature of these effects.

Current Health State Affected Patient Preferences More Than Disease Status: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

To examine how disease status and current health state influence treatment preferences of patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

Participants with MM from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom completed a web-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and EQ-5D assessment. The DCE elicited preferences for 8 attributes: increased life expectancy, increased time to relapse, pain, fatigue, risk of infection, administration (route and duration), frequency of administration, and monitoring. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze DCE preference data and to calculate life expectancy trade-offs.

RESULTS

Three hundred participants with MM (newly diagnosed, transplant eligible, n = 108; newly diagnosed, transplant ineligible, n = 105; relapsed-refractory, n = 87) completed the survey. The most valued attributes were pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. Participants would want an additional 2.7 years of life expectancy (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-3.1 years) to tolerate extreme pain and an additional 2.0 years of life expectancy (95% CI 1.6-2.3 years) to tolerate constant fatigue. Participants in a better health state (third EQ-5D score quartile [0.897]) required less additional life expectancy than participants with a worse health state (first EQ-5D score quartile [0.662]) to tolerate extreme pain (2.3 years [95% CI 1.9-2.6 years] vs 3.0 years [95% CI 2.6-3.4 years]; P = .007). There was little difference in treatment preferences between newly diagnosed and relapsed-refractory patients for pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current health state influenced treatment preferences of patients with MM more than disease status and should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Impact of Disease Progression, Line of Therapy, and Response on Health-Related Quality of Life in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review

This systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to better understand the impact of disease progression, line of therapy, and clinical response on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Multiple databases were searched to identify records relating to HRQoL in adult patients with MM. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers for inclusion based on pre-defined criteria. Records flagged for inclusion had full texts subsequently screened using the same method. A third round of screening was then conducted to identify studies that assessed the relationship of HRQoL to disease progression, line of therapy, or clinical response. Quality assessment was conducted on utility studies using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Quality Assessment Checklist for Health State Utility Values. After all rounds of screening were complete, 44 records (representing 41 studies) were included in the SLR. Thirty records reported data relating HRQoL to disease progression, 5 reported data relating HRQoL to line of therapy, and 19 reported data relating HRQoL to response. Despite a lack of homogeneity and small number of studies, the data show overall that progressive disease and increasing lines of therapy were associated with worsened patient HRQoL and increasing depth of response was associated with improved patient HRQoL. The findings from this SLR support that desirable treatment outcomes such as delayed progression, fewer lines of therapy, and achieving the deepest possible clinical response result in improved HRQoL in patients with MM.

The influence of baseline characteristics, treatment and depression on health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective observational study

Background

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the third most common hematologic malignancy with increasing importance due to improving treatment strategies and long-term outcomes in an aging population. This study aims to analyse influencing factors on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), such as treatment strategies, participation in a clinical trial and patient characteristics like anxiety, depression, gender, and age. A better understanding of the individual factors in context with HRQoL could provide a helpful instrument for clinical decisions.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, the HRQoL of MM patients with different therapies (first-line and relapse) was quantified by standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -MY20) in the context of sociodemographic data, individual anxiety and depressiveness (PHQ-4), and a selected number of clinical parameters and symptoms at defined time-points before, during, and after therapy.

Results

In total, 70 patients were included in the study. The median age of the study cohort was 62 years. 44% were female and 56% were male patients. More than half of the patients were fully active with an ECOG 0. Global health status was significantly higher in patients with first-line treatment and even increased after start of therapy, while the pain level decreased. In contrast, patients with relapsed MM reported a decreasing global health status and increasing pain. Additionally, there was a higher global health status in less anxious/depressive patients. HRQoL decreased significantly after start of chemotherapy in the parameters body image, side effects of treatment, and cognitive functioning. Tandem stem-cell transplantation was not found to be a risk factor for higher impairment of HRQoL. Participation in a clinical study led to an improvement of most aspects of HRQoL. Among others, increased anxiety and depression, female gender, older age, impaired performance status, and recurrent disease can be early indicators for a reduced HRQoL.

Conclusion

This study showed the importance of regular longitudinal assessments of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in routine clinical care. For the first time, to our knowledge, we were able to demonstrate a potential impact between participation in clinical trials and HRQoL. However, due to frequently restrictive inclusion criteria for clinical trials, these MM patients might not be directly comparable with patients treated within standard therapy concepts. Further studies are needed to clarify the relevance of this preliminary data in order to develop an individualized, patient-centred, therapy concept.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10101-9.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care

PURPOSE

Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.