Impact of minimal residual disease status in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin in the phase III INO-VATE trial.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity is a key prognostic indicator of outcome in acute lymphocytic leukemia. In the INO-VATE trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01564784), patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphocytic leukemia who received inotuzumab versus standard chemotherapy achieved greater remission and MRD-negativity rates as well as improved overall survival: hazard ratio 0.75, one-sided P = 0.0105. The current analysis assessed the prognostic value of MRD negativity at the end of inotuzumab treatment. All patients who received inotuzumab (n = 164) were included. Among patients with complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic response (CR/CRi; n = 121), MRD-negative status (by multiparametric flow cytometry) was defined as <1 × 10-4 blasts/nucleated cells. MRD negativity was achieved in 76 patients at the end of treatment. Compared with MRD-positive, MRD-negative status with CR/CRi was associated with significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively: hazard ratio (97.5% confidence interval; one-sided P-value) 0.512 (97.5% CI [0.313-0.835]; P = 0.0009) and 0.423 (97.5% CI [0.256-0.699]; P < 0.0001). Median overall survival was 14.1 versus 7.2 months, in the MRD-negative versus MRD-positive groups. Patients in first salvage who achieved MRD negativity at the end of treatment experienced significantly improved survival versus that seen in MRD-positive patients, particularly for those patients who proceeded to stem cell transplant. Among patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphocytic leukemia who received inotuzumab, those with MRD-negative CR/CRi had the best survival outcomes

Characterizing the Patient Journey in Multiple Myeloma: Qualitative Review

BackgroundThe patient experience of multiple myeloma (MM) is multifaceted and varies substantially between individuals. Current published information on the patient perspective and treatment of MM is limited, making it difficult to gain insights into patient needs regarding the condition. ObjectiveIn this review, a combined research method approach (ie, the review of published literature and social media posts) was undertaken to provide insight into patients’ perspectives on the burden and treatment of MM, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of MM on caregivers of patients with MM. MethodsTargeted searches of PubMed and PsycINFO were conducted from November 16, 2010, to November 16, 2020; in parallel, patient-reported information derived from social media posts from 6 patient advocacy websites and YouTube were searched. The review of patient advocacy websites and YouTube targeted patient-reported information from patients with a self-reported diagnosis of MM who discussed their experience of MM and its treatments. ResultsA total of 27 articles and 138 posts were included (patient-reported information included data from 76 individuals), and results from both sources showed that patients experienced a variety of symptoms and treatment side effects, including neuropathy, fatigue, nausea, and back pain. These can affect areas of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), including physical functioning; emotional, psychological, and social well-being; the ability to work; and relationships. Patients valued involvement in treatment decision-making, and both the patient-reported information and the literature indicated that efficacy and tolerability strongly influence treatment decision-making. For patients, caregivers, and physicians, the preference for treatments was strongest when associated with increased survival. Caregivers can struggle to balance care responsibilities and jobs, and their HRQOL is affected in several areas, including emotional-, role-, social-, and work-related aspects of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged patients’ ability to manage MM because of limited hospital access and restrictions that negatively affected their lives, psychological well-being, and HRQOL. Unmet patient needs identified in the literature and patient-reported information were for more productive appointments with health care professionals, better-tolerated therapies, and more support for themselves and their caregivers. ConclusionsThe combination of published literature and patient-reported information provides valuable and rich details on patient experiences and perceptions of MM and its treatment. The data highlighted that patients’ HRQOL is impeded not only by the disease but also by treatment-related side effects. Patients in the literature and patient-reported information showed a strong preference for treatments that prolong life, and patients appeared to value participation in treatment decisions. However, there remain unmet needs and areas for further research, including treatment, caregiver burden, and how to conduct appointments with health care professionals. This may help improve the understanding of the journey of patients with MM. Plain Language SummaryMultiple Myeloma (MM) is the second most common cancer that affects blood cells. In this study, researchers wanted to know patients’ views on the effects of MM and the treatments they received. Researchers also looked at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients’ treatment and the impact of MM on caregivers. To this end, the researchers reviewed information from 27 published studies and 138 social media posts by 76 patients with MM. Patients commonly reported nerve pain, tiredness, feeling sick, and back pain caused by MM and the treatments they received. The effects of MM and treatments affected patients’ physical function; emotional, psychological, and social well-being; ability to work; and relationships. The researchers found that patients wanted to be involved in decisions related to their treatment. The effectiveness against MM and known negative effects strongly influenced the choice of treatments for patients. Increased survival was the strongest factor in the choice of treatment for patients, caregivers, and doctors. Researchers found that the emotional-, role-, social-, and work-related aspects of caregivers’ lives were affected by caring for patients with MM. The COVID-19 pandemic also affected the ability of patients to manage their MM because of limited hospital access and the effects of restrictions that impacted their lives and psychological well-being. Finally, the researchers identified some areas requiring improvement, including unproductive appointments with health care professionals, the need for treatments with fewer negative effects, and more support for patients with MM and their caregivers. This information may be useful to improve and understand the experience of patients with MM

Response rates and minimal residual disease outcomes as potential surrogates for progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Progression-free survival (PFS) is a common primary endpoint in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM typically have longer PFS and are more likely to achieve minimal residual disease (MRD) or complete response (CR) compared to patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Response-based surrogate endpoints may hold value given the longer follow-up time required to evaluate PFS in NDMM. In this work, systematic literature reviews of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) and relevant congresses (2018-2020) were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world studies in NDMM reporting median PFS and objective response. Associations between PFS and each response endpoint were evaluated using Pearson's product-moment correlation weighted by sample size in each RCT arm. Unadjusted and adjusted weighted linear regression models were applied to estimate the gain in median PFS associated with each response endpoint. Statistically significant correlations were identified for median PFS with overall response rate (ORR; Pearson r = 0.59), CR (r = 0.48), stringent CR (sCR; r = 0.68), and MRD (r = 0.69). The unadjusted models estimated 0.50 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.64; p<0.001), 0.42 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.58; p<0.001), 1.05 (95% CI: 0.58, 1.52; p<0.001), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.58; p = 0.006) months of median PFS gained per point of ORR, CR, sCR, and MRD, respectively. Associations for median PFS remained statistically significant in models adjusted for age and treatment type with ORR (0.35, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.49; p<0.001), and adjusted for age and International Staging System risk stage with CR (0.29, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.41; p<0.001). Due to small sample size, adjusted models could not be constructed for sCR or MRD. Nevertheless, evidence of significant survival benefit (p<0.05) associated with MRD negativity and sCR was identified across real-world studies. These findings provide support for the use of response outcomes as surrogate endpoints to estimate PFS benefit in NDMM

Inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: outcomes by disease burden.

Adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) have a poor prognosis, especially if disease burden is high. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 INO-VATE trial examined the efficacy and safety of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) vs. standard of care chemotherapy (SC) among R/R ALL patients with low, moderate, or high disease burden, respectively, defined as bone marrow blasts (BMB) &lt; 50% (n = 53 vs. 48), 50-90% (n = 79 vs. 83), and &gt;90% (n = 30 vs. 30). Patients in the InO vs. SC arm with low, moderate, and high BMB%, respectively, had improved rates of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (74% vs. 46% [p = 0.0022], 75 vs. 27% [p &lt; 0.0001], and 70 vs. 17% [p &lt; 0.0001]), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.64 [p = 0.0260], 0.81 [p = 0.1109], and 0.60 [p = 0.0335]). Irrespective of BMB%, cytopenias were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, and post-transplant veno-occlusive disease was more common with InO vs. SC. Patients with extramedullary disease or lymphoblastic lymphoma showed similar efficacy and safety outcomes. This favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of InO treatment irrespective of disease burden supports its use in challenging and high disease burden subpopulations. INO-VATE is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov : #NCT01564784