Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting

Substantial improvements in survival have been seen in multiple myeloma (MM) over recent years, associated with the introduction and widespread use of multiple novel agents and regimens, as well as the emerging treatment paradigm of continuous or long-term therapy. However, these therapies and approaches may have limitations in the community setting, associated with toxicity burden, patient burden, and other factors including cost. Consequently, despite improvements in efficacy in the rigorously controlled clinical trials setting, the same results are not always achieved in real-world practice. Furthermore, the large number of different treatment options and regimens under investigation in various MM settings precludes the feasibility of obtaining head-to-head clinical trial data, and there is a temptation to use cross-trial comparisons to evaluate data across regimens. However, multiple aspects, including patient-related, disease-related, and treatment-related factors, can influence clinical trial outcomes and lead to differences between studies that may confound direct comparisons between data. In this review, we explore the various factors requiring attention when evaluating clinical trial data across available agents/regimens, as well as other considerations that may impact the translation of these findings into everyday MM management. We also investigate discrepancies between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness through a literature review of non-clinical trial data in relapsed/ refractory MM on novel agent−based regimens and evaluate these data in the context of phase 3 trial results for recently approved and commonly used regimens. We thereby demonstrate the complexity of interpreting data across clinical studies in MM, as well as between clinical studies and routine-care analyses, with the aim to help clinicians consider all the necessary issues when tailoring individual patients’ treatment approaches

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma: a consensus statement from The European Myeloma Network

Adoptive cellular therapy using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy is currently being evaluated in patients with relapsed / refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The majority of CAR-T cell programs now being tested in clinical trials are targeting B-cell maturation antigen. Several recent phase I / II trials show promising preliminary results in patients with MM progressing on proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies targeting CD38. CAR-T cell therapy is a potentially life-threatening strategy that can only be administered in experienced centers. For the moment, CAR-T cell therapy for MM is still experimental, but once this strateg

Recommendations for acquisition, interpretation and reporting of whole body low dose CT in patients with multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a report of the IMWG Bone Working Group

Whole Body Low Dose CT (WBLDCT) has important advantages as a first-line imaging modality for bone disease assessment in patients with plasma cell disorders and has been included in the 2014 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria for multiple myeloma (MM) definition. Nevertheless, standardization guidelines for the optimal use of WBLDCT in MM patients are still lacking, preventing its more widespread use, both in daily practice and clinical trials. The aim of this report by the Bone Group of the IMWG is to provide practical recommendations for the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of WBLDCT in patients with multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders

Global myeloma research clusters, output, and citations: A bibliometric mapping and clustering analysis

Background: International collaborative research is a mechanism for improving the development of dis-ease- specific therapies and for improving health at the population level. However, limited data are available to assess the trends in research output related to orphan diseases. Methods and Findings: We used bibliometric mapping and clustering methods to illustrate the level of fragmentation in myeloma research and the development of collaborative efforts. Publication data from Thomson Reuters Web of Science were retrieved for 2005-2009 and followed until 2013. We created a database of multiple myeloma publications, and we analysed impact and coauthorship density to identify scientific collaborations, developments, and international key players over time. The global annual publication volume for studies on multiple myeloma increased from 1,144 in 2005 to 1,628 in 2009, which represents a 4

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of POLLUX, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study

In POLLUX, daratumumab (D) plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Updated efficacy and safety after >3 years of follow-up are presented. Patients (N = 569) with ≥1 prior line received Rd (lenalidomide, 25 mg, on Days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone, 40 mg, weekly) ± daratumumab at the approved dosing schedule. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing. After 44.3 months median follow-up, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population (median 44.5 vs 17.5 months; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35–0.55; P < 0.0001) and in patient subgroups. D-Rd demonstrated higher ORR (92.9 vs 76.4%; P < 0.0001) and deeper responses, including complete response or better (56.6 vs 23.2%; P < 0.0001) and MRD negativity (10–5; 30.4 vs 5.3%; P < 0.0001). Median time to next therapy was prolonged with D-Rd (50.6 vs 23.1 months; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31–0.50; P < 0.0001). Median PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2) was not reached with D-Rd versus 31.7 months with Rd (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.68; P < 0.0001). No new safety concerns were reported. These data support using D-Rd in patients with RRMM after first relapse

Impact of minimal residual disease detection by next-generation flow cytometry in multiple myeloma patients with sustained complete remission after frontline therapy

Minimal residual disease (MRD) was monitored in 52 patients with sustained CR (≥2 years) after frontline therapy using next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry. 25% of patients initially MRD- reversed to MRD+. 56% of patients in sustained CR were MRD+; 45% at the level of 10−5; 17% at 10−6. All patients who relapsed during follow-up were MRD+ at the latest MRD assessment, including those with ultra-low tumor burden. MRD persistence was associated with specific phenotypic profiles: higher erythroblasts’ and tumor-associated monocytes/macrophages’ predominance in the bone marrow niche. NGF emerges as a suitable method for periodic, reproducible, highly-sensitive MRD-detection at the level of 10−6

Early M-Protein Dynamics Predicts Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

This study aimed to predict long-term progression-free survival (PFS) using early M-protein dynamic measurements in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The PFS was modeled based on dynamic M-protein data from two phase III studies, POLLUX and CASTOR, which included 569 and 498 patients with relapsed/refractory MM, respectively. Both studies compared active controls (lenalidomide and dexamethasone, and bortezomib and dexamethasone, respectively) alone vs. in combination with daratumumab. Three M-protein dynamic features from the longitudinal M-protein data were evaluated up to different time cutoffs (1, 2, 3, and 6 months). The abilities of early M-protein dynamic measurements to predict the PFS were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards survival models. Both univariate and multivariable analyses suggest that maximum reduction of M-protein (i.e., depth of response) was the most predictive of PFS. Despite the statistical significance, the baseline covariates provided very limited predictive value regarding the treatment effect of daratumumab. However, M-protein dynamic features obtained within the first 2 months reasonably predicted PFS and the associated treatment effect of daratumumab. Specifically, the areas under the time-varying receiver operating characteristic curves for the model with the first 2 months of M-protein dynamic data were ~ 0.8 and 0.85 for POLLUX and CASTOR, respectively. Early M-protein data within the first 2 months can provide a prospective and reasonable prediction of future long-term clinical benefit for patients with MM

Retrospective matched-pairs analysis of bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus bortezomib monotherapy in relapsed multiple myeloma

Bortezomib-dexamethasone is widely used for relapsed myeloma in routine clinical practice, but comparative data versus single-agent bortezomib are lacking. This retrospective analysis compared second-line treatment with bortezomib- dexamethasone and bortezomib using 109 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated in three clinical trials: MMY-2045, APEX, and DOXIL-MMY-3001. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression analyses incorporating 13 clinical variables related to drug exposure or clinical outcome. Patients received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, in 21-day cycles, alone or with oral dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of/after bortezomib dosing. Median bortezomib cumulative dose (27.02 and 28.60 mg/m2) and treatment duration (19.6 and 17.6 weeks) were similar with bortezomib-dexamethasone and bortezomib, respectively. The overall response rate was higher (75% vs. 41%; odds ratio=3.467; P<0.001), and median time-to-progression (13.6 vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio [HR]=0.394; P=0.003) and progression-free survival (11.9 vs. 6.4 months; HR=0.595; P=0.051) were longer with bortezomib-dexamethasone versus bortezomib, respectively. Rates of anygrade adverse events, most common grade 3 or higher adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events appeared similar between the groups. Two patients per group died of treatment-related adverse events. These data indicate the potential benefit of bortezomib-dexamethasone compared with single-agent bortezomib at first relapse in myeloma. The MMY-2045, APEX, and DOXIL-MMY-3001 clinical trials were registered at, respectively, clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 00908232, 00048230, and 00103506

Randomized phase III study (ADMYRE) of plitidepsin in combination with dexamethasone vs. dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

The randomized phase III ADMYRE trial evaluated plitidepsin plus dexamethasone (DXM) versus DXM alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least three but not more than six prior regimens, including at least bortezomib and lenalidomide or thalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive plitidepsin 5 mg/m2 on D1 and D15 plus DXM 40 mg on D1, D8, D15, and D22 (arm A, n = 171) or DXM 40 mg on D1, D8, D15, and D22 (arm B, n = 84) q4wk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS without disease progression (PD) confirmation (IRC assessment) was 2.6 months (arm A) and 1.7 months (arm B) (HR = 0.650; p = 0.0054). Median PFS with PD confirmation (investigator’s assessment) was 3.8 months (arm A) and 1.9 months (arm B) (HR = 0.611; p = 0.0040). Median overall survival (OS, intention-to-treat analysis) was 11.6 months (arm A) and 8.9 months (arm B) (HR = 0.797; p = 0.1261). OS improvement favoring arm A was found when discounting a crossover effect (37 patients crossed over from arm B to arm A) (two-stage method; HR = 0.622; p = 0.0015). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (% of patients arm A/arm B) were fatigue (10.8%/1.2%), myalgia (5.4%/0%), and nausea (3.6%/1.2%), being usually transient and reversible. The safety profile does not overlap with the toxicity observed with other agents used in multiple myeloma. In conclusion, efficacy data, the reassuring safety profile, and the novel mechanism of action of plitidepsin suggest that this combination can be an alternative option in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least three prior therapy lines

Insights on multiple myeloma treatment strategies

The introduction of new agents and management strategies over the past decade has resulted in a major step change in treatment outcomes with deepening responses and increased survival for patients with multiple myeloma. In daily clinical practice, healthcare professionals are now faced with challenges including, optimal treatment sequencing and changing treatment goals. In light of this, a group of experts met to discuss diagnostic and treatment guidelines, examine current clinical practice, and consider how new clinical trial data may be integrated into the management of multiple myeloma in the future