Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a multicenter, retrospective real-world experience with 200 cases outside of controlled clinical trials

In the ELOQUENT-3 trial, the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EloPd) proved a superior clinical benefit over Pd with a manageable toxicity profile, leading to its approval in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), who had received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI). We report here a real-world experience of 200 RRMMs treated with EloPd in 35 Italian centers outside of clinical trials. In our dataset, the median number of prior lines of therapy was 2, with 51% of cases undergoing autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and 73% exposed to daratumumab. After a median follow-up of 9 months, 126 patients stopped EloPd, most of them (88.9%) because of disease progression. The overall response rate (ORR) was 55.4%, in line with the pivotal trial results. Regarding adverse events, our cohort experienced a toxicity profile similar to the ELOQUENT-3 trial, with no significant differences between younger (<70 years) and older patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months, shorter than that observed in the ELOQUENT-3, probably due to the different clinical characteristics of the two cohorts. Interestingly, the ISS stage III (HR:2.55) was associated with worse PFS. Finally, our series's median overall survival (OS) was shorter than that observed in the ELOQUENT-3 trial (17.5 versus 29.8 months). In conclusion, our real-world study confirms EloPd as a safe and possible therapeutic choice for RRMM who received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a PI

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Repeated rituximab maintenance courses in fludarabine-failed young patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia responding to FAND chemotherapy

[No abstract available

Conservative treatment for patients over 80 years with acute myelogenous leukemia

In order to evaluate the best treatment of very elderly patients with AML, we have retrospectively analyzed 60 cases of patients aged more than 80 years, with a diagnosis of AML and observed from January 1988 to December 1998. Six of these patients were subsequently referred to other centers; of the remaining 54 patients, 20 (37%) received only supportive care, whereas 34 (63%) required palliative chemotherapy to control leukocytosis, after a median time from diagnosis of 9 days (range 0-253). Median overall survival was 13 weeks (range 1-105): 21 (39%) and 6 (11%) patients survived more than 6 and 12 months, respectively. Twenty-eight patients (51.8%) died from progressive disease, 19 (35.1%) died from AML-related or unrelated causes in the phase of stable disease, while in 7 patients the cause of death was unknown. In univariate analysis, PS > 2 and WBC > 50 x 10(9)/L had an adverse prognostic significance on survival. Our results, as compared with those reported in the literature for patients over 80 years treated with intensive chemotherapy, support the idea that intensive chemotherapy is usually not indicated in very elderly patients with AML, and that conservative treatment and the primary strategy of "watch-and-wait" presently seems to be the best choice

Daratumumab combined with dexamethasone and lenalidomide or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients: Report from the multiple myeloma GIMEMA Lazio group

: The multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has changed over the last years due to the introduction of novel drugs. Despite improvements in the MM outcome, MM remains an incurable disease. Daratumumab is a human IgGK monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with tumor activity associated with immunomodulatory mechanism. In combination with standard of care regimens, including bortezomib (Vd) or lenalidomide (Rd), daratumumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in new diagnosis MM. We report the data of the MM GIMEMA Lazio group in 171 heavily treated pts who received daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) or daratumumab, velcade and dexamethasone (DVd). The overall response rate was 80%, and the overall survival (OS) and PFS were 84% and 77%, respectively. In addition, pts treated with DRd showed a better median PFS compared to pts treated with DVd, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TAEs) were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The most common nonhematologic TAEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy and infections. Our data confirmed that DRd or DVd therapy is effective and safe in RRMM pts, and our real-life analysis could support the physicians regarding the choice of optimal therapy in this setting of pts

Consensus for Flow Cytometry Clinical Report on Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Harmonization Process Merging Laboratory Experience and Clinical Needs

Flow cytometry is a highly sensitive and specific approach for discriminating between normal and clonal plasma cells in multiple myeloma. Uniform response criteria after treatment have been established by the International Myeloma Working Group and the EuroFlow Group; however, the way in which flow cytometry data are reported has suffered from no collaborative or multicentre efforts. This study, involving 8 expert laboratories and 12 clinical hematology units of the Lazio region in Italy, aims to produce a uniform and shared report among the various Centres. From the pre-analytical phase to sample processing, data acquisition, analysis, and evaluation of the potential limitations and pitfalls of the entire process, the study reaches a final conclusion shared by laboratories and clinicians according to the most updated principles and recommendations. The aim was to identify the necessary data to be included in the clinical report by using multiple-choice questionnaires at every single stage of the process. An agreement of more than 75% of the laboratories was considered mandatory for the data to be included in the report. By ensuring the operational autonomy of each laboratory, this study provides a clear report that limits subjective interpretations and highlights possible bias in the process, better supporting clinical decision-making