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

Evaluating the impact of Relative Total Dose Intensity (RTDI) on patients' short and long-term outcome in taxane- and anthracycline-based chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer- a pooled analysis

Background: Chemotherapy dose delay and/or reduction lower relative total dose intensity (RTDI) and may affect short- and long-term outcome of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Methods: Based on 933 individual patients' data of from 3 randomized MBC trials using an anthracycline and taxane we examined the impact of RTDI on efficacy and determined the lowest optimal RTDI for MBC patients. Results: Median time to disease progression (TTDP) and overall survival (OS) of all patients were 39 and 98 weeks. Overall higher RTDI was correlated with a shorter TTDP (log-rank p = 0.0525 for 85% RTDI cut-off). Proportional hazards assumption was violated, there was an early drop in the TTDP-curve for the high RTDI group. It was explained by the fact that patients with primary disease progression (PDP) do have a high RTDI per definition. Excluding those 114 patients with PDP the negative correlation between RTDI and TTDP vanished. However, non-PDP patients with RTDI-cut-off levels <85% showed a shorter OS than patients with higher RTDI levels (p = 0.0086). Conclusions: Optimizing RTDI above 85% appears to improve long-term outcome of MBC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Lowering RTDI had no negative influence on short term outcome like OR and TTDP

Ixazomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are among the backbones of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment; however, their long-term use can be limited by parenteral administration and treatment-related toxicities. Ixazomib, the first oral PI to enter the clinic, is approved around the world, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with MM who have received at least one prior therapy. Areas covered: This review summarizes the clinical data leading to approval of ixazomib; its pharmacology, efficacy, and safety. Building on the data in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), it also reviews the available clinical trial data for ixazomib across the MM treatment algorithm in newly diagnosed MM, RRMM, and as maintenance therapy, and looks ahead to ongoing clinical trials and the expanding role of ixazomib in these indications. Expert opinion: Ixazomib is an efficacious and well-tolerated addition to the treatment armamentarium for RRMM, with benefit as a long-term, continuous therapy for all patients, including ‘poor prognosis’ patients, such as those with advanced stage disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and elderly and frail patients. Data from ongoing clinical studies are expected to expand the role of ixazomib across the MM treatment algorithm and in a broader range of combination regimens

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. © 2018, The Author(s)