Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the research was to assess the quantitative relationship between median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) specifically among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase, 1970-2017) were systematically searched for RCTs in RRMM that reported OS and PFS, followed by an updated search of studies published between 2010 and 2022 in 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews, 2010-2022). The association between median PFS and median OS was assessed using the nonparametric Spearman rank and parametric Pearson correlation coefficients. Subsequently, the quantitative relationship between PFS and OS was assessed using weighted least-squares regression adjusted for covariates including age, sex, and publication year. Study arms were weighted by the number of patients in each arm. RESULTS: A total of 31 RCTs (56 treatment arms, 10,450 patients with RRMM) were included in the analysis. The average median PFS and median OS were 7.1 months (SD 5.5) and 28.1 months (SD 11.8), respectively. The Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients between median PFS and median OS were 0.80 (P < 0.0001) and 0.79 (P < 0.0001), respectively. In individual treatment arms of RRMM trials, each 1-month increase in median PFS was associated with a 1.72-month (95% CI 1.26-2.17) increase in median OS. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the relationship between PFS and OS incorporating more recent studies in RRMM further substantiates the use of PFS to predict OS in RRMM.

Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Progression-Free Survival with D-Rd and VRd Based on MAIA and SWOG S0777 Individual Patient-Level Data.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777. METHODS: Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd. RESULTS: PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results. CONCLUSION: This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population.

Multiple drug combinations can be used to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant. Two of these combinations­daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd)­have each been studied in clinical trials (MAIA and SWOG S0777) against the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd), but D-Rd and VRd have not been compared directly in a head-to-head clinical trial. Our study used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials to indirectly compare outcomes observed with D-Rd and VRd. For this indirect comparison between D-Rd and VRd, we first made adjustments to the patient populations of each trial to make them more similar to each other; this helped to make sure any differences we saw in treatment outcomes between D-Rd and VRd would not be because of differences in the characteristics of the patients who participated in the trials. After we made these adjustments to the patient populations of each trial, both D-Rd and VRd lowered the risk of disease progression or death compared with Rd alone. However, when indirectly compared in our study, D-Rd lowered the risk of disease progression or death by 41% compared with VRd. As data directly comparing treatment outcomes for D-Rd and VRd are not available, this indirect comparison can contribute to the information used to make treatment decisions for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes in risk-stratified patients with smoldering multiple myeloma: data from the Czech Republic Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non-high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non-high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non-high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non-high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS.

Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Overall Survival in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial. RESULTS: Using D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: Our simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.

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.

Assessing the prognostic utility of hematologic response for overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: results of a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits made up of toxic light chains causing progressive organ dysfunction and death. Recent studies suggest that hematologic response may be an important prognostic indicator of overall survival (OS) in AL amyloidosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial-level association between hematologic complete response (CR) or very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) and OS in newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: Studies were identified via systematic literature review. Pooled effect estimates were generated by a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies reporting hematologic CR or ≥VGPR and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were included in the meta-analysis. Achieving hematologic CR was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.34). Achieving ≥ VGPR was also associated with improved OS (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.17-0.26). Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study revealed no heterogeneity and a better overall HR estimate. Potential limitations of this meta-analysis include the small number of eligible studies (consistent with the rarity of the disease) and inconsistencies in reporting of results. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings support the use of deep hematologic response (CR or ≥VGPR) as a clinical trial endpoint in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This study provides evidence that early hematologic response is a strong patient-level surrogate for long-term OS in patients with AL amyloidosis receiving frontline therapy. Structured data collection of depth of response in future trials will further strengthen these observations.

Real-world treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes in patients with AL amyloidosis: analysis of the Optum EHR and commercial claims databases.

BACKGROUND: This study characterised real-world treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and cost-of-illness in patients with light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the US-based Optum® EHR and Clinformatics® Data Mart (claims) databases (2008-2019) for patients newly diagnosed with AL amyloidosis and who initiated anti-plasma cell therapies. Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and related costs were compared across lines of therapy (LOT). Incidences of cardiac and renal failure were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: About 1347 patients (EHR, n = 776; claims, n = 571) were included. Median age was 68 years; 56.8% were male. At initial diagnosis, 33.1% and 15.1% of patients had cardiac and renal failure, respectively. Most patients received bortezomib-containing treatment in LOT1 (69%); bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone was most common (26%). HCRU was similar across LOTs. Mean per-patient-per-month and per-patient-per-LOT costs were $19,343 and $105,944 for LOT1, $19,183 and $95,793 for LOT2, and $16,611 and $128,446 for LOT3, respectively. Costs were primarily driven by anti-plasma cell therapies, outpatient visits, and hospitalisations. The 5-year cardiac and renal failure rates following initial diagnosis were 64.5% and 39.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: AL amyloidosis is associated with substantial costs and suboptimal outcomes, highlighting the need for new therapeutic approaches to prevent organ deterioration, and reduce disease burden.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Daratumumab, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Standard of Care in Patients with Difficult-to-Treat Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 APOLLO study demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical responses with daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Pd) versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). On the basis of these results and those from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial, D-Pd was approved in this patient population. In the absence of head-to-head data comparing D-Pd with further standard of care (SOC) therapies, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can provide important information to help optimize treatment selection. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare PFS improvement with D-Pd versus daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) and D-Pd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with RRMM. METHODS: Patient-level data were from APOLLO, EQUULEUS, and CASTOR. Three methods of adjusting imbalances in baseline characteristics including stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), cardinality matching (CM), and propensity score matching (PSM) were initially considered. CM offers mathematically guaranteed largest matched sample meeting pre-specified maximum standardized mean difference criteria for matching covariates. sIPTW and PSM were based on propensity scores derived from logistic regression. Feasibility assessment of the PSM method returned too low effective sample size to support a meaningful comparison. CM was chosen as the base case and sIPTW as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: After harmonized eligibility criteria were applied, 253, 104, and 122 patients from the D-Pd, D-Vd, and Vd cohorts, respectively, were included in the ITC analyses. Some imbalances in baseline characteristics were identified between D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts that remained after adjustment. PFS hazard ratios showed significant improvement for D-Pd over D-Vd and Vd for CM and sIPTW analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed consistent PFS benefit for D-Pd versus D-Vd and Vd regardless of the adjustment technique used. These findings support the use of D-Pd versus D-Vd or Vd in patients with difficult-to-treat RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03180736; NCT02136134, NCT01998971.

Treatment Regimens for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM. METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs. RESULTS: A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

Systematic literature review of evidence in amyloid light-chain amyloidosis.

Introduction: Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to evaluate the current evidence base in AL amyloidosis. Methods: Literature searches on clinical, health-related quality of life, economic and resource use evidence were conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases as well as gray literature. Results: This SLR yielded 84 unique studies from: five randomized controlled trials; 54 observational studies; 12 health-related quality of life studies, none with utility values; no economic evaluation studies; and 16 resource use studies, none with indirect costs. Conclusion: This SLR highlights a paucity of published literature relating to randomized controlled trials, utility values, economic evaluations and indirect costs in AL amyloidosis.

Results of a Time and Motion Survey Regarding Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Daratumumab in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Daratumumab (DARA) is a humanized anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and approved as monotherapy or in combination with standard of care regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). DARA intravenous (IV) administration is time-consuming; availability of DARA subcutaneous (SC) is expected to reduce this burden. A time and motion survey was undertaken to elicit healthcare providers' (HCPs') understanding of the workflow and time estimates for administration of DARA IV and SC (beyond treatment time) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This web-based, prospective survey collected data from HCPs at sites that actively enrolled patients in the phase 3 COLUMBA trial, a multicenter, noninferiority study of DARA IV versus DARA SC. Data collection included time actively spent on pre-specified drug preparation and drug administration/patient care activities; active HCP and chair time were extrapolated for first and subsequent treatments. RESULTS: Compared with DARA IV, DARA SC reduced median total active HCP time by 63.8% (from 265.9 to 96.3 minutes) and 49.5% (from 179.2 to 90.4 minutes) for first and subsequent treatments, respectively. When extrapolated to the anticipated number of treatments per year (23 in Year 1 and 13 in Year 2, per label), estimated active HCP time per patient was reduced by 50% in Years 1 (from 70.1 to 34.8 hours) and 2 (from 38.8 to 19.6 hours) for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Estimated chair time for DARA SC was decreased by 97% versus DARA IV for first (from 456.9 to 13.3 minutes) and subsequent treatments (from 238.0 to 8.1 minutes). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that DARA SC is associated with less active HCP involvement during drug preparation and drug administration/patient care compared with DARA IV, potentially reducing burdens on patients and caregivers and creating efficiencies for HCPs and healthcare facilities, allowing more patients access to care.

A systematic review of noninferiority margins in oncology clinical trials.

Aim: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and characterize noninferiority margins for relevant end points in oncology clinical trials. Materials & methods: Randomized, controlled, noninferiority trials of patients with cancer were identified in PubMed and Embase. Results: Of 2284 publications identified, 285 oncology noninferiority clinical trials were analyzed. The median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.29 (mean: 1.32; range: 1.05-2.05) for studies that reported time-to-event end points (n = 192). The median noninferiority margin was 13.0% (mean: 12.7%; range: 5.0-20.0%) for studies that reported response end points as absolute rate differences (n = 31). Conclusion: Although there was consistency in the noninferiority margins' scale, variability was evident in noninferiority margins across trials. Increased transparency may improve consistency in noninferiority margin application in oncology clinical trials.

Patient Perceptions Regarding Multiple Myeloma and Its Treatment: Qualitative Evidence from Interviews with Patients in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for multiple myeloma requires several regimens of treatment, with patients experiencing high symptom burden and side effects, which negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Thus, it is crucial to understand patient perceptions of multiple myeloma and how patients value different treatment options. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation into concepts that could form attributes that influence treatment choices for patients with multiple myeloma and to identify trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment attributes. METHODS: In total, 30 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma from the UK, France, and Germany participated in semistructured interviews talking about their disease experience and symptoms, treatment benefits, treatment burden, perceived side effects, and benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment. The interview audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis to identify treatment and disease aspects relevant to patients. RESULTS: Symptoms of fatigue and bone pain and treatment side effects of peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and constipation were cited by patients as the most disruptive to their HRQoL. Treatment duration was reported most frequently as a major treatment burden, and patients emphasized the importance of increased life expectancy as a treatment benefit. All patients showed good understanding of benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment, and some patients expressed a preference for more convenient modes of treatment administration. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative interviews identified key aspects of multiple myeloma treatment that are most important to patients. These findings will inform a wider patient-preferences study, which could improve treatment choice and HRQoL for patients with multiple myeloma.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) without and with daratumumab (D-VTd) in CASSIOPEIA versus VTd in PETHEMA/GEM in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, using propensity score matching.

Background: Traditional bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) regimens for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) include doses of thalidomide up to 200 mg/day (VTd-label). Clinical practice has evolved to use a lower dose (100 mg/day) to reduce toxicity (VTd-mod), which was evaluated in the phase III CASSIOPEIA study, without or with daratumumab (D-VTd; an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). We used propensity score matching to compare efficacy and safety for VTd-mod and D-VTd with VTd-label. Methods: Patient-level data for VTd-mod and D-VTd from CASSIOPEIA (NCT02541383) and data for VTd-label from the PETHEMA/GEM study (NCT00461747) were analyzed. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and nearest-neighbor matching procedure was used. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), postinduction and posttransplant responses, as well as rate of treatment discontinuation and grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy. Results: VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for OS, PFS, TTP, postinduction very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and overall response rate (ORR). VTd-mod was significantly better for posttransplant ≥VGPR and ORR versus VTd-label. VTd-mod safety was not superior to VTd-label despite the lower thalidomide dose. D-VTd was significantly better than VTd-label for OS, PFS, TTP, postinduction and posttransplant ≥VGPR and ORR, and was noninferior to VTd-label for safety outcomes. Conclusions: In transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, D-VTd had superior efficacy compared with VTd-label. Despite a lower dose of thalidomide, VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for safety and was significantly better for posttransplant ≥VGPR/ORR. These data further support the first-line use of daratumumab plus VTd.

Front-line daratumumab-VTd versus standard-of-care in ASCT-eligible multiple myeloma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare daratumumab plus standard-of-care (SoC; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone [VTd]) and VTd alone with other SoC for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients & methods: We conducted an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison of progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) with D-VTd/VTd versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCd) and bortezomib/dexamethasone (Vd). Results: After matching adjustment, significant improvements in PFS were estimated for D-VTd versus VRd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.33-0.69]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.21-0.58]) and Vd (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28-0.63]). OS was significantly longer with D-VTd versus VRd (HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.16-0.57]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.14-0.86]) and Vd (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.18-0.77]). No significant PFS/OS differences were seen for VTd versus other SoC. Conclusion: This analysis supports front-line daratumumab for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.

The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published up to 8 June 2019, with no date limit on the indexed database. Clinical end points stratified by MRD status (positive or negative) were extracted, including hazard ratios (HRs) on PFS and OS, P values, and confidence intervals (CIs). HRs were estimated based on reconstructed patient-level data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Forty-four eligible studies with PFS data from 8098 patients, and 23 studies with OS data from 4297 patients were identified to assess the association between MRD status and survival outcomes. Compared with MRD positivity, achieving MRD negativity improved PFS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29-0.37; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51; P < .001). MRD negativity was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes regardless of disease setting (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM), MRD sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, method of MRD assessment, depth of clinical response at the time of MRD measurement, and MRD assessment premaintenance and 12 months after start of maintenance therapy. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity and its association with favorable outcomes in various disease and treatment settings sets the stage to adopt MRD as a treatment end point, including development of therapeutic strategies. This large meta-analysis confirms the utility of MRD as a relevant surrogate for PFS and OS in MM.

Frontline treatment patterns and attrition rates by subsequent lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: For patients with multiple myeloma (MM), each additional line of therapy (LOT) is associated with lower response rates, shorter treatment duration and treatment-free intervals, and increased rates of toxicities and comorbidities. Here, we examine frontline treatment patterns, and attrition rates by LOT among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the United States who were eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). METHODS: Data were identified from three US patient-level databases collectively covering the period January 2000 to September 2018. Patients had an index diagnosis of MM on or after January 1, 2007, medical and prescription insurance coverage at diagnosis, a 1-year look-back period prior to the index diagnosis, no prior malignancies in the 1-year period before index diagnosis, and had received ≥1 LOT. RESULTS: Among patients who did not receive ASCT (non-transplant; n = 22,062), 12,557 (57%) received only 1 LOT and 9505 (43%) received > 1 LOT. Patients receiving only 1 LOT were significantly older, had higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores, and higher incidences of comorbidities. Among the 2763 patients receiving ASCT, 2184 received > 1 LOT, and 579 (21%) received only 1 LOT (ie, ASCT was the last treatment). 1682 (61%) patients received induction therapy as frontline treatment, of whom 187 (11%) also received consolidation therapy. The latter group was younger than those who received only induction therapy, had lower mean CCI scores, and comparable or lower incidences of selected comorbidities. The most common frontline therapy for non-transplant and transplant-eligible patients was bortezomib/dexamethasone and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, respectively. Attrition rates across all LOTs were high for non-transplant patients (range, 43-57%) and transplant patients (range, 21-37%). Treatment duration decreased by LOT for non-transplant patients and was consistent across LOTs for transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, a substantial proportion of patients with NDMM who received frontline therapy did not appear to receive a subsequent LOT. These high attrition rates underscore the need to use the most optimal treatment regimens upfront rather than reserving them for later LOTs in which the clinical benefit may decrease.

Daratumumab Plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone Versus Standard of Care in Latin America for Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 ALCYONE study demonstrated significantly longer progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) and higher overall response rates (ORR) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In Latin America, bortezomib- or thalidomide-based regimens remain standard of care (SoC) for this population. No head-to-head trials have compared D-VMP with SoC regimens used in Latin America. METHODS: Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for baseline differences between patient populations and compare outcomes for D-VMP versus SoC regimens used in Latin America. Data for the D-VMP cohort were from the D-VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial (n = 350). Data for the SoC cohort were from the retrospective, observational Hemato-Oncology Latin America (HOLA) study, which included patients with NDMM who did not receive a transplant (n = 729). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression. Exact, optimal, and nearest-neighbor PSM were applied to pick the best-performing method. Doubly robust estimation was the base case, since some baseline imbalances persisted. RESULTS: All 350 patients from the D-VMP arm of ALCYONE were included in OS/PFS analyses and 338 in ORR analysis; 478 and 324 patients, respectively, from HOLA were included in these analyses. Naïve comparison revealed important differences in baseline characteristics (age, chronic kidney disease, hypercalcemia, and International Staging System [ISS] stage). After nearest-neighbor matching, baseline characteristics, except ISS stage, were well balanced; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for OS (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.66; P = 0.002) and PFS (hazard ratio = 0.48; 95% CI 0.35-0.67; P < 0.001). After exact matching, imbalances remained in age and ISS stage; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for ORR (odds ratio = 5.44; 95% CI 2.65-11.82; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM, D-VMP showed superior effectiveness versus bortezomib- and thalidomide-based regimens, supporting adoption of daratumumab-containing regimens in Latin America.

Daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs standard-of-care regimens: Efficacy in transplant-ineligible untreated myeloma.

Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (D-Rd) recently received FDA approval for the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The present PEGASUS study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with D-Rd in the MAIA trial and patients treated with common standard-of-care regimens from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which has data from patients treated primarily at community-based oncology practices in the United States. Individual-level patient data from both data sources were used to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of D-Rd to bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd); lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) was the common anchor for the ITC. Hazard ratios (HRs) reflecting direct comparisons of PFS within MAIA (D-Rd vs Rd) and Flatiron Health (VRd vs Rd; Vd vs Rd) were used to make ITCs for D-Rd vs VRd and Vd, respectively. After application of MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity-score weighting, the Flatiron Health patients resembled the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics. Based on the direct comparison within MAIA, treatment with D-Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.71). Based on the ITCs, D-Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and Vd (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.69). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd to VRd or Vd, the present ITC may help inform treatment selection in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM.