Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: Czech Registry Data.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%). RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P = .275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice.

Identification of patients with smouldering multiple myeloma at ultra-high risk of progression using serum parameters: the Czech Myeloma Group model.

Smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM) presents without MM defining symptoms. We aimed to identify patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression within 2 years using only serum parameters. In total, 527 patients with SMM were included and divided into a training group (287 patients from the Czech Myeloma Group [CMG]) and an independent validation group (240 patients from Heidelberg). The median follow-up was 2·4 and 2·5 years, respectively. Progression to MM occurred in 51·9% of the CMG and 38·8% of the Heidelberg patients, respectively. The median risk of progression was 11·0% (CMG) and 9·7% (Heidelberg) per year, during the 5 years after diagnosis. A serum involved/uninvolved free light-chain ratio of >30, immunoparesis, and serum monoclonal (M) protein of ≥2·3 g/dl emerged as powerful predictors of 2-year progression rate with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2·49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1·49-4·17), HR of 2·01 (95% CI 1·36-2·96) and HR of 2·00 (95% CI 1·44-2·79) (P < 0·001) in univariate Cox regression analysis, respectively. Based on this, the CMG model identified patients with SMM with a 2-year risk of progression of 78·7% (95% CI 53·1-95·7; HR 6·8; P < 0·001, CMG) and 81·3% (95% CI 47·1-98·8; HR 38·63; P < 0·001, Heidelberg). Serum parameters in the CMG model allow identification of patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression to symptomatic MM within 2 years.

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.

Validation of multiple myeloma risk stratification indices in routine clinical practice: Analysis of data from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies.

This study used data from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies to validate the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and revised International Staging System (R-ISS) indices for risk stratification in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in clinical practice. Patients were included if they had symptomatic MM, complete data allowing R-ISS and IMWG staging (including cytogenetic information regarding t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p)), and key parameters for treatment evaluation. Median overall survival (OS) in included patients (n = 550) was 47.7 (95% CI: 39.5-55.9) and 46.2 (95% CI: 38.9-53.5) months from diagnosis and initiation of first-line therapy, respectively. Patients categorized as higher vs lower risk had reduced survival; median OS from diagnosis was 35.4 (95% CI: 30.5-40.3) vs 58.3 (95% CI: 53.8-62.9) months in high-risk vs other patients (IMWG; P = .001) and 34.1 (95% CI: 30.2-38.0) vs 47.2 (95% CI: 43.4-51.0) months in Stage III vs Stage II patients (R-ISS; P < .001). In conclusion, IMWG and R-ISS risk stratification indices are applicable to patients with MM in a real-world setting.