Management of patients with multiple myeloma beyond the clinical-trial setting: understanding the balance between efficacy, safety and tolerability, and quality of life.

Treatment options in multiple myeloma (MM) are increasing with the introduction of complex multi-novel-agent-based regimens investigated in randomized clinical trials. However, application in the real-world setting, including feasibility of and adherence to these regimens, may be limited due to varying patient-, treatment-, and disease-related factors. Furthermore, approximately 40% of real-world MM patients do not meet the criteria for phase 3 studies on which approvals are based, resulting in a lack of representative phase 3 data for these patients. Therefore, treatment decisions must be tailored based on additional considerations beyond clinical trial efficacy and safety, such as treatment feasibility (including frequency of clinic/hospital attendance), tolerability, effects on quality of life (QoL), and impact of comorbidities. There are multiple factors of importance to real-world MM patients, including disease symptoms, treatment burden and toxicities, ability to participate in daily activities, financial burden, access to treatment and treatment centers, and convenience of treatment. All of these factors are drivers of QoL and treatment satisfaction/compliance. Importantly, given the heterogeneity of MM, individual patients may have different perspectives regarding the most relevant considerations and goals of their treatment. Patient perspectives/goals may also change as they move through their treatment course. Thus, the 'efficacy' of treatment means different things to different patients, and treatment decision-making in the context of personalized medicine must be guided by an individual's composite definition of what constitutes the best treatment choice. This review summarizes the various factors of importance and practical issues that must be considered when determining real-world treatment choices. It assesses the current instruments, methodologies, and recent initiatives for analyzing the MM patient experience. Finally, it suggests options for enhancing data collection on patients and treatments to provide a more holistic definition of the effectiveness of a regimen in the real-world setting.

Predicting venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: development and validation of the IMPEDE VTE score.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) developed guidelines recommending primary thromboprophylaxis, in those identified at high-risk of VTE by the presence of risk factors. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has adopted these guidelines; however, they lack validation. We sought to develop and validate a risk prediction score for VTE in MM and to evaluate the performance of the current IMWG/NCCN guidelines. Using 4446 patients within the Veterans Administration Central Cancer Registry, we used time-to-event analyses to develop a risk score for VTE in patients with newly diagnosed MM starting chemotherapy. We externally validated the score using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (N = 4256). After identifying independent predictors of VTE, we combined the variables to develop the IMPEDE VTE score (Immunomodulatory agent; Body Mass Index ≥25 kg/m2 ; Pelvic, hip or femur fracture; Erythropoietin stimulating agent; Dexamethasone/Doxorubicin; Asian Ethnicity/Race; VTE history; Tunneled line/central venous catheter; Existing thromboprophylaxis). The score showed satisfactory discrimination in the derivation cohort, c-statistic = 0.66. Risk of VTE significantly increased as score increased (hazard ratio 1.20, P = <.0001). Within the external validation cohort, IMPEDE VTE had a c-statistic of 0.64. For comparison, when evaluating the performance of the IMWG/NCCN guidelines, the c-statistic was 0.55. In summary, the IMPEDE VTE score outperformed the current IMWG/NCCN guidelines and could be considered as the new standard risk stratification for VTE in MM.