A pooled analysis of outcomes according to cytogenetic abnormalities in patients receiving ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for multiple myeloma.

Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.

Once Monthly Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Observation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Elotuzumab and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd) is a standard salvage chemotherapy for multiple myeloma, and elotuzumab is commonly administered every 2 weeks after cycle 3 (conventional ERd). Alternatively, elotuzumab may often be used every 4 weeks (monthly ERd) in real-world practice. The purpose of this multicenter observational study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy and tolerability between conventional and monthly ERd regimens for the myeloma patients in six institutes retrospectively. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in this study. The median patient age was 68 years. The median number of prior chemotherapies was two (1-5). The number of patients with prior lenalidomide exposure was 57 (76.0%). The numbers of progressive disease (PD) and non-PD before ERd were 23 (30.7%) and 52 (69.3%), respectively. The frequency of PD before ERd was significantly lower in the monthly ERd group than in the conventional ERd group. In 26.9 months of median follow-up period, the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate in the monthly ERd group was significantly longer than that in the conventional ERd group (95.0% and 62.0%, hazard ratio 0.082, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference in PFS between these two ERd groups was found using multivariate analysis. The complete response rates were similar between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (55.0% and 32.7%, p = 0.109). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (35.0% and 54.5%, p = 0.192). There was no significant difference in the kinetics of the mean absolute lymphocyte count, CD4, CD8, CD16, CD56, and CD57 positive lymphocyte counts, and CD4 to CD8 ratio between the monthly and conventional ERd groups. DISCUSSION: The efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd were similar to those of conventional ERd. Thus, monthly ERd might be a reasonable option, considering the quality of life of patients and convenience.

Evolving therapies for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

The development in the therapeutic landscape of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) has substantially lagged behind other hematologic malignancies with no new drug approvals for MDS for 13 years since the approval of decitabine in the United States in 2006. While therapeutic concepts for MDS patients continue to be primarily defined by clinical-pathologic risk stratification tools such as the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version IPSS-R, our understanding of the genetic landscape and the molecular pathogenesis of MDS has greatly evolved over the last decade. It is expected that the therapeutic approach to MDS patients will become increasingly individualized based on prognostic and predictive genetic features and other biomarkers. Herein, we review the current treatment of lower-risk MDS patients and discuss promising agents in advanced clinical testing for the treatment of symptomatic anemia in lower-risk MDS patients such as luspatercept and imetelstat. Lastly, we review the clinical development of new agents and the implications of the wider availability of mutational analysis for the management of individual MDS patients.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. RESULTS: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

Contemporary management of nodal and primary splenic marginal zone lymphoma.

Introduction: Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) accounts for approximately 10% of all cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and includes 3 clinically distinct subtypes: extranodal (MALT), splenic (SMZL), and nodal (NMZL). Though commonly grouped in trials of iNHL the clinical behavior, molecular features, and response to therapy of MZL is distinct from other iNHL subtypes and varies among MZL subtypes.Areas covered: This review focuses on the contemporary management of NMZL and SMZL. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies, chemoimmunotherapy, BTK inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, Bcl2 inhibitors, lenalidomide, and CAR-T cell therapy will be covered.Expert opinion: In the era of targeted medicine, the need to develop MZL specific clinicogenetic models with prognostic and predictive value in both the frontline and relapsed/refractory setting is becoming increasingly apparent. Due to the relative rarity of each MZL subtype, the use of novel trial design with correlative studies is imperative to advance the field.

Eficacia y seguridad del uso de daratumumab más lenalidomida y dexametasona, en comparación con lenalidomida más dexametasona, en el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con mieloma multiple refractarios o en recaída luego de al menos una línea de quimioterapia / Efficacy and safety of the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, compared with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, in the treatment of adult patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma after at least one line of chemotherapy

INTRODUCCIÓN: El presente dictamen expone la evaluación de tecnología de la eficacia y seguridad de daratumumab más lenalidomida y dexametasona, en comparación con lenalidomida más dexametasona, en el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con mieloma múltiple refractario o en recaída luego de al menos una línea de tratamiento. El mieloma múltiple (MM) es una enfermedad caracterizada por una proliferación neoplásica de un clon único de células plasmáticas que producen una inmunoglobulina monoclonal, las cuales se acumulan en la médula ósea. Dicha acumulación lleva a una destrucción ósea masiva, manifestándose en dolor óseo, osteopenia, lesiones osteolíticas y fracturas patológicas. En Perú, se estimó una incidencia anual de 995 casos de MM para el 2018, lo que representaría el 1.7% del total de pacientes con cáncer en el país, según el reporte GLOBOCAN 2018. Las causas del MM son aún desconocidas, se trata de una enfermedad tratable pero que aún no tiene cura. La mediana de sobrevida de los pacientes con MM se encuentra alrededor de 5 años, y la mayoría de los pacientes recibe 4 o más líneas de tratamiento a lo largo del curso de la enfermedad. El tratamiento de MM en el caso específico de pacientes en recaída o refractariedad va a depender de diversos factores, entre los cuales se encuentra el tratamiento previo recibido y la tolerabilidad de cada paciente. En la actualidad, el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud cuenta con lenalidomida en combinación con dexametasona para el tratamiento de pacientes con MM en recaída o refractariedad en progresión de enfermedad que hayan recibido al menos una línea de tratamiento previo. En este contexto, se envió al IETSI la solicitud de evaluación de la adición de daratumumab al esquema mencionado, sobre la hipótesis de una posible mayor eficacia del esquema triple (e.g., daratumumab en combinación con lenalidomida y dexametasona) frente al esquema doble (e.g., lenalidomida con dexametasona). Por ello, el presente dictamen tuvo como objetivo evaluar la eficacia y seguridad comparativa de daratumumab en combinación con lenalidomida y dexametasona versus el esquema de solo lenalidomida en combinación con dexametasona en la población mencionada. METODOLOGÍA: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad de daratumumab más lenalidomida y dexametasona, en comparación con lenalidomida más dexametasona, en el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con mieloma múltiple refractario o en recaída luego de la menos una línea de tratamiento en las bases de datos de PubMed, Cochrane Library, el metabuscador TRIPdatabase y el sitio web www.clinicaltrials.gov. Adicionalmente, se realizó una búsqueda de evaluaciones de tecnologías y guías de práctica clínica en las páginas web de grupos dedicados a la investigación y educación en salud en general como The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), Instituto de Evaluación de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS), Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnología en Salud (IETS); y centros especializados en oncología como European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) y American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con la pregunta PICO, se llevó a cabo una búsqueda de evidencia científica relacionada al uso de daratumumab más lenalidomida y dexametasona, en comparación con lenalidomida más dexametasona, en el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con mieloma múltiple refractario o en recaída luego de al menos una línea de tratamiento. En la presente sinopsis se describe la evidencia disponible según el tipo de publicación, siguiendo lo indicado en los criterios de elegibilidad (GPC, ETS, RS, MA y ECA fase III). CONCLUSIONES: El presente dictamen expone la evidencia relacionada a la eficacia y seguridad del uso del esquema triple de daratumumab en combinación con lenalidomida y dexametasona, en comparación con el esquema doble de solo lenalidomida más dexametasona en el tratamiento de pacientes con MM en recaída o refractarios luego de al menos una línea de tratamiento previo. La evidencia identificada para la presente evaluación corresponde a cuatro GPC (NICE, ESMO, NCCN y ASCO), cuatro ETS (NICE, SMC, CADTH e IQWiG) y un ECA de fase III. Dos de las cuatro GPC identificadas (ASCO y NCCN) recomiendan el uso de un esquema triple por encima de un esquema doble, y dentro de las alternativas de esquema triple recomienda el esquema de daratumumab más lenalidomida más dexametasona. Por otro lado, la GPC de ESMO recomienda esquemas dobles y triples sin un orden jerárquico, y la GPC de NICE recomienda únicamente el esquema doble de lenalidomida con dexametasona. Las recomendaciones sobre el uso del esquema triple con daratumumab se basan en el ensayo clínico de fase III incluido en el presente dictamen, donde, brevemente, solo se observan beneficios en SLP más no en SG ni calidad de vida. De las ETS identificadas que evaluaron el esquema triple con daratumumab, las de SMC y CADTH concluyeron en recomendar su financiamiento dentro de sus determinados contextos, siempre y cuando se cuente con un acuerdo económico con la compañía comercializadora que permita que el esquema sea costo-efectivo para los sistemas de salud correspondientes. Dichas evaluaciones económicas no son extrapolables al contexto de nuestro país, donde no se cuenta con soporte legal para negociaciones de precios. Por otro lado, la ETS de IQWiG concluye que existe un beneficio en términos de SG a favor de daratumumab únicamente para el subgrupo de mujeres, mientras que el beneficio para hombres no ha sido probado; es de notar que debido al diseño del estudio los análisis por subgrupo solo pueden ser considerados exploratorios. Asimismo, el análisis realizado por IQWi no consideró el ajuste por sobrestimación en análisis interinos descrito por Bassler et al. Por último, no se observaron diferencias para los desenlaces de calidad de vida, mientras que se observó una mayor frecuencia de eventos adversos severos asociados al tratamiento con daratumumab. En el ECA de fase III identificado para responder a la pregunta PICO se tiene que no se reportan desenlaces relacionados a la calidad de vida, y se muestran resultados de SG de un análisis interino. Los resultados reportados en el ensayo sobre la SG muestran una ausencia de diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los brazos de estudio (HR: 0.64; IC95%: 0.40-1.01; p=0.0534, RR: 0.65; IC95%: 0.42-1.01; p=0.056), la cual se acentúa aún más luego de la corrección por sobreestimación en análisis interinos descrita por Bassler et al., 2010 (RR: 0.9; IC95%: 0.59-1.42). Dichos resultados ajustados se condicen con la comunicación corta publicada luego de 3 años de seguimiento, donde no se observan diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos. Con ello se tiene que, el esquema triple con daratumumab no ha mostrado un beneficio en términos de SG ni calidad adicional al ofrecido por el esquema doble con solo lenalidomida y dexametasona, el cual se encuentra disponible en la institución para el tratamiento de pacientes con MM en recaída o refractariedad previamente tratados. A ello se suma un perfil de seguridad desfavorable para el esquema con daratumumab, donde se observa una mayor ocurrencia de eventos adversos serios y posiblemente menor tolerabilidad por los eventos adversos asociados a la infusión de daratumumab, los cuales no se encuentran en el esquema doble administrado oralmente. Por lo expuesto, el IETSI no aprueba el uso del esquema triple de daratumumab en los pacientes con MM en recaída o refractariedad luego de al menos una línea de tratamiento.

Hyaluronic acid tethered pH-responsive alloy-drug nanoconjugates for multimodal therapy of glioblastoma: An intranasal route approach.

In the present investigation, FePt alloy nanoparticles were synthesized with controlled size and elemental composition followed by surface modification using (3-Aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (APTES). Lenalidomide was covalently bound to FePt-NH2 by pH sensitive hydrazone bonding. Hyaluronic acid was conjugated to amino groups of APTES while lactoferrin (Lf) was directly conjugated to excess carboxylic group present on hyaluronic acid (HA) to form surface modified pH sensitive alloy-drug nanoconjugates (SPANs). The multifunctional nanoconjugates were characterized and evaluated using extensive in vitro and in vivo techniques. The nanoconjugates demonstrated excellent heating ability on exposure to alternating magnetic field and near-infrared laser irradiation. The acidic microenvironment of lysozome triggered release of LND from SPANs. Owing to leaching of Fe and Pt contents, SPANs demonstrated ability to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) in U87MG cell line which further enhanced therapeutic effect of SPANs. Significant difference in cell viability suppression was observed in in vitro photothermal, chemo-photothermal and chemo-magnetophotothermal killing of cancer cells using SPANs in U87MG cell lines. Significant difference in heating ability and cell cytotoxicity of SPANs in comparison to alternative magnetic field and NIR irradiation was observed for DUAL-mode exposure of SPANs. The results of cellular internalization study showed efficient internalization of SPANs inside U87MG cells. The in vivo results (both qualitative and quantitative) confirmed enhanced uptake of SPANs in brain after intranasal administration with enhanced nasal and mucus penetration owing to presence of Lf. No significant interaction was observed with ECM and mucin due to presence of carboxyl group on SPANs.

Evaluating the use of appropriate anticoagulation with lenalidomide and pomalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide and pomalidomide are two immunomodulatory medications with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma; however, a black box warning for venous thromboembolism exists. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess overall adherence to guideline recommendations for anticoagulation therapy with lenalidomide and pomalidomide in multiple myeloma patients. METHODS: This retrospective study at an ambulatory oncology clinic utilized chart reviews from the calendar years 2013-2016. The primary endpoint was prescription of appropriate anticoagulation upon initiation of therapy based on a list of predetermined risk factors. Secondary endpoints included incidence of deep venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleed; initial anticoagulant prescribed; and whether or not anticoagulation was prescribed for another disease state. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients met inclusion criteria: 70.8% (n = 92) and 29.2% (n = 38) were prescribed lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. A total risk score of two was most common (n = 54, 41.5%). Aspirin 81 mg oral tablet was prescribed most often (n = 53, 40.8%), followed by no anticoagulation (n = 30, 23.1%). Overall, 27 patients (20.8%) were prescribed anticoagulation in accordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Incidence of deep venous thromboembolism was the most common adverse event (n = 4, 3.1%), followed by major bleed (n = 1, 0.8%). No reports of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, or stroke were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a disparity exists between appropriate prescribing of prophylactic anticoagulation and current practice guidelines. However, documentation of thromboembolic events was lower than recorded in previously published literature.

Novel agents for primary central nervous system lymphoma: evidence and perspectives.

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare aggressive extranodal non- Hodgkin lymphoma. Although high remission rates can be achieved with high-dose methotrexate-based immunochemotherapy, risk of relapse and associated death is still substantial in at least a third of patients. Novel agents for treating lymphoid malignancies have substantially enriched treatment options for PCNSL. We herein systematically review the existing clinical evidence of novel agents in treatment of PCNSL, summarize ongoing studies, and discuss perspectives. The body of evidence for novel agents is still limited to noncomparative studies, but the most promising approaches include Bruton kinase inhibition with ibrutinib and immunomodulatory treatment (eg, with lenalidomide). Targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway does not seem to have a meaningful clinical benefit, and evidence of checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab is limited to anecdotal evidence. Future studies should embrace the concept of induction and maintenance therapy as well as the combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action. Selection of patients based on molecular profiling and relapse patterns should be another aspect informing future comparative trials, which are urgently needed to improve prognosis for patients with PCNSL.

Overview on the management of non-gastric MALT lymphomas.

Extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphomas (EMZLs) of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) are indolent lymphomas which can present at any extranodal site. The most frequent localizations (other than stomach) are ocular adnexa, salivary gland, skin, lung and thyroid. Chronic inflammation and antigenic stimulation are a potential risk for the development of MALT lymphomas. While Helicobacter Pylori (HP) is known to be associated with gastric MALT lymphoma and antibiotic therapy is effective in the setting of HP-positive, other microorganisms (such as Chlamydophila Psittaci, Campylobacter Jejiuni, Borrelia Burgdoferi) have been implicated in the pathogenesis of non-gastric MALT lymphomas. However, antibiotic therapy has not been extensively investigated for the non-gastric type, except for ocular adnexal MALT lymphoma, which could benefit from an upfront treatment with doxycycline. Surgery, radiotherapy, Rituximab alone or in combination with chemotherapy and "chemo-free" approaches, including lenalidomide, have shown efficacy in the treatment of non-gastric MALT lymphomas.