Efficacy and Safety of Daratumumab, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone (DPd) Compared to Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (DVd) in Daratumumab-Naïve Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.

Daratumumab-based combinations with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DPd), or bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd), have shown activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. However, no direct comparisons of safety or efficacy of the two regimens have been published to date. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the safety and efficacy of DPd and DVd in daratumumab-naïve RRMM patients. We included 140 daratumumab-naïve patients who had received DPd or DVd for RRMM. Overall, the DPd group had a greater number of patients who had high-risk disease characteristics. Although response was deeper in the DPd group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups. The DPd group exhibited a higher incidence of hematologic toxicities, whereas the DVd group had a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy. The study results showed that while DPd may provide a deeper response, there was no significant difference in PFS or OS compared to DVd. For the high proportion of difficult-to-treat patients, duration of treatment may have contributed to these results, indicating that patient and disease characteristics should be considered when selecting salvage treatments.

Value in Myeloma Care: Myth or Reality.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite tremendous advances in multiple myeloma (MM) care, the disease maintains considerable morbidity and requires long-term treatment associated with significant financial toxicity to patients and high costs to society. In this review, we explore why - despite treatment advances - value in MM treatment is largely a myth, then explain some ways the myth might become a reality. RECENT FINDINGS: We discuss how value-based care in MM should include patient-centered outcomes such as financial toxicity and quality of life, which are heavily impacted by cost of drugs and the indefinite duration of therapy that is standard in MM treatment. We propose multiple paths to work toward reducing cost and augmenting value of care for patients with MM, including improving access to generic drugs, increasing federal funding for clinical trials, designing more patient-centric clinical trials, and exploring the utilization of minimal residual disease (MRD)-driven treatment de-escalation, among others. We remain optimistic that despite the challenges, we can work toward making progress in the realm of value-based care for patients with MM and make it a reality.

Financial toxicity in hematological malignancies: a systematic review.

Hematologic malignancy outcomes have remarkably improved in the past decade with further advancement expected in future years. However, the detrimental effects of financial toxicity (FT) on patients with hematologic malignancies, because of both diagnoses and subsequent treatments, have not been studied comprehensively. We performed a systematic review of all studies reporting FT as a primary or secondary outcome among adult or pediatric patients with hematological malignancies. A total of 55 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Across studies, 20-50% of patients reported some form of FT, including loss of work productivity, food and transportation costs, and depletion of savings. Younger age, lower-income level, unemployment, and rural residence were the most commonly identified risk factors for FT. Two studies looked at survival outcomes, with one reporting improvement in survival with a decrease in financial toxicity. However, significant heterogeneity in FT definitions was found between countries and payor systems. Only half of the studies (51%, n = 28) used validated survey instruments such as the COST assessment. The present systematic review identified that FT is common in patients with hematological malignancies and may be associated with poorer outcomes. However, studies of FT generally use non-standardized methods with cross-sectional analyses rather than longitudinal, prospective assessments. Further work is needed to standardize FT reporting and investigate measures to alleviate FT among patients with hematologic malignancies.