Carfilzomib, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone As Second-line Therapy for Lenalidomide-refractory Multiple Myeloma.

This phase 2 trial investigated reinduction with carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) and continuous pomalidomide/dexamethasone in patients at first progression during lenalidomide maintenance. The second objective was to evaluate high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM/ASCT) at first progression. Patients were eligible who had progressive disease according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Treatment consisted of 8 cycles carfilzomib (20/36 mg/m2), pomalidomide (4 mg) and dexamethasone. Patients without prior transplant received HDM/ASCT. Pomalidomide 4 mg w/o dexamethasone was given until progression. One hundred twelve patients were registered of whom 86 (77%) completed 8 cycles of KPd. Thirty-five (85%) eligible patients received HDM/ASCT. The median time to discontinuation of pomalidomide w/o dexamethasone was 17 months. Best response was 37% ≥ complete response, 75% ≥ very good partial response, 92% ≥ partial response, respectively. At a follow-up of 40 months median PFS was 26 and 32 months for patients who received KPd plus HDM/ASCT and 17 months for patients on KPd (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.00, P = 0.051). PFS was better after longer duration of prior lenalidomide (HR 3.56, 95% CI 1.42-8.96, P = 0.035). Median overall survival (OS) was 67 months. KPd-emerging grade 3 and 4 adverse events included hematologic (41%), cardiovascular (6%), respiratory (3%), infections (17%), and neuropathy (2%). KPd followed by continuous pomalidomide is an effective and safe triple drug regimen in second-line for patients previously exposed to bortezomib and/or refractory to lenalidomide.

Adjusted comparison between elotuzumab and carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as salvage therapy for multiple myeloma patients.

The lack of a randomized trial comparing carfilzomib (K) versus elotuzumab (Elo) associated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) prompted us to assess the relative usefulness of one triplet over the other. Five independent retrospective cohorts of 883 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients, including 300 EloRd and 583 KRd cases, outside clinical trials, entered this non-randomized comparison. KRd cohort accounted for a higher incidence of younger patients, cases with ≥3 lines of therapy, already exposed to lenalidomide, International Staging System (ISS) stage III, and abnormal lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level compared with EloRd cohort. Moreover, cytogenetic risk categories, detected in roughly one-third of cases, were equally distributed between the two therapy arms. The probability of CR+VGPR response was significantly higher in KRd (n = 314, 53.9%) than in EloRd patients (n = 111, 37.0%). Likewise, the cumulative incidence function of CR+VGPR, taking into account the competitive risk of death, was significantly higher in KRd arm patients than those in the EloRd arm (p = .003). Moreover, KRd treatment significantly reduced the progression or death risk by 46% in an adjusted multivariate analysis (HR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, p < .0001). Finally, in an adjusted illness-progression/death model, the effect of KRd versus EloRd was of higher magnitude among those who achieved CR+VGPR (-39% hazard ratio reduction, p = .02) than among those who achieved < VGPR (-29% hazard ratio reduction, p = .007). With limitations characteristic to any retrospective analysis, this current clinical practice study's overall results demonstrated potential benefits of KRd therapy compared with EloRd. This observation may help the daily clinical practice.

Place in therapy of innovative drugs in multiple myeloma in 2021 and 2023 according to an expert panel Delphi consensus.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to understand the potential use of single agents and drug combinations in multiple myeloma (MM) across treatment lines in the years 2021 and 2023. Methods: The method used was Delphi Panel Method survey, administered to European Myeloma Network (EMN) Italy Working Group centres. Future treatments were identified assessing all available web-based information sources, including therapies (single drugs or combinations) with strong evidence of efficacy, likely to be on the Italian market in 2021 and 2023. Participants were asked to report on the likelihood of prescription for MM therapies, across treatment lines. Results: Across the 15 centres taking part in the survey, about 890 patients per year are forecasted to receive a new diagnosis of MM. In 2021, the Panel forecasted 66% of 1L-TE (transplant eligible) patients will be treated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and 32% of patients with daratumumab-bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (DVTd), with a substantial decrease of VTD (15%) and a marked increase of DVTd (81%) forecasted for 2023. The 2L and 3L R(lenalidomide)-based combination treatments are expected to drop and will likely be substituted by a steep increase in P(pomalidomide)-based regimes (from 7% to 23%). On the contrary, in 3L treatment, all combination therapies (with the exception of IsaPd - isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone) are expected to lose market share in favour of the most recent new therapies. Conclusions: Expert Panel agrees that many different new drugs and combinations will be used in MM, with different mechanisms of action, both at diagnosis and in subsequent phases of the disease, with a corresponding decline of the drugs currently used.

Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) versus bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone (VMP) in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A comparison of two prospective trials.

There are currently no direct head-to-head clinical trials evaluating bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) versus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). VMP (257 cases) and Rd (222 cases) arms of two randomized phase III trials were employed to assess the treatment influence on outcome in untreated elderly MM patients. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary and secondary end-points, respectively, and were investigated according to treatments administered over a 60-months follow-up period. While VMP significantly reduced the disease progression rate between enrolment and 12 months of follow-up, no difference between the two schedules was found between 12 and 32 months. After 32 months, Rd-treated patients had a lower incidence of disease progression. A statistically significant higher OS rate was seen in the VMP arm, which was maintained after data adjustment for potential confounders. Both approaches showed acceptable toxicity profiles. The profound tumor reduction by VMP over Rd justifies the initial higher PFS rate in favor of the bortezomib schedule, while the Rd regimen overcomes this evident initial drawback in reducing the tumor burden by long-term drug administration, gaining a subsequent improved disease control. VMP is associated with a significant reduced risk of death. This study may help physicians make a more informed therapy choice.