Update and European consensus on a patient-centered core outcome set for multiple myeloma in clinical practice and research.

Not available.

Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) for Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma: A European Myeloma Network (EMN) Report Within the HARMONY Project.

PURPOSE: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) show heterogeneous outcomes, and approximately 60% of them are at intermediate-risk according to the Revised International Staging system (R-ISS), the standard-of-care risk stratification model. Moreover, chromosome 1q gain/amplification (1q+) recently proved to be a poor prognostic factor. In this study, we revised the R-ISS by analyzing the additive value of each single risk feature, including 1q+. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The European Myeloma Network, within the HARMONY project, collected individual data from 10,843 patients with NDMM enrolled in 16 clinical trials. An additive scoring system on the basis of top features predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was developed and validated. RESULTS: In the training set (N = 7,072), at a median follow-up of 75 months, ISS, del(17p), lactate dehydrogenase, t(4;14), and 1q+ had the highest impact on PFS and OS. These variables were all simultaneously present in 2,226 patients. A value was assigned to each risk feature according to their OS impact (ISS-III 1.5, ISS-II 1, del(17p) 1, high lactate dehydrogenase 1, and 1q+ 0.5 points). Patients were stratified into four risk groups according to the total additive score: low (Second Revision of the International Staging System [R2-ISS]-I, 19.2%, 0 points), low-intermediate (II, 30.8%, 0.5-1 points), intermediate-high (III, 41.2%, 1.5-2.5 points), high (IV, 8.8%, 3-5 points). Median OS was not reached versus 109.2 versus 68.5 versus 37.9 months, and median PFS was 68 versus 45.5 versus 30.2 versus 19.9 months, respectively. The score was validated in an independent validation set (N = 3,771, of whom 1,214 were with complete data to calculate R2-ISS) maintaining its prognostic value. CONCLUSION: The R2-ISS is a simple prognostic staging system allowing a better stratification of patients with intermediate-risk NDMM. The additive nature of this score fosters its future implementation with new prognostic variables.

Pomalidomide in Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Prospective Study Within the Nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry.

Patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) generally have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. Previous trials demonstrated that pomalidomide combined with low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) is effective in these patients with significant responses and improved progression-free survival (PFS). Pd has been approved in RRMM patients who received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Here, we present the results of a population-based study of patients with RRMM treated with Pd in The Netherlands from time of pomalidomide approval. Using the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry, data from all nontrial patients with RRMM treated with Pd were collected. Data were analyzed of response, PFS, and overall survival (OS). A total of 237 patients were included in this analysis. Previous treatment consisted of a proteasome inhibitor in 227 patients (96%) and/or an immune-modulating agent in 235 patients (99%). One hundred forty patients (59%) were refractory to an immune-modulating agent in their last line of therapy. Median time from diagnosis to treatment with Pd was 4.9 years (interquartile range, 2.7-7.9), and the median number of prior treatments was 4 (interquartile range, 3-5). Median PFS and OS for all patients were 3.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-3.8) and 7.7 months (95% CI, 5.7-9.7), respectively. For patients achieving ≥PR, median PFS and OS were 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3-12.9) and 16.3 months (95% CI, 13.6-23.2), respectively. This nationwide, population-based registry study confirms data shown in pivotal clinical trials on Pd. PFS in this analysis is comparable to PFS observed in those clinical trials.

Consolidation and Maintenance in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: To address the role of consolidation treatment for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma in a controlled clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EMN02/HOVON95 trial compared consolidation treatment with two cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) or no consolidation after induction and intensification therapy, followed by continuous lenalidomide maintenance. Primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-eight eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive VRD consolidation (451 patients) or no consolidation (427 patients). At a median follow-up of 74.8 months, median PFS with adjustment for pretreatment was prolonged in patients randomly assigned to VRD consolidation (59.3 v 42.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96; P = .016). The PFS benefit was observed across most predefined subgroups, including revised International Staging System (ISS) stage, cytogenetics, and prior treatment. Revised ISS3 stage (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) and ampl1q (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.04) were significant adverse prognostic factors. The median duration of maintenance was 33 months (interquartile range 13-86 months). Response ≥ complete response (CR) after consolidation versus no consolidation before start of maintenance was 34% versus 18%, respectively (P < .001). Response ≥ CR on protocol including maintenance was 59% with consolidation and 46% without (P < .001). Minimal residual disease analysis by flow cytometry in a subgroup of 226 patients with CR or stringent complete response or very good partial response before start of maintenance demonstrated a 74% minimal residual disease-negativity rate in VRD-treated patients. Toxicity from VRD was acceptable and manageable. CONCLUSION: Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS and depth of response in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma as compared to maintenance alone.

EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVE: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). METHODS: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. RESULTS: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.

Phase II study of carfilzomib, thalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone as induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma; the Carthadex trial.

This is a phase II dose escalation trial of carfilzomib in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone for induction and consolidation in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The results of four dose levels are reported. Induction therapy consisted of four cycles of carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 (n=50), 20/36 mg/m2 (n=20), 20/45 mg/m2 (n=21), and 20/56 mg/m2 (n=20) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 of a 28-day cycle; thalidomide 200 mg on day 1 through 28 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Induction therapy was followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation and consolidation therapy with four cycles of carfilzomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone in the same schedule except a lower dose of thalidomide (50 mg). Very good partial response rate or better and complete response rate or better after induction therapy were 65% and 18%, respectively, increasing to 86% and 63%, respectively, after consolidation therapy. In all cohorts combined, after a median follow up of 58.7 months, median progression-free survival was 58 months (95%CI: 45-67 months). Median overall survival was 83 months (95%CI: 83 months-not reached). Grade 3/4 adverse events consisted mainly of infections, respiratory disorders, skin and vascular disorders in 11%, 8%, 9%, and 9%, respectively. Grade 3 polyneuropathy was only reported in one patient. Cardiac events were limited: grade 3/4 in 5% of patients. Carfilzomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone as induction and consolidation treatment after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation is highly efficacious and safe in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. This study was registered as #NTR2422 at http://www.trialregister.nl.

Polycystic liver: clinical characteristics of patients with isolated polycystic liver disease compared with patients with polycystic liver and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

AIM: The goal of this study was to compare the clinical features of patients with isolated polycystic liver disease (PCLD) with those of patients with polycystic liver and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). METHODS: Cases were identified from clinical records at the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver (USA) and at the Radboud University Hospital in Nijmegen (the Netherlands) by ICD-10 codes. To be included in this analysis, patients had to have an initial diagnosis of PCLD within six years of presentation to our clinics. Medical records were reviewed for demographic information, medical history, physical examination, symptoms, complications, laboratory and imaging results, therapy and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of a total of 94, 53 patients met our criteria for entering this study, 19 with PCLD and 34 with ADPKD. The mean time interval from diagnosis of PCLD to presentation in our clinics was 1.21 years for PCLD and 2.76 years for ADPKD (P=NS). PCLD was associated with female gender in both PCLD and ADPKD. Patients with PCLD had greater numbers (P=0.031), and larger sizes of liver cysts (P=0.0051), but had less associated morbidities than patients with ADPKD. Liver cyst decompressions were performed more frequently in PCLD patients (57.9 vs. 23.5%, P=0.012). However, serious hepatic complications, sufficient to require consideration of liver transplantation, were more frequent in patients with ADPKD (0/19 vs. 6/34, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although PCLD in patients with PCLD is characterized by larger and greater number of hepatic cysts, the clinical course is relatively benign compared with ADPKD.