The real-world use and efficacy of pomalidomide for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the era of CD38 antibodies.

Pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) has been a standard care treatment for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma since 2013. However, the outcomes of Pd after exposure to CD38 antibodies are not known. Here we describe the real-world use and efficacy of pomalidomide in a Danish, nationwide cohort of daratumumab-exposed patients. We identified 328 patients that were treated with pomalidomide. Of these, 137 received Pd, 65 daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (DPd), 43 pomalidomide-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (PCd), 19 carfilzomib-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (KPD), 11 pomalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (PVd), and 52 pomalidomide in other combinations. Patients treated with Pd in this cohort had a partial response or better (≥ PR) rate of 35.8% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) of 4.9 months, almost identical to the results of previous prospective clinical trials. Although treatment with the various pomalidomide-containing triplet regimens resulted in higher ≥ PR rates (PCd: 46.5%, PVd: 63.6%, DPd: 55.4%, KPd: 63.2%), the mTNT achieved was not significantly better than with Pd in most cases (PCD: 5.4, PVD: 5.3, DPD: 4.7 months). The exception to this was KPd (mTNT 7.4 months), but this regimen was mainly used earlier in the course of the disease (median time from diagnosis 2.3 years vs. 3.7-4.3 years). The most important predictor of outcomes was not the choice of index regimen (p = 0.72), but prior exposure (p = 0.0116). Compared to CD38 antibody-naïve patients, triple-class-exposed patients achieved reduced ≥ PR rate (38.0% vs. 47.3%), shorter mTNT (4.0 vs. 5.9 months), and shorter median overall survival (12.4 vs. 24.2 months) with pomalidomide treatment.

Geographical and ecological analyses of multiple myeloma in Denmark: Identification of potential hotspot areas and impact of urbanisation.

BACKGROUND: The aetiology of multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown but various environmental exposures are suspected as risk factors. We present the first paper analysing the geographical distribution of MM in Denmark at the municipal level to investigate variations that could be explained by environmental exposures. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with MM in Denmark during 2005-2020 were identified from nationwide registries and grouped into the 98 Danish municipalities based on residence. The age- and sex-standardised incidence rate (SIR) of each municipality was compared to the national incidence in a funnel plot with 95% control limits. Differences in SIRs of rural, suburban, and urban areas were evaluated with incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: In total, 5243 MM patients were included. Overall, we found a heterogeneous geographical distribution of MM and a potential hotspot in southern Denmark. This hotspot contains three municipalities with SIRs above the 95% control limit assuming considerably higher rate of MM compared to the national incidence rate. A significant higher SIR was found in rural areas compared to urban areas. CONCLUSION: The geographical distribution of MM in Denmark indicates that the risk of developing MM depends on place of residence probably due to environmental factors.

Outcome data from >10 000 multiple myeloma patients in the Danish and Swedish national registries.

OBJECTIVE: We describe real-world evidence (RWE) from the nationwide Swedish and Danish registries that provide important information on incidence and outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). METHOD: First line treatment data on more than 10.000 MM patients from Denmark and Sweden between 2005-2018 are presented. Key results from research conducted within the Swedish and Danish myeloma registries are summarized, describing subgroups of patients with comorbidity, myeloma complications, and early relapse. RESULTS: We show that national guidelines, generated on results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are rapidly implemented and improve overall survival (OS). We find that both the incidence of MM and the median age at diagnosis is higher in national registries compared to results from referral centres, indicating a more complete coverage. This highlights the need of validation of prognostic scoring systems and indices in e.g., SMM and high-risk MM in a real- world-population. We show that these subgroups are unlikely to be captured in RCTs with narrow inclusion and exclusion criteria, that they have worse survival, and are in need of new treatment approaches. CONCLUSION: National registries that include all MM patients are an important source of knowledge on epidemiology, treatment and outcome with implications for the planning of MM care. Despite the introduction of new and better treatments, rapidly implemented in our countries, our registries uncover subgroups of patients that still have inferior outcome. Our RWE can help to identify important research questions to be studied in further clinical trials also in patients currently not included in RCTs.

The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab.

Most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials. We report real-world outcomes of all Danish patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with daratumumab-based regimens until 1 January 2019. METHODS: Information of 635 patients treated with daratumumab was collected retrospectively and included lines of therapy (LOT), hematologic responses according to the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, time to next treatment (TNT) and the cause of discontinuation of treatment. Baseline characteristics were acquired from the validated Danish Multiple Myeloma Registry (DMMR). RESULTS: Daratumumab was administrated as monotherapy (Da-mono) in 27.7%, in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (Da-IMiD) in 57.3%, in combination with proteasome inhibitors (Da-PI) in 11.2% and in other combinations (Da-other) in 3.8% of patients. The median number of lines of therapy given before daratumumab was 5 for Da-mono, 3 for Da-IMiD, 4 for Da-PI, and 2 for Da-other. In Da-mono, overall response rate (ORR) was 44.9% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) was 4.9 months. In Da-IMiD, ORR was 80.5%, and mTNT was 16.1 months. In Da-PI, OOR was 60.6% and mTNT was 5.3 months. In patients treated with Da-other, OOR was 54,2% and mTNT was 5.6 months. The use of daratumumab in early LOT was associated with longer TNT (p<0.0001). Patients with amplification 1q had outcome comparable to standard risk patients, while patients with t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p had worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that timing of treatment (timing of daratumumab in the sequence of all LOT that the patients received throughout the course of their disease) was the most important factor for outcome (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab are worse than the results of clinical trials. Outcomes achieved with daratumumab were best when daratumumab was used in combination with IMIDs and in early LOT. Patients with high-risk CA had worse outcomes, but patients with amp1q had similar outcomes to standard-risk patients.

Outcome of treatment with carfilzomib before and after treatment with daratumumab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients.

Real world evidence is important since most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In a nationwide, cohort of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab (N = 635), we retrospective studied patients treated with carfilzomib (N = 251). Data were collected by audit of medical records. We compared characteristics of patients treated with carfilzomib before daratumumab (Car-Da; N = 150) and after daratumumab (Da-Car; N = 101) with those not treated with carfilzomib (N = 384). Furthermore, we examined effectiveness and safety of carfilzomib. The group of patients treated with carfilzomib differed from patients not treated with carfilzomib in the following parameters: They were younger, more were treated up-front with high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT)and had relapse within 18 months thereafter, and more had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) and amplification 1q (amp1q). In patients treated with Car-Da, 30.3% had high-risk CA and 30.1% had amp1q and in Da-Car it was 43.3% and 41%, respectively. In the Car-Da cohort, 34.4% experienced early relapse after HDM-ASCT versus 47.4% in the Da-Car cohort. The percentage of patients with very good partial remission was higher in patients treated with Car-Da compared to Da-Car (31.7% vs. 17.4%). The median duration of treatment and time to next treatment (TNT) of Car-Da/Da-Car were 4.6/4.3 months and 7.1/4.3 months and only a trend toward superior TNT for Car-Da was found (p = 0.06). Toxicity of carfilzomib was the same as reported in RCT. A similar poor TNT of daratumumab was found when used before (5.6 months) or after carfilzomib (4.9 months). In this cohort of patients with sequential treatment with carfilzomib and daratumumab or vice versa, a high percentage of patients were high-risk by CA, amp1q, and early relapse after HDM-ASCT. Outcome of Car-DA and outcome of Da-Car were equally poor. These patients should be considered for new promising treatment strategies.