Safety of bendamustine for the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a UK real-world experience.

ABSTRACT: Bendamustine is among the most effective chemotherapeutics for indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL), but trial reports of significant toxicity, including opportunistic infections and excess deaths, led to prescriber warnings. We conducted a multicenter observational study evaluating bendamustine toxicity in real-world practice. Patients receiving at least 1 dose of bendamustine with/without rituximab (R) for iNHL were included. Demographics, lymphoma and treatment details, and grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) were analyzed and correlated. In total, 323 patients were enrolled from 9 National Health Service hospitals. Most patients (96%) received bendamustine-R, and 46%, R maintenance. Overall, 21.7% experienced serious AEs (SAE) related to treatment, including infections in 12%, with absolute risk highest during induction (63%), maintenance (20%), and follow-up (17%) and the relative risk highest during maintenance (54%), induction (34%), and follow-up (28%). Toxicity led to permanent treatment discontinuation for 13% of patients, and 2.8% died of bendamustine-related infections (n = 5), myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 3), and cardiac disease (n = 1). More SAEs per patient were reported in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, poor preinduction performance status (PS), poor premaintenance PS, and abnormal preinduction total globulins and in those receiving growth factors. Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis was variable, and 3 of 10 opportunistic infections occurred despite prophylaxis. In this real-world analysis, bendamustine-related deaths and treatment discontinuation were similar to those of trial populations of younger, fitter patients. Poor PS, mantle cell histology, and maintenance R were potential risk factors. Infections, including late onset events, were the most common treatment-related SAE and cause of death, warranting extended antimicrobial prophylaxis and infectious surveillance, especially for maintenance-treated patients.

Efficacy of Isatuximab With Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed Myeloma: Results of a UK-Wide Real-World Dataset.

Real-world data on the efficacy and tolerability of isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex) in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients have not been reported. In this UK-wide retrospective study, IsaPomDex outcomes were evaluated across 24 routine care cancer centers. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) for patients who achieved an objective response (≥partial response [PR]), and adverse events (AEs). In a total cohort 107 patients, median follow up (interquartile range [IQR]) was 12.1 months (10.1-18.6 mo), median age (IQR) was 69 years (61-77). Median (IQR) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was 3 (2-4); 43% had eGFR <60 mL/min. Median (IQR) number of prior therapies was 3 (3-3). Median (IQR) number of IsaPomDex cycles administered was 7 (3-13). ORR was 66.4%, with responses categorized as ≥ very good partial response: 31.8%, PR: 34.6%, stable disease: 15.9%, progressive disease: 15%, and unknown 2.8%. Median PFS was 10.9 months. Median DOR was 10.3 months. There was no statistical difference in median PFS by age (<65: 10.2 versus 65-74 13.2 versus ≥75: 8.5 mo, log-rank P = 0.4157), by CCI score (<4: 10.2 mo versus ≥4: 13.2, log-rank P = 0.6531), but inferior PFS was observed with renal impairment (≥60: 13.2 versus <60: 7.9 mo, log-rank P = 0.0408). Median OS was 18.8 months. After a median of 4 cycles, any grade AEs were experienced by 87.9% of patients. The most common ≥G3 AEs were neutropenia (45.8%), infections (18.7%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). Our UK-wide IsaPomDex study demonstrated encouraging efficacy outcomes in the real world, comparable to ICARIA-MM trial.

Infections in relapsed myeloma patients treated with isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial results of a UK-wide real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: There are no real-world data describing infection morbidity in relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with anti-CD38 isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex). In this UK-wide retrospective study, we set out to evaluate infections experienced by routine care patients who received this novel therapy across 24 cancer centres during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The primary endpoint was infection morbidity (incidence, grading, hospitalization) as well as infection-related deaths. Secondary outcomes were clinical predictors of increased incidence of any grade (G2-5) and high grade (≥G3) infections. RESULTS: In a total cohort of 107 patients who received a median (IQR) of 4 cycles (2-8), 23.4% of patients experienced ≥1 any grade (G2-5) infections (total of 31 episodes) and 18.7% of patients experienced ≥1 high grade (≥G3) infections (total of 22 episodes). Median time (IQR) from start of therapy to first episode was 29 days (16-75). Six patients experienced COVID-19 infection, of whom 5 were not vaccinated and 1 was fully vaccinated. The cumulative duration of infection-related hospitalizations was 159 days. The multivariate (MVA) Poisson Regression analysis demonstrated that a higher co-morbidity burden with Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) score ≥4 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3, p = 0.012) and sub-optimal myeloma response less than a partial response (

BCMA-targeted therapies for multiple myeloma: strategies to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse events.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapies targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma are transitioning through trials and entering the clinic, and will likely become a core pillar in myeloma therapeutics. These agents demonstrate unprecedented activity in multiply relapsed patients, but notwithstanding the short follow-up times their survival curves do not appear to demonstrate a plateau, and the treatments inevitably bring with them a range of toxicities that might be associated with tolerability issues. AREAS COVERED: We will briefly lay out the current therapeutic landscape in multiple myeloma, before introducing BCMA and explaining its significance. We will address in turn the three key classes of anti-BCMA immunotherapies: antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, and chimeric antigen receptor T cells. We describe the mechanisms of action of these classes and review the evidence supporting their efficacy and toxicities. We then bring all three therapies into one discussion that explores how to mitigate toxicities and overcome myeloma's ability to resist these potent treatments. EXPERT OPINION: Finally, we take the discussion back to the clinic, and consider how we might deploy anti-BCMA therapies most effectively for our patients. We consider the sequencing of treatment, and what further evidence is needed to more fully inform our therapy decisions.

Outcomes of anti-CD38 isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in five relapsed myeloma patients with prior exposure to anti-C38 daratumumab: case series.

Objectives: Daratumumab is the first anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (Mab) used to treat myeloma in the newly diagnosed setting and in the relapsed setting. Isatuximab, another Mab targeting a specific epitope on the CD38 receptor, was recently approved in the UK in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex) to treat myeloma patients who received three prior lines of therapy. However, there is a lack of understanding of whether using a prior anti-CD38 Mab (e.g. daratumumab) can affect the efficacy of another Mab (e.g. isatuximab), when the latter is used to treat a subsequent relapse.Methods: We performed a UK-wide outcomes study of IsaPomDex in the real-world. In this case series, we report a detailed descriptive analysis of the characteristics and clinical outcomes of five IsaPomDex patients in UK routine practice (Patients I to V), with a prior exposure to daratumumab.Results: Age range was 51-77 years with two patients >70 and three patients <70 years. The cytogenetic risk was standard in two patients, high in two patients and not known in one patient. Prior daratumumab regimen were monotherapy (dara-mono) in one patient (II), and daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) in four patients. Responses to prior daratumumab were: very good partial response (VGPR) in two patients (I and III), minor response-stable disease (MR-SD) in one patient (II), and progressive disease (PD) in two patients (IV and V). Median (range) number of IsaPomDex cycles received was 2 (1-4). Outcomes of IsaPomDex were PD in three patients (II, IV and V) and a response in two patients. Response categories were: MR-SD in patient I and PR in patient III.Discussion: Despite the limitations of our case series, we described the first UK real-world report of IsaPomDex outcomes in myeloma patients with a prior exposure to daratumumab.Conclusion: Large prospective studies are required to further evaluate myeloma outcomes in this setting.

Evaluation of the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the new frailty-based outcome prediction model (Myeloma Risk Profile-MRP) in a UK real-world cohort of elderly newly diagnosed Myeloma patients.

The management of myeloma in the elderly is shifting its focus towards reducing the risk of under-treating fit patients and the risk of over-treating frail patients. Frailty assessment is required in this patient group in order to individualise treatment decisions. In addition to the proven prognostic values of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score and the revised Myeloma Co-morbidity Index (R-MCI), a new easy-to-use frailty-based risk profile score (high-risk (i.e. frail), medium risk (i.e. intermediate-fitness) and low-risk (i.e. fit)) named Myeloma Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to be predictive of survival in the clinical trial setting. In this retrospective real-world study, we set out to evaluate the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the different MRP scoring algorithm categories (frail vs. intermediate vs fit), in a high risk cohort of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with the fixed-duration triplet therapy VCD (bortezomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone). Clinical outcomes included: reason for treatment discontinuation, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Out of 100 patients, 62 were frail, 27 were intermediate and 11 were fit, according to MRP scores. To enable meaningful comparisons between comparable numbers, subgroups analyses for ORR, OS, PFS, and AEs focused on frail (n = 62) versus intermediate or fit (n = 38) patients. The proportion of patients in each subgroup who were able to complete the planned course of treatment was (frail: 43.5% vs. intermediate or fit: 55.3%). A higher proportion in the frail subgroup discontinued therapy due to progressive disease (19.4% vs. 2.6%). Discontinuation due to toxicity was comparable across subgroups (14.5% vs. 15.8%), ORR in the total cohort was 75%, and this was comparable between subgroups (frail: 74.2% vs. intermediate or fit: 76.3%). There was a trend for a shorter median OS in the frail subgroup but without a statistical significance: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (46 months vs. not reached, HR: 1.94, 95% CI 0.89-4.2, p = 0.094). There was no difference in median PFS between subgroups: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (11.8 vs. 9.9 months, HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.61-1.61, P = 0.982). This cohort demonstrated a higher incidence rate of AEs in frail patients compared to those in the intermediate or fit group: patients with at least one any grade toxicity (85.5% vs. 71.1%), patients with at least one ≥G3 AE (37.1% vs. 21.1%). In conclusion, our study is to the first to evaluate clinical outcomes according to MRP in a high risk real-world cohort of patients treated exclusively with the proteasome inhibitor-based VCD therapy. Our study demonstrated a trend for worse OS in addition to worse AE outcomes in the frail group, but no difference in PFS with this fixed-duration therapy. MRP is an easy-to-use tool in clinical practice; its prognostic value was validated in the real-world in a large cohort of patients from the Danish Registry. Further evaluation of MRP in the real-world when continuous therapies are used, can further support the generalisability of its prognostic value in elderly myeloma patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of VCD chemotherapy in a UK real-world dataset of elderly transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the efficacy and tolerability of VCD chemotherapy in transplant-non-eligible (TNE) newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) patients. In this retrospective study, we set out to evaluate this triplet combination in this setting across Thames Valley Cancer Network (UK). METHODS: The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In a total cohort of 158 patients, ORR for total cohort was 72.1%. Median EFS was 10.5 months, and for subgroups by age (<75:11.7 vs ≥75:10.3 months, P = .124), by Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) (<5:11.1 vs ≥5:8.2 months, P = .345). The 4-month landmark analysis showed the following median EFS results: by cumulative bortezomib dose (≥26 mg/m2 : 9.0 months vs <26 mg/m2 : 6.4, P = .13), by cumulative cyclophosphamide dose (≥7000 mg: 9.2 vs <7000 mg: 7.0 months, P = .02) and by cumulative dexamethasone dose (>600 mg: 7.8 vs ≤600 mg: 8.3 months, P = .665). Median OS was 46.9 months. The incidence rate of AE was as follows: any grade (76.8%), ≥G3 (27.1%), ≥G3 haematological AEs (7.9%), any grade infections (31.1%) and ≥G3 infections (11.9%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a good ORR achieved from fixed duration VCD, which was reasonably well tolerated. This was followed by modest median EFS. We envisage that the latter may be improved in this patient group with the use of a higher cumulative bortezomib dose (≥26 mg/m2 ) which showed a trend for improved EFS although without statistical significance (P = .13), and with the use of a higher cumulative cyclophosphamide doses (≥7000 mg, P = .02), subject to tolerability and close monitoring.

Treatment-free interval as an additional measure of efficacy in a large UK dataset of transplant ineligible myeloma patients.

Treatment of transplant-ineligible (TNE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) requires a balance between disease control and maintaining quality of life (QoL). Patients value treatment-free remission periods in this incurable condition, as they are associated with better QoL. We set out to study clinical outcomes of consecutive TNE NDMM patients in routine care treated in Thames Valley Cancer Network between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the treatment-free interval (TFI) after 1st and subsequent lines of therapy in the total cohort and in individual subgroups, according to age (≤75 vs. >75 years), and co-morbidities using Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI): mild: 0-2 vs. moderate: 3-4 vs. severe: ≥5). Secondary outcomes include response rates, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between subgroups: according to age and according to co-morbidities. In a total cohort of 292 patients, median TFI (IQR) was longest after first-line therapy 6.9 months (1.4-16.9), reducing after second line therapy to 1.8 months (.7-6.9), and after third line therapy to 0.6 months (0.2-1.5). Median TFI followed the same trend across the different subgroups, by age (≤75, >75 years) and by CCI (0-2, 3-4, ≥5). Overall response rate (ORR) to first line therapy for total cohort was 67%, with responses categorised as complete response (CR): 21%, very good partial response: 16%, partial response: 30%, stable disease: 18%, and progressive disease: 8%. ORR in individual subgroups by age were (≤75: 70% vs. >75: 63%), and by CCI (0-2: 65% vs. 3-4: 71% vs. ≥5: 77%). Median OS and PFS for the total cohort were (30.2 months, 95% CI: 23.8-36.9), and (9 months, 95% CI: 7.9-9.8), respectively. Patients aged >75 years showed a significant reduction in OS and PFS compared to those ≤75 years of age: OS (49.0 vs. 22.4 months, p<0.0001, HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.5-2.8), PFS (9.7 vs. 8.0 months, p<0.01, HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9). Median OS was significantly reduced with worsening co-morbidities: (CCI 0-2: 52.4 months vs. CCI 3-4: 33.0 months vs. CCI ≥5: 24.0 months, p = 0.01, HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9). Median PFS was significantly reduced in the severely co-morbid subgroup (CCI 0-2: 9.4 months vs. CCI 3-4: 9.6 months vs. CCI ≥5: 7.1 months, p = 0.025, HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0-1.6). This study demonstrated that first line therapy in the TNE NDMM setting resulted in the longest TFI which was modest at a median of 6.9 months, and decreased significantly following subsequent lines of therapy and across the different subgroups by age and by co-morbidities. Therapy objective should be to maximise the benefit of first line treatment. We envisage that the recent shift towards a continuous therapeutic approach will benefit TNE patients in view of improved survival data demonstrated by a number phase 3 trials. When continuous therapy is not appropriate due to patient choice or toxicities, an efficacious (not limited to thalidomide and bortezomib) but tolerable first line FDT strategy, which can maximise TFI and maintain a good QoL, remains a reasonable alternative approach.

Efficacy of central nervous system prophylaxis with stand-alone intrathecal chemotherapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the rituximab era: a systematic review.

Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma remains uncommon but catastrophic. The benefit of standalone intrathecal prophylaxis in reducing CNS recurrence is unclear and remains controversial. No systematic review analysing the evidence for stand-alone intrathecal prophylaxis has been performed in the era of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy. A comprehensive search (01/2002-01/2019) was systematically performed using Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE® and Cochrane. Studies were selected from a total of 804, screened based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and were critically appraised. Three post hoc analyses (RICOVER-60, RCHOP-14/21, GOYA), one prospective database and 10 retrospective series were included. 7,357 rituximab/obinutuzumab-exposed patients were analysed. The median percentage receiving intrathecal prophylaxis was 11.9%. Cumulative CNS relapse incidence ranged from 1.9% at 6.5 years to 8.4% at 5 years. Median time (of medians) to CNS relapse was 10 months. 73% developed isolated CNS relapses, 24% concurrent CNS/systemic relapse, and 3% post-systemic relapse. Reported CNS relapse sites were: parenchymal (58%), leptomeningeal (27%), and both (12%). Event rates were low resulting in limited power within each study to provide robust univariable/multivariable analysis. Intrathecal prophylaxis was not a univariable or multivariable factor associated with a reduction in CNS relapse in any study. We found no strong evidence for the benefit, or indeed genuine lack of benefit, of stand-alone intrathecal prophylaxis in preventing CNS relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-treated patients using anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy. Current published study designs limit the strength of such conclusions.

Resource implications of bortezomib therapy in a large UK cohort: An evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib is a cornerstone in the management of multiple myeloma. It remains an attractive treatment option because it is efficacious, reasonably well tolerated and easy to administer. However, data on resource implications in the UK for both patients and healthcare providers are limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 127 patients to assess implications of bortezomib therapy on patients and healthcare resources. A patient-episode was defined as a patient attending the chemotherapy day treatment unit solely for bortezomib administration. Data were collected for the duration of therapy as follows: cost of drug calculated using the UK's bortezomib indicative price as per British National Formulary, cost of drug administration in the chemotherapy day treatment unit calculated using the National Health Service's schedule of service cost, time from check-in to drug administration, patient travel time and distance calculated using Google maps, and cost of travel. RESULTS: Median drug cost and administration cost per patient were £8336 (£2084-£108,368) and £4640 (£290-£15,080), respectively. Median time from check-in to administration was 63 min (range 5-433), median travel time was 90 min (range 8-270) and 80 min (range 8-280) during peak and off-peak periods, respectively. Median return travel distance was 33.4 miles (range 1.2-224) for travel cost per patient per trip was £8.35-£13.20. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world resource analysis demonstrated that delivering bortezomib therapy can be associated with significant cost and time implications for patients and healthcare providers. Our study method sets a basis for evaluating resource implications of other novel approaches to myeloma therapy.