Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 92
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet Haematol ; 2020 Mar 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32213344

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy, representing over 10% of haematological cancers in the USA. We did a phase 1-2 study of melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to determine the maximum tolerated dose of melflufen and to investigate its safety and efficacy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, dose-confirmation and dose-expansion, open-label, phase 1-2 study in seven centres in the USA and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, had received two or more previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and bortezomib), were refractory to their last line of therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. In phase 1, patients received an intravenous infusion of melflufen at 15 mg, 25 mg, 40 mg, or 55 mg for 30 min on day 1 in 21-day cycles plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg weekly and did not receive melflufen as a single agent. Melflufen was also tested in a single-agent cohort late in phase 2 in a small number of patients at the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase 1. In phase 2, patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose in the melflufen plus dexamethasone in the combination cohort.. The phase 1 primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose. The phase 2 primary objective was to evaluate overall response rate and clinical benefit rate. This primary analysis was done per protocol, in the all-treated and efficacy-evaluable population (defined as patients who received at least two doses of melflufen and who had a response assessment after baseline). The single-agent melflufen cohort was closed on October 6, 2016, as per the recommendation by the data safety monitoring committee on the basis of interim data suggesting greater activity in the melflufen plus dexamethasone cohort. The study is completed but survival follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01897714. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between July 4, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016: 23 patients in phase 1 and 58 in phase 2, including six patients from phase 1 treated at the maximum tolerated dose of melflufen 40 mg plus weekly dexamethasone. In phase 2, 45 patients were given a combination of melflufen plus dexamethasone and 13 patients were given single-agent melflufen. In phase 1, the established maximum tolerated dose was 40 mg of melflufen in combination with dexamethasone. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the first three dose cohorts (15 mg, 25 mg, and 40 mg). The highest dose cohort tested (55 mg) exceeded the maximum tolerated dose because four of six patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia with grade 4 thrombocytopenia also occurring in three of these patients; therefore, the planned highest dose of 70 mg was not tested. In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14 of 45 patients; 95% CI 18-47) and clinical benefit rate of 49% (22 of 45; 34-64) in the all-treated population, and 41% (14 of 34; 25-59) and 65% (22 of 34; 47-80) in the efficacy-evaluable population. In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (one of 13 patients; 0·2-36·0) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (three of 13; 5-54). Among the 45 patients given melflufen plus dexamethasone during phase 2, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (28 [62%] patients) and neutropenia (26 [58%]), and non-haematological toxicity was infrequent. 24 serious adverse events were reported in 17 (38%) of 45 patients, most commonly pneumonia (five [11%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in the phase 2 single-agent cohort of 13 patients were neutropenia (nine [69%]) and thrombocytopenia (eight [62%]). Nine patients experienced serious adverse events in the single-agent cohort, most commonly thrombocytopenia (two [15%]). There were three deaths from adverse events within 30 days of treatment that were possibly related to treatment: one in the 25 mg cohort in phase 1 (due to bacteraemia) and two in the phase 2 combination cohort (one due to neutropenic sepsis and one due to Escherichia coli sepsis), each in the setting of progressive disease. INTERPRETATION: These data show that melflufen is active in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma and tolerable in most patients. These results show the feasibility of this regimen and support the initiation of additional clinical studies of melflufen in multiple myeloma, both in combination with dexamethasone as well as in triplet regimens with additional classes of drugs. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

2.
Haematologica ; 2020 Feb 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32107329

RESUMO

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

5.
Haematologica ; 2019 Oct 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31582542

RESUMO

In the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction has been prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. This analysis (median follow-up of 71 months) focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. 217 patients in lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 217 in melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide and 220 in cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arms were evaluable. 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance, (lenalidomide arm: 204; lenalidomide-prednisone: 198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (HR 0.85,p=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; p=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (HR 0.72,p=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (HR 0.72, p=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide and cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a triplet full-dose regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

6.
Haematologica ; 2019 Jun 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31248973

RESUMO

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed, multiple myeloma patients. To date, no randomized trial has compared bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone to lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, particularly in high-risk cytogenetic patients (del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)). We pooled together data from newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate their efficacy in different patient subgroups, focusing on standard and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone: 257 patients; lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide maintenance: 217 patients). No difference in progression-free survival (Hazard Ratio: 0.96) and overall survival (Hazard Ratio: 1.08) was observed between bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide in standard-risk, while a reduction in the risk of progression (Hazard Ratio: 0.54) and death (Hazard Ratio: 0.73) was seen in high-risk patients treated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone vs. lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide. In particular, standard risk patients >75years benefited less from bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone than lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide (Hazard Ratio for progression-free survival: 0.96; Hazard Ratio for overall survival: 1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide were equally effective in younger (≤75years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75years) benefited more from lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide. In high-risk patients, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

7.
Cancers (Basel) ; 11(5)2019 May 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31058856

RESUMO

Carfilzomib is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). It seems to determine cardiovascular toxicity, primarily arterial hypertension. No predictive factors for cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) are known in patients affected by multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib. We evaluated the role of cardiovascular organ damage parameters to predict CVAEs in MM patients taking carfilzomib. Seventy patients affected by MM were prospectively enrolled. A comprehensive cardiovascular evaluation was performed before carfilzomib therapy; they underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram and the assessment of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity. All the patients were followed up (FU) to determine the incidence of CVAEs. The mean age was 60.3 ± 8.2, and 51% were male. The median FU was 9.3 (4.3; 20.4) months. A proportion of 33% experienced CVAEs, 91% of them had uncontrolled hypertension, 4.5% acute coronary syndrome, and 4.5% cardiac arrhythmias. Subjects with CVAEs after carfilzomib treatment had significantly higher blood pressure values, left ventricular mass (98 ± 23 vs. 85 ± 17 g/m2, p = 0.01), and pulse wave velocity (8.5 ± 1.7 vs. 7.5 ± 1.6 m/s, p = 0.02) at baseline evaluation compared to the others. Furthermore, baseline uncontrolled blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, and pulse wave velocity ≥ 9 m/s were able to identify patients at higher risk of developing CVAEs during FU. These preliminary findings indicate that blood pressure control, left ventricular mass, and pulse wave velocity may predict CVAEs in MM patients treated with carfilzomib.

8.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book ; 39: 500-518, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31099676

RESUMO

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disease of aging adults, and numerous therapeutic options are available for this growing demographic. MM treatment of older adults continues to evolve and includes novel combinations, new generations of targeted agents, immunotherapy, and increasing use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Understanding age-related factors, independent of chronologic age itself, is an increasingly recognized factor in MM survivorship, especially in understudied populations, such as octogenarians. Octogenarians have inferior survival that cannot be explained by cytogenetic profiles alone. Incorporating assessments of geriatric factors can provide guidance on how to intensify or de-escalate therapeutic options. Functional status, using objective testing, is superior to traditional metrics of performance status and should be implemented to optimize the risk-benefit ratio of ASCT. ASCT is feasible and cost-effective, and chronologic age should not exclude ASCT eligibility. Upfront ASCT remains the standard of care, in the context of a sequential approach that includes pre-transplantation induction and post-transplantation maintenance. High-risk MM is classically defined by disease characteristics, yet shifting frameworks suggest that the high-risk designation could refer to any patient subgroup who is at risk for poorer outcomes-beyond disease-focused outcomes to patient-focused outcomes. Defining the optimal treatment of subgroups of older patients with high-risk disease on the basis of chromosomal abnormalities is unexplored. Here, we review tools to assess individual health status, explore vulnerability in octogenarians with MM, address ASCT decision-making, and examine high-risk MM to understand factors that contribute to survival disparities for older adults with MM.


Assuntos
Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Terapia Combinada/efeitos adversos , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Gerenciamento Clínico , Feminino , Variação Genética , Avaliação Geriátrica , Humanos , Masculino , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/epidemiologia , Mieloma Múltiplo/etiologia , Gradação de Tumores , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Medição de Risco
9.
Haematologica ; 104(8): 1640-1647, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30733270

RESUMO

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

10.
J Hematol Oncol ; 12(1): 4, 2019 01 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30626425

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Several new drugs are approved for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but no validated biomarkers are available for the prediction of a clinical outcome. We aimed to establish whether pretreatment blood and bone marrow plasma concentrations of major cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) of patients from a phase 3 trial of a MM treatment could have a prognostic and predictive value in terms of response to therapy and progression-free and overall survival and whether these patients could be stratified for their prognosis. METHODS: Blood and bone marrow plasma levels of Ang-2, FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, PDGF-ß, IL-8, TNF-α, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 were determined at diagnosis in MM patients enrolled in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These levels were correlated both reciprocally and with the type of therapy and patients' characteristics and with a group of non-MM patients as controls. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the blood and bone marrow plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines. A cutoff for each CAF was established. The therapeutic response of patients with blood plasma levels of CAFs lower than the cutoff was better than the response of those with higher levels in terms of percentage of responding patients and quality of response. CONCLUSION: FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, and PDGF-ß plasma levels at diagnosis have predictive significance for response to treatment. The stratification of patients based on the levels of CAFs at diagnosis and their variations after therapy is useful to characterize different risk groups concerning outcome and response to therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial information can be found at the following link: NCT01063179.

11.
Curr Med Chem ; 26(32): 5968-5981, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29756564

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Survival of multiple myeloma patients has considerably improved in the last decades thanks to the introduction of many new drugs, including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors and, more recently, monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: We analyzed the most recent literature focusing on the clinical and pharmacologic aspects of monoclonal antibody-based therapies in multiple myeloma, including monoclonal antibodies directed against plasma cell antigens, as well as checkpoint blockade therapy directed against immune inhibitory molecules, used as single agents or in combination therapy. RESULTS: Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies including daratumumab, isatuximab and MOR202 have shown outstanding results in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma patients. The addition of daratumumab to bortezomib-dexamethasone or lenalidomidedexamethasone substantially improved patients' outcome in this patient population. The anti- SLAMF7 molecule elotuzumab in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone showed to be superior to lenalidomide-dexamethasone alone, without adding meaningful toxicity. Checkpoint blockade therapy in combination with immunomodulatory agents produced objective responses in more than 50% of treated patients. However, this combination was also associated with an increase in toxicity and a thorough safety evaluation is currently ongoing. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal antibodies are reshaping the standard of care for multiple myeloma and ongoing trials will help physicians to optimize their use in order to further improve patients' outcome.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Fatores Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/imunologia , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/imunologia , Terapia Combinada , Humanos , Fatores Imunológicos/imunologia , Mieloma Múltiplo/imunologia
12.
Ann Hematol ; 98(2): 361-367, 2019 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30353388

RESUMO

Therapeutic re-challenge is currently a debated issue in the field of multiple myeloma (MM), given the recent availability of several new drugs and combinations. However, very few specific evidences are available about bortezomib re-use at first relapse. This multicenter, observational, retrospective study enrolled 134 MM patients with significant response after bortezomib-based frontline regimens and who had received a first salvage treatment containing bortezomib at relapse. The overall response rate was 71%, including 40% partial responses, 24% very good partial responses, and 7% complete responses. Re-treatment was well-tolerated, with no significant new or unexpected toxicities observed. The median duration of second progression-free survival (PFS) was 15 months, while median PFS2 was 55 months. With a median follow-up of 56 months, overall survival was 94 months for the entire series, without significant differences between patients undergoing or not undergoing transplant procedures. This real-life survey indicates that re-treatment including bortezomib as a first salvage therapy could be still considered in MM patients achieving durable response after initial exposure to bortezomib.


Assuntos
Bortezomib/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiplo/mortalidade , Terapia de Salvação , Idoso , Bortezomib/efeitos adversos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/patologia , Recidiva , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida
13.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol ; 130: 27-35, 2018 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30196909

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Early toxic death (≤60 days of diagnosis) in elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients is attributable to active disease, age and co-morbidities. Rate of early toxic deaths is 10% with conventional chemotherapy mainly due to infection and renal failure. Novel agents have improved MM outcome at the expense of newer toxicity. METHODS: We analyzed 1146 individual patient data to assess toxic deaths during induction treatment with first-generation novel agents thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib. RESULTS: During first-line therapy, 119/1146 patients (10%) died for any cause, and 47/1146 (4%) due to toxicity, including 12/1146 (1%) early deaths. The 24-month cumulative incidence was 4.1% without any difference between bortezomib (18/503 patients, 4%) and lenalidomide (29/643patients, 5%; p = 0.31). Toxic deaths occurred in 34/1039 (3%) patients <80 years and 13/107 (12%) patients ≥80 years. Causes were cardiac events (28%), infections (26%) and vascular complications (15%). In a multivariate analysis, older age and unfavorable ISS stage increased the risk of death. CONCLUSION: First-generation novel agents significantly reduced toxic deaths compared to conventional chemotherapy. One third of deaths during first-line therapy were due to cumulative drug-related toxicities, thus supportive approaches and prevention strategies should be optimized. The higher mortality rate for toxicity in octogenarians confirms the need for a careful frailty assessment.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiplo/mortalidade , Bortezomib/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Lenalidomida , Taxa de Sobrevida , Talidomida/administração & dosagem , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Resultado do Tratamento
14.
JAMA Oncol ; 4(10): 1389-1397, 2018 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30098165

RESUMO

Importance: Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the superiority of one regimen over the other, owing to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons. Objective: To analyze and compare the effectiveness of different maintenance regimens in NDMM via a network meta-analysis. Data Sources: We performed 2 independent searches in PubMed and Cochrane databases, and then we identified all the records registered after 1999 and on or before November 20, 2017. Study Selection: By blinded review, we identified prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating novel agent-based maintenance in patients with NDMM; the included studies compared at least 2 maintenance approaches; comparators included placebo and no maintenance. From 364 screened records, 11 studies were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: We followed (independent extraction) the guidelines provided by the PRISMA Report and the EQUATOR Network. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis (NMA). To allow comparison of all treatments, no maintenance was selected as common comparator and the effect of placebo was assumed to be the same as no treatment. The best option was identified by a Bayesian consistency model based on hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI), probability of being the best treatment (PbBT), and median ranking distribution (MedR). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Eleven trials and 8 treatments including a total of 5073 participants were included. By PFS analysis, lenalidomide-based regimens (lenalidomide-prednisone, lenalidomide alone) were identified as the most effective options (HR, 0.39 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.53] and 0.47 [95% CrI, 0.39-0.55], respectively; MedR, 1 and 2; overall PbBT, 74%). Four treatments (thalidomide-interferon, thalidomide-bortezomib, bortezomib-prednisone, thalidomide alone) showed an HR in favor of maintenance. By OS analysis, lenalidomide alone was identified as the best option (HR, 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.16; MedR, 2; PbBT, 38%), followed by bortezomib-thalidomide and bortezomib-prednisone. Similar features were noticed in the restricted network including transplant trials, in the sensitivity analysis, and in most of the prognostic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on PFS and OS results of this NMA, lenalidomide maintenance appears to be the best treatment option, by synthesizing the available evidence of novel agent-based maintenance in the past 20 years.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Lenalidomida/administração & dosagem , Quimioterapia de Manutenção/métodos , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
15.
Haematologica ; 103(9): 1422-1432, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30049825

RESUMO

Cardiovascular disease in patients with multiple myeloma may derive from factors unrelated to the disease (age, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, prior cardiovascular diseases), related to the disease (cardiac AL-amyloidosis, hyperviscosity, high-output failure, arteriovenous shunting, anemia, renal dysfunction) and/or related to anti-myeloma treatment (anthracyclines, corticosteroids, alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors). Good knowledge of cardiovascular events, effective dose reductions, prevention and management of early and late cardiovascular side effects of chemotherapeutic agents are essential in current clinical practice. Myeloma experts are obliged to carefully balance the efficacy and toxicity of drugs for each individual patient. This review summarizes current data and novel insights into cardiovascular adverse events of today's anti-myeloma treatment, focusing on carfilzomib, as a starting point for developing consensus recommendations on preventing and managing cardiovascular side effects in patients with multiple myeloma.


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Mieloma Múltiplo/complicações , Mieloma Múltiplo/epidemiologia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Cardiotoxicidade , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Incidência , Itália , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/efeitos adversos , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/métodos , Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Risco
16.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther ; 18(9): 917-930, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29972740

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: In the majority of cases, multiple myeloma is a disease occurring in elderly patients. In the last decades, a major improvement in myeloma patients' outcome has been achieved with the introduction of several new drugs. However, this positive outcome was less likely to occur in elderly patients. Areas covered: An overall increase of myeloma cases in elderly patients is expected in the next years. This patient population is highly heterogeneous in terms of physiological functions and ability to resist stressing conditions such as myeloma and its treatment. While physicians cannot prevent the stress arising from the disease itself, the intensity of therapeutic approaches can be tuned according to patients' predicted tolerance. In this review, we focus on the assessment of patients' fitness and on available significant data on treatment efficacy and tolerability in elderly patients. Expert commentary: Fit, elderly patients should undergo full-dose therapy to maximize the depth of response, while intermediate and frail patients benefit from reduced-dose regimens in order to avoid toxicity and preserve quality of life. Ongoing trials will provide further evidence to individualize treatment on the basis of geriatric assessment and disease characteristics.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Aptidão Física , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiplo/patologia , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento
17.
Leukemia ; 32(8): 1697-1712, 2018 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29880892

RESUMO

Multiple myeloma is a disease typical of the elderly, and, because of the increase in life expectancy of the general population, its incidence is expected to grow in the future. Elderly patients represent a particular challenge due to their marked heterogeneity. Many new and highly effective drugs have been introduced in the last few years and results from clinical trials are promising. Besides the availability of novel agents, a careful evaluation of elderly patients showed to be a key factor for the success of therapy. A geriatric assessment is a valid strategy to better stratify patients. In particular, different scores are available today to appropriately assess elderly patients and define their fitness/frailty status. The choice of treatment-transplantation, triplets, doublets, or reduced-dose therapies including novel agents-should depend on the patient's fitness status (fit, intermediate-fit or frail). Second-generation novel agents have also been evaluated as salvage therapy in the elderly, and these new agents certainly represent a further step forward in the treatment armamentarium for elderly patients with multiple myeloma.


Assuntos
Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Idoso , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico
18.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk ; 18(8): 533-540, 2018 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29910180

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with novel agents are the best options for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, increasing the rate of complete response (CR) and prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Indeed, the achievement of a CR is a predictor of long-term survival among transplant-eligible patients. However, it is unclear whether patients reaching a CR after induction treatment could receive less intense consolidation or avoid maintenance therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed CR patients treated in 2 phase III trials, GIMEMA-RV-MM-PI-209 and RV-MM-EMN-441, to compare HDT-ASCT with an R-Alk (lenalidomide, alkylator) regimen as consolidation, and lenalidomide (R) maintenance with no maintenance. The primary endpoints were PFS, second PFS (PFS2), and OS from consolidation and maintenance (_m). RESULTS: Overall, the data from 166 patients in CR were analyzed, 95 in the HDT-ASCT group and 71 in the R-Alk group. The CR patients who received HDT-ASCT had a better PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P = .01), PFS2 (HR, 0.46; P = .02), and OS (HR, 0.42; P = .03) compared with patients randomized to R-Alk. The survival benefit with HDT-ASCT was confirmed among all the subgroups, according to age, International Staging System (ISS stage, cytogenetic profile, and receipt of maintenance therapy. CR patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had a better PFS_m (4 years: 54% vs. 19%; HR, 0.43; P = .02) compared with those who received no maintenance. However, no difference was observed in terms of PFS2_m (4 years: 72% vs. 58%; HR, 0.83; P = .67) and OS_m (4 years: 79% vs. 72%; HR, 0.82; P = .73) with maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION: Even in CR patients, outcomes were improved by an intensified approach with HDT-ASCT consolidation and lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Alquilantes/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Lenalidomida/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Transplante de Células-Tronco , Antineoplásicos Alquilantes/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Adjuvante , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Quimioterapia de Consolidação , Feminino , Humanos , Lenalidomida/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia de Manutenção , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/mortalidade , Neoplasia Residual , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fatores de Risco , Transplante de Células-Tronco/efeitos adversos , Transplante de Células-Tronco/mortalidade , Fatores de Tempo , Transplante Autólogo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA