scholarly journals The difficult business of assessing new therapies for smouldering multiple myeloma

2018 ◽  
Vol 182 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-464
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Zonder
Haematologica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo Capra ◽  
Thomas Martin ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Ross Baker ◽  
Ludek Pour ◽  
...  

Renal impairment (RI) is common in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and new therapies that can improve renal function are needed. The Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) investigated isatuximab (Isa) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) vs Kd in relapsed MM. This subgroup analysis examined results from patients with RI, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. e28-e36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A Kyle ◽  
Dirk R Larson ◽  
Terry M Therneau ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
L Joseph Melton ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1127-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Miguel-Teodoro Hernández ◽  
Pilar Giraldo ◽  
Javier de la Rubia ◽  
Felipe de Arriba ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Nidhi Tandon ◽  
Shaji K Kumar ◽  
◽  

The past decade has seen many promising new therapies emerge for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), resulting in improved survival of patients. Despite these improvements, the disease eventually becomes refractory to the available options and patients die of progressive disease. Development of new therapies with new modes of action remains critical for the continued improvement in outcome, and given the success of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) in other cancers there has been considerable interest in development of this class of drugs for MM. Past attempts with MoAbs against interleukin-6 (IL-6) as well as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted antibodies have not realized the potential. More recently, development of MoAbs against SLAMF7 and cluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) have demonstrated considerable activity in MM, the former in combination and the latter as a single agents. At present, it remains to be defined how MoAb therapy can be most effectively incorporated into the current therapeutic paradigms that will help to achieve longer disease control and significant survival gains in patients with MM, either as short-term induction therapy, frontline treatment in transplant ineligible patients, or long-term maintenance therapy post autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT)/induction cytotoxic therapy. Ongoing studies are examining the potential of several other targets on the plasma cell, using both naked antibodies as well as toxin conjugated MoAbs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19513-e19513
Author(s):  
Alexandre Tungesvik ◽  
Praneeth Reddy Sudalagunta ◽  
Jessica Huang ◽  
Elizabeth Dimaggio ◽  
Gabe De Avila ◽  
...  

e19513 Background: Although there is much to be optimistic about in the multiple myeloma community as the approval of new therapies and regimen-combinations for relapsed refractory disease continues to grow, determining the best option for a patient can be complicated. Both carfilzomib- (C) and daratumumab- (D) based regimens have demonstrated superior efficacy in this setting, but there is a paucity of data supporting which should be selected first, and if regimen sequence influences outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe sequencing patterns in the era of these newer agents and to determine if there is a difference in outcomes for patients with RRMM who received one of the following treatment sequences: C-regimen with a D-regimen given immediately prior (DC); C-regimen without any prior D (C only); D-regimen with a C-regimen given immediately prior (CD); or D-regimen without any prior C (D only). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with RRMM consecutively treated at Moffitt Cancer Center between 1/1/2015 and 6/25/18. Response to therapy was assessed using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured in days from the start of therapy to progression. Time to response (TTR) was measured in days from the start of therapy to first response. Results: 132 patients with RRMM who received 1-3 prior lines of therapy with at least one line of therapy containing either C or D were identified. Overall, the majority of patients were treated with C only (n = 101), 10 received DC, 31 received D only, and 35 received CD. In patients that received C only, partial response (PR) was achieved in 38%, very good partial response (VGPR) was 20%, and stringent complete response (sCR) was 2%. In patients that received DC, PR was 20% and VGPR was 10%; no patient achieved a sCR. Of the patients that received D only, PR was 29%, VGPR was 10%, and sCR was 3%. In patients that received CD, PR was 31% and VGPR was 26%; no patient achieved sCR. Median PFS in patients who received C only, DC, D only, and CD was 117 days, 126 days, 104 days, and 190 days, respectively. TTR in patients who received C only, DC, D only, and CD was 82 days, 39 days, 98 days, and 88 days, respectively. Conclusions: The data suggests that RRMM patients who receive either CD or DC appear to have a PFS advantage over those patients who did not. Notably, an early TTR was found in patients that received DC. Further analysis is ongoing.


Leukemia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Bal ◽  
Ehsan Malek ◽  
Ankit Kansagra ◽  
Saad Z. Usmani ◽  
Ravi Vij ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document