The next generation of therapy for multiple myeloma: a review of ongoing clinical trials utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (19) ◽  
pp. 1965-1976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Barth ◽  
Colin Vale ◽  
Alison B Chambers ◽  
John L Reagan
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Next Generation

Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: an important tool in clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Gozzetti ◽  
Monica Bocchia
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Depth Of Response ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Future Therapy ◽  
Minimal Residual

: Minimal residual disease (MRD) detection represents a great advancement in multiple myeloma. New drugs are now available that increase depth of response. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the use of next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) or next-generation sequencing (NGS) to search for MRD in clinical trials. Best sensitivity thresholds have to be confirmed, as well as timing to detect it. MRD has proven as the best prognosticator in many trials and promises to enter also in clinical practice to guide future therapy.

scholarly journals Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma: State of the Art and Applications in Clinical Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Alessandro Gozzetti ◽  
Donatella Raspadori ◽  
Francesca Bacchiarri ◽  
Anna Sicuranza ◽  
Paola Pacelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Minimal Residual Disease ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Drug Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Cell Transplants ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Minimal Residual

Novel drugs have revolutionized multiple myeloma therapy in the last 20 years, with median survival that has doubled to up to 8–10 years. The introduction of therapeutic strategies, such as consolidation and maintenance after autologous stem cell transplants, has also ameliorated clinical results. The goal of modern therapies is becoming not only complete remission, but also the deepest possible remission. In this context, the evaluation of minimal residual disease by techniques such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) is becoming part of all new clinical trials that test drug efficacy. This review focuses on minimal residual disease approaches in clinical trials, with particular attention to real-world practices.

scholarly journals Investigational Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review of Agents under Clinical Development

Antibodies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Iftikhar ◽  
Hamza Hassan ◽  
Nimra Iftikhar ◽  
Adeela Mushtaq ◽  
Atif Sohail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Immune Responses ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Perspectives ◽  
Antibody Drug Conjugate ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents

Background: Immunotherapy for multiple myeloma (MM) has been the focus in recent years due to its myeloma-specific immune responses. We reviewed the literature on non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to highlight future perspectives. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov to include phase I/II clinical trials. Data from 39 studies (1906 patients) were included. Of all the agents, Isatuximab (Isa, anti-CD38) and F50067 (anti-CXCR4) were the only mAbs to produce encouraging results as monotherapy with overall response rates (ORRs) of 66.7% and 32% respectively. Isa showed activity when used in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex), producing a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 83%. Additionally, Isa used in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and Dex resulted in a CBR of 73%. Indatuximab Ravtansine (anti-CD138 antibody-drug conjugate) produced an ORR of 78% and 79% when used in combination with Len-Dex and Pom-Dex, respectively. Conclusions: Combination therapy using mAbs such as indatuximab, pembrolizumab, lorvotuzumab, siltuximab or dacetuzumab with chemotherapy agents produced better outcomes as compared to monotherapies. Further clinical trials investigating mAbs targeting CD38 used in combination therapy are warranted.

scholarly journals What Is New in the Treatment of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 421
Author(s):  
Niccolo’ Bolli ◽  
Nicola Sgherza ◽  
Paola Curci ◽  
Rita Rizzi ◽  
Vanda Strafella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Plasma Cell Neoplasm ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Critical Issues

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic plasma cell neoplasm, is currently diagnosed according to the updated IMWG criteria, which reflect an intermediate tumor mass between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and active MM. However, SMM is a heterogeneous entity and individual case may go from an “MGUS-like” behavior to “early MM” with rapid transformation into symptomatic disease. This wide range of clinical outcomes poses challenges for prognostication and management of individual patients. However, initial studies showed a benefit in terms of progression or even survival for early treatment of high-risk SMM patients. While outside of clinical trials the conventional approach to SMM generally remains that of close observation, these studies raised the question of whether early treatment should be offered in high-risk patients, prompting evaluation of several different therapeutic approaches with different goals. While delay of progression to MM with a non-toxic treatment is clearly achievable by early treatment, a convincing survival benefit still needs to be proven by independent studies. Furthermore, if SMM is to be considered less biologically complex than MM, early treatment may offer the chance of cure that is currently not within reach of any active MM treatment. In this paper, we present updated results of completed or ongoing clinical trials in SMM treatment, highlighting areas of uncertainty and critical issues that will need to be addressed in the near future before the “watch and wait” paradigm in SMM is abandoned in favor of early treatment.

MASS-FIX versus standard methods to predict for PFS and OS among multiple myeloma patients participating on the STAMINA trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Amrita Y. Krishnan ◽  
Bonnie Arendt ◽  
Surendra Dasari ◽  
Yvonne Adeduni Efebera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Multiple Testing ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Independent Effect ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Different Response

8009 Background: Measuring response among patients with multiple myeloma is essential for the care of patients. Deeper responses have been associated with better progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Serum (SIFE) and urine immunofixation are the currently used markers for biochemical documentation of CR after which marrow is tested for plasma cell clearance. Next generation flow cytometry and sequencing are used to document the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD). Mass spectrometry of blood by MALDI (Mass-Fix) is a new simple, inexpensive, sensitive, and specific means of detecting monoclonal immunoglobulins. To better test the hypothesis that Mass-Fix is superior to existing methodologies to predict for survival outcomes—especially SIFE-- samples from the STAMINA trial (NCT01109004), a trial comparing 3 transplant approaches among patients who have already received induction, were employed. Methods: Five-hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Samples from enrollment post-induction (post-I) and 1-year post enrollment (1YR) were tested when available. Four response parameters were assessed univariately: Mass-Fix, SIFE, complete response, and MRD by next generation flow cytometry. Mass spectrometry spectra were evaluated in a blinded fashion. Complete response was according to the 2006 International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models using stepwise regression were developed to explore the independent effect of the different response parameters on PFS and OS and interactions with other risk factors. Results: Of the 4 response measures, only MRD and Mass-Fix predicted for PFS and OS at multiple testing points on multivariate analyses (Table). Of the 4 post-I measurements, only MRD predicted for PFS; however, Mass-Fix was the only post-I measurement to predict for OS. Of all the 1-year measures, both 1YR Mass-Fix and 1YR MRD positivity predicted for inferior PFS and OS. In models including MRD and Mass-Fix, SIFE and CR were not prognostic for PFS or OS. Conclusions: Mass-Fix is a powerful means to track monoclonal proteins. The full utility of Mass-Fix was not exploited given the absence of a diagnostic sample and the fact that only serum (and not urine) was tested. Despite these limitations, it performed well at pre-induction and at 1 year. Mass-Fix provides a convenient and non-invasive means of predicting for myeloma outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT01109004. [Table: see text]

Evolving Unmet Need in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide: Overview of the Clinical Trials in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 22-23
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Rohan Medhekar ◽  
Istvan Majer ◽  
Mehmet Turgut
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Of Therapy

Introduction: The majority of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients are currently treated with lenalidomide-based regimens as their first line of therapy. This trend is likely to continue in the coming years. Typically, lenalidomide is administered until disease progression and has significantly contributed to better outcomes in these patients. However, most patients relapse, and prognosis worsens with each relapse. The choice of optimal treatment for patients who relapse while receiving lenalidomide as first line of therapy is unclear. Moreau et al (Blood Cancer J. 9, 38 [2019]) concluded that there is limited data on approved combinations for treating these patients and are restricted by the low number of lenalidomide-refractory patients enrolled in the pivotal trials. Results from the ongoing clinical trials of the combination of carfilzomib and anti-CD38 antibodies were not available at the time of the Moreau et al publication. The aim of this targeted literature review was to include this new data and to summarize currently available evidence on progression-free survival (PFS) for the treatment of RRMM patients who progressed on lenalidomide-based regimens. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify registrational clinical trials in patients with RRMM reporting PFS outcomes. PubMed, congress proceedings, and product labels were searched between Jan 2014 to July 2020. In addition to PFS, demographic, disease characteristics and treatment history were extracted for the trial populations to contextualize potential variations in study outcomes. The regimens studied in these trials were classified as lenalidomide-based, proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based and pomalidomide-based. Number of prior lines of therapy, prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide and bortezomib were reported. Results: Twelve registrational trials were identified based on the search criteria (Table 1). Most pivotal trials assessing lenalidomide-based regimens (POLLUX, ELOQUENT-II, TOURMALINE-MM1) except the ASPIRE trial excluded patients who were refractory to lenalidomide. Trials evaluating PI-based regimens (e.g., CANDOR) or pomalidomide-based regimens (e.g., OPTIMISMM) included these patients, with more recent studies enrolling a larger proportion. Percentage of lenalidomide-exposed (and lenalidomide refractory) ranged from 40% (32%) in CANDOR to 98% (90%) in ELOQUENT III. These studies also enrolled a larger proportion of patients who were bortezomib-exposed, although most of these patients were at first relapse, with the exception of ELOQUENT III and ICARIA where most patients were at third relapse. Among lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median-PFS (mPFS) observed for the pomalidomide-based regimens ranged from 9.5 to 10.1 months and that observed for PI-based regimens ranged from 4.9 to 25.7 months. PFS in the lenalidomide-refractory subgroup was considerably shorter than in the ITT population. The mPFS for patients receiving carfilzomib/daratumumab/dexamethasone (KDd; CANDOR) and isatuximab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone (IsaKd; IKEMA) was not reached at median follow-up of 16.9 and 20.7 months respectively. While the mPFS for (KDd) for lenalidomide-refractory patients in CANDOR trial was not yet reached at median follow up of 16.9 months; the mPFS of 25.7 months for KDd in the MMY-1001 trial appears to be the longest among the assessed regimens. Conclusion: Patients refractory to lenalidomide have shorter PFS and represent a population with high unmet need. This targeted literature review suggests that the PI-based KDd regimen provides longer PFS compared to other lenalidomide-sparing regimens in lenalidomide-refractory populations. Heterogeneity across trial populations may limit the comparability of these treatments. Disclosures Mateos: Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Medhekar:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Majer:Amgen (Europe) GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

scholarly journals A Next-Generation Sequencing Strategy for Evaluating the Most Common Genetic Abnormalities in Multiple Myeloma

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Jiménez ◽  
María Jara-Acevedo ◽  
Luis A. Corchete ◽  
David Castillo ◽  
Gonzalo R. Ordóñez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Genetic Abnormalities ◽  
Sequencing Strategy ◽  
Generation Sequencing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document