Evolving Paradigms in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1186-1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
Antonio Palumbo

The treatment of multiple myeloma has undergone significant changes in the past few years. The introduction of novel agents, such as the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, has dramatically improved the outcome of this disease and considerably increased the treatment options available. Several trials have shown the advantages linked to the use of novel agents both in young patients, who are considered eligible for transplantation, and elderly patients, for whom a conventional therapy should be considered. These novel agents may increase the efficacy of autologous stem cell transplantation with deeper and long-lasting response. In the transplant setting, different novel agent combinations have proved to be superior to the traditional vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone. Similarly, novel agents have also changed the treatment paradigm of patients not eligible for transplantation, thus replacing the traditional melphalan-prednisone approach. Preliminary data also support the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy to further improve outcomes. This article provides an overview of the latest strategies, including novel agents used to treat patients with multiple myeloma, both in the transplant and nontransplant settings.

Hematology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 498-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Jesús F. San Miguel

AbstractMultiple myeloma is the second most frequent hematological disease. The introduction of melphalan as high-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) for young patients and the availability of novel agents for young and elderly patients with multiple myeloma have dramatically changed the perspective of treatment. However, further research is necessary if we want definitively to cure the disease. Treatment goals for transplant-eligible and non–transplant-eligible patients should be to prolong survival by achieving the best possible response while ensuring quality of life. For young patients, HDT-ASCT is a standard of care for treatment, and its efficacy has been enhanced and challenged by the new drugs. For elderly patients, treatment options were once limited to alkylators, but new upfront treatment combinations based on novel agents (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs) combined or not with alkylators have significantly improved outcomes. Extended treatment of young and elderly patients improves the quality and duration of clinical responses; however, the optimal scheme, appropriate doses, and duration of long-term therapy have not yet been fully determined. This review summarizes progress in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, addressing critical questions such as the optimal induction, early vs late ASCT, consolidation and/or maintenance for young patients, and how we can choose the best treatment option for non–transplant-eligible patients.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroko Nishida ◽  
Taketo Yamada

The treatment options in multiple myeloma (MM) has changed dramatically over the past decade with the development of novel agents such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs); bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs); thalidomide, and lenalidomide which revealed high efficacy and improvement of overall survival (OS) in MM patients. However, despite these progresses, most patients relapse and become eventually refractory to these therapies. Thus, the development of novel, targeted immunotherapies has been pursued aggressively. Recently, next-generation PIs; carfilzomib and ixazomib, IMiD; pomalidomide, histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDADi); panobinostat and monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); and elotuzumab and daratumumab have emerged, and especially, combination of mAbs plus novel agents has led to dramatic improvements in the outcome of MM patients. The field of immune therapies has been accelerating in the treatment of hematological malignancies and has also taken center stage in MM. This review focuses on an overview of current status of novel MoAb therapy including bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) antibody (BsAb), antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, in relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM). Lastly, investigational novel MoAb-based therapy to overcome immunotherapy resistance in MM is shown.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
Anupam B. Jena ◽  
Desi Peneva ◽  
Zoe Clancy

98 Background: Survival probabilities for patients with multiple myeloma have increased considerably over the past several decades, and a conservative estimate of 5-year survival today is approximately 50%, perhaps higher with optimal treatment. Treatment options for multiple myeloma have grown significantly beginning in 2003 with the approval of bortezomib, followed by approvals for lenalidomide and thalidomide in 2006. The second wave of novel agent approvals began in 2012 with carfilzomib, followed by pomalidomide in 2013. The aim of this study was to estimate the survival gains associated with multiple myeloma therapies after the introduction of novel therapies beginning in 2003 in the United States. Methods: We estimated survival gains for multiple myeloma patients diagnosed in the 5-year period from 2010-2014—who had access to newer therapies like lenalidomide, bortezomib, pomalidomide, and carfilzomib—compared with patients diagnosed in the 5 years prior to the approval of bortezomib (1998–2002). We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registry and a generalized gamma regression survival model. The sample from SEER included patients aged > 18 years who had a diagnosis of multiple myeloma between 1983 and 2014. Results: Of 88,462 patients identified in the full sample, 14,446 patients were diagnosed in 1998–2002 and 25,948 patients were diagnosed in 2010–2014. Overall survival was 51% longer ( P< 0.001) in multiple myeloma patients diagnosed in 2010–2014 than in patients diagnosed in 1998–2002. Patients diagnosed in 2010–2014 had median and mean survival of 1.32 and 2.27 years longer, respectively, than patients diagnosed in 1998–2002. Conclusions: Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma during 2010–2014 had significant improvement in survival relative to patients diagnosed in 1998–2002. This study found continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma patients in the most recent 5-years of survival data available, demonstrating the considerable progress made since the wave of multiple myeloma innovation began in 2003.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pilar de la Puente ◽  
Barbara Muz ◽  
Feda Azab ◽  
Micah Luderer ◽  
Abdel Kareem Azab

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy that remains incurable because most patients will eventually relapse or become refractory to the treatments. Although the treatments have improved, the major problem in MM is the resistance to therapy. Novel agents are currently in development for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, cell signaling targeted therapies, and strategies targeting the tumor microenvironment. We have previously reviewed in detail the contemporary immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies therapies for MM. Therefore, in this review, we focused on the role of molecular targeted therapies in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including cell signaling targeted therapies (HDAC, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, p38 MAPK, Hsp90, Wnt, Notch, Hedgehog, and cell cycle) and strategies targeting the tumor microenvironment (hypoxia, angiogenesis, integrins, CD44, CXCR4, and selectins). Although these novel agents have improved the therapeutic outcomes for MM patients, further development of new therapeutic agents is warranted.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5595-5595
Author(s):  
Naoki Takezako ◽  
Naoya Kaneko ◽  
Airi Hamano ◽  
Kenichi Ito ◽  
Naohiro Sekiguchi ◽  
...  

Background Although multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, the triplet therapy with novel agents has significantly improved the prognosis. However, the utility of the novel agents is often not obtained in transplant-ineligible patients, particularly in unfit or frail patients because of the low tolerance. So, in real world, it is common to use a combination of lenalidomide and low dose dexamethasone (Rd), which are generally dose-adjusted. Certainly, in the elderly patients, triplet therapy including novel agents may be excessive treatment in terms of adverse events. However, patients with only partial response are known to have a poor prognosis, and it is important how to improve their prognosis. At our medical center, we select Rd therapy for elderly patients, except for fit patients, but we have switched to triplet therapy for patients who have not had a response above VGPR. Here, we retrospectively reviewed this treatment outcome. Method We retrospectively reviewed 71 transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who received Rd therapy as initial therapy between November 2015 and March 2019. The median age was 73 years old (range 66~89). Patients received normal Rd therapy (lenalidomide 25 mg/day, day 1-21 (if they have normal renal function) and dexamethasone 20mg on days 1, 8, 15, 22) for every 4 weeks as initial therapy. If the response after 6 cycles was less than VGPR, another novel agent was added and treatment was continued as triplet therapy including lenalidomide. The International Staging System (ISS) were I in 15 (21.1%), II in 45 (63.3%) and III in 11 (15.5%). High-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of deletion 17, t(4;14) and t(14;16) by FISH analysis, were identified in 11 (15.4%) patients. The Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) were I in 14 (19.7%), II in 49 (69.0%) and III in 8 (11.2%). Results The overall response rate (ORR) after 6 cycles of Rd therapy was obtained in 69 (97.1%). including sCR in 5 (7.0%), CR in 3 (4.2%), VGPR in 23 (32.3%), and PR in 38 (53.5%). SD were observed in 2 patients (2.8%), respectively and they relapsed within six cycles. Twenty-nine out of 38 patients who had a response less than VGPR had changed to a triplet therapy with the addition of some novel agent (13 patients with elotuzumab, 5 patients with carfilzomib, 8 patients with ixazomib, and 3 patients with daratumumab). Forty-nine out of 71 cases (69.0%) achieved a response of at least VGPR, finally. The disease-free survival time was significantly longer in cases which obtained in excess of VGPR (figure). Grade 3 or greater toxicities occurring in 5% within 6 cycles, however, in triplet therapy, 6 patients (20.6%) were suffered from severe adverse events (most were infectious diseases such as pneumonia). Conclusion This retrospective analysis revealed that Rd therapy might be able to improve prognosis if patients obtain more than VGPR and even if treatment response is less than PR in the 6th cycle, triplet therapy might be effective to change the patients' prognosis. However, patients who do not reach VGPR even with triplet therapy have a poor prognosis and need further treatment. This results may be indicate that, in elderly NDMM patients, Rd therapy is sufficiently successful, and it is not always necessary to select triplet therapy as initial from the viewpoint of adverse events. Further study is warranted. Figure Disclosures Teshima: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3961-3961
Author(s):  
Meletios A Dimopoulos ◽  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Maria Gkotzamanidou ◽  
Erasmia Psimenou ◽  
Despoina Mparmparoussi ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3961 Renal impairment (RI) is a frequent complication of multiple myeloma (MM). Proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are used as frontline therapy for MM but their effect on renal function recovery has not been clearly defined. To address this issue we studied 112 patients with newly diagnosed MM and RI who were treated in the Department of Clinical Therapeutics of the University of Athens, over the last decade. RI was defined as an estimated glomelural filtration rate (eGFR) ≤60 ml/min, using the simplified MDRD formula. Patients were divided into three groups; group T included 53 patients who received thalidomide-based regimens (with dexamethasone alone, with dexamethasone and melphalan or cyclophosphamide, or with VAD); group B included 30 patients who received bortezomib-based regimens (with dexamethasone alone, with dexamethasone and thalidomide or with cyclophosphamide) and group L included 29 patients who received lenalidomide-based regimens (with dexamethasone or with melphalan and prednisone). Lenalidomide dose was adjusted for the degree of RI according to current recommendations. Renal complete response (CRrenal) was defined as a sustained increase of baseline eGFR to >60 ml/min, renal partial response (PRrenal) as an increase of eGFR from <15 to 30–50 ml/min and renal minor response (MRrenal) as sustained improvement of baseline eGFR of <15 ml/min to 15–29 ml/min, or, if baseline eGFR was 15–29 ml/min, improvement to 30–59 ml/min. Patients in groups T and L were older than those of group B (p=0.0001). Anemia (Hb <10 g/dl) was more frequent in patients of group L (p=0.007). There were no significant differences in the severity of RI, or other clinical and laboratory parameters among the three groups. An improvement of renal function, recorded as MRrenal or better, was achieved more frequently in patients treated with bortezomib-(83%) or thalidomide-based regimens (77%) than in patients treated with lenalidomide-based regimens (55%, p=0.033). We subsequently focused our analysis in major renal responses (at least PRrenal) since this endpoint is clinically more relevant. CRrenal was achieved in 53% of patients in group T, in 70% in group B and in 34% in group L (p=0.014), while CRrenal+PRrenal rates were 55%, 80% and 38% for groups T, B and L, respectively (p=0.004). eGFR <30 ml/min was associated with a significantly lower probability of at least PRrenal (p=0.016). In multivariate analysis bortezomib-based regimens (OR: 8.8, 95% CI: 2–37, p=0.003) and thalidomide-based regimens (OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.01–8, p=0.046) were associated with higher probability at least PRrenal than lenalidomide-based regimens. Other factors that were independently associated with higher probability of at least PRrenal, were baseline eGFR >30 ml/min (OR: 4.85, 95% CI: 1.9–12.5, p=0.001) and age ≤65 years (OR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.07–13.5, p=0.038). The median time to first renal response was longer for patients of group L compared to those of group T (5.5 months vs. 1.5 months, p=0.038) and it was significantly shorter for patients of group B (0.85 months, p=0.001). The median time to major renal response was 1.1 months for bortezomib-based and 2.7 months for thalidomide-based regimens, and exceeds 6 months for lenalidomide-based regimens (p=0.002). In multivariate analysis bortezomib-based regimens (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.35–7.2, p=0.008) and baseline eGFR >30 ml/min (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.13–3.3, p=0.015) were independently associated with a shorter time to ≥PRrenal. Myeloma response to treatment was 61%, 83% and 83% for the three treatment groups, respectively and was associated with any renal response (≥MRrenal; p=0.008) and with a major renal response (CRrenal+PRrenal; p=0.001). Among 8 patients who required dialysis (group T 4 patients, group B 4 patients), 4 patients (2 in each group) became independent of this procedure. This is the first analysis which compared the role of the three novel agents in MM patients presenting with RI. Our data indicate that novel agent-based regimens can improve renal function in the majority of patients with RI. However, bortezomib- and thalidomide-based regimens are more efficacious than lenalidomide-based regimens in this setting. Furthermore, bortezomib-based regimens act more rapidly than IMiD-based regimens even in patients with severe RI. We conclude that bortezomib-based regimens are the preferred therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma patients with RI. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria. Terpos:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204062071989487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Abdallah ◽  
Shaji K. Kumar

The treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved markedly in the last decade, but mortality remains high, emphasizing the need for more effective therapies. Daratumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has shown clinical efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma both as monotherapy and in combination with other drugs, including novel agents. More recently, promising results have been reported in patients with untreated newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Clinical trials thus far have shown enhanced efficacy and tolerability of several daratumumab-based combinations in both transplant ineligible and eligible patients, without compromising transplant ability. However, benefit in high-risk subpopulations is still unclear. A subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab has been introduced to decrease the risk of infusion reactions, with preliminary results showing non-inferior efficacy. The antimyeloma activity of daratumumab is achieved through multiple mechanisms including direct, Fc-dependent, and immunomodulatory mechanisms. Enhanced efficacy of daratumumab in combination with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors is supported by preclinical data showing synergism. This review will focus on the role of daratumumab in untreated NDMM patients, highlighting the results of major clinical trials, and listing ongoing trials that are evaluating various daratumumab-based combinations in this setting.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (11.5) ◽  
pp. 1347-1350
Author(s):  
Shaji K. Kumar

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved over the past decade, yet it remains a chronic disease. Several trials of 4-drug induction regimens have resulted in deepening of disease response. With the emergence of multidrug regimens, questions have arisen regarding the role of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in MM therapy and available treatment options after ASCT. Clinicians have also continued to improve the efficacy of maintenance therapies. In transplant-ineligible patients, the phases of treatment are less distinct; however, several regimens have demonstrated efficacy in this clinical setting. Future research should focus on individualizing treatment approaches.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1395-1397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Dimitrios Christoulas ◽  
Magdalini Migkou ◽  
Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document