Impact of quality of response on survival outcomes among multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents – a retrospective analysis
Palavras-chave:
Multiple myeloma, Therapeutics, Risk factorsResumo
BACKGROUND: In this era of target therapies, novel data on the correlation between response endpoints and survival outcomes in multiple myeloma have arisen. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of quality of response on clinical outcomes, using first-line treatment, and identify risk factors influencing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among myeloma patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis on myeloma patients who were treated at the Clinic of Hematology and Clinical Immunology, University Clinical Centre, Niš, Serbia, over a four-year period. METHODS: A total of 108 newly diagnosed patients who received first-line therapy consisting of conventional chemotherapy or novel agent-based regimens were included in this analysis. RESULTS: The quality of response to first-line therapy for the whole cohort was classified as follows: complete response (CR) in 19%; very good partial response (VGPR) in 23%; partial response (PR) in 38%; and less than PR for the remaining patients. After a median follow-up of 25.4 months, the three-year PFS and OS for the entire study population were 47% and 70%, respectively. Achievement of CR was the main factor associated with significantly prolonged PFS and OS, in comparison with patients who reached VGPR and PR. Likewise, addition of the new drugs bortezomib and thalidomide to standard chemotherapy led to considerably extended PFS and OS, compared with conventional therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the quality of response after application of first-line treatment using novel agent-based regimens among multiple myeloma patients was a prognostic factor for PFS and OS, which are the most clinically relevant outcomes.
Downloads
Referências
Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood. 2008;111(5):2516-20. PMID: 17975015; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129.
Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014; 28(5):1122-8. PMID: 24157580; https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.313.
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538-e548. PMID: 25439696; https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5.
Wijermans P, Schaafsma M, Termorshuizen F, et al. Phase III study of the value of thalidomide added to melphalan plus prednisone in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the HOVON 49 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(19):3160-6. PMID: 20516439; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.1610.
San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(9):906-17. PMID: 18753647; https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0801479.
Mateos MV, Richardson PG, Schlag R, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2259-66. PMID: 20368561; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0638.
Gay F, Larocca A, Wijermans P, et al. Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients. Blood. 2011;117(11):3025-31. PMID: 21228328; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-09-307645.
van de Velde H, Londhe A, Ataman O, et al. Association between complete response and outcomes in transplant-eligible myeloma patients in the era of novel agents. Eur J Haematol. 2017;98(3):269-79. PMID: 27859769; https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.12829.
Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412-20. PMID: 15809451; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.242.
Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328-e346. PMID: 27511158; https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6.
Moreau P, Miguel JS, Sonneveld P, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28 (Suppl 4):iv52-iv61. PMID: 28453614; https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx096.
Brian GM, Durie MD, Sydney E, Salmon MD. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975; 36(3): 842-54. PMID: 1182674; https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197509)36:3≤842::aid-cncr2820360303≥3.0.co;2-u
Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5775-82. PMID: 19001321; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.9721.
Moreau P, Attal M, Pegourie B, et al. Achievement of VGPR to induction therapy is an important prognostic factor for longer PFS in the IFM 2005-01 trial. Blood. 2011;117(11):3041-4. PMID: 21098740; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-08-300863.
Pulte D, Gondos A, Brenner H. Improvement in survival of older adults with multiple myeloma: results of an updated period analysis of SEER data. Oncologist. 2011;16(11):1600-3. PMID: 21968047; https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0229.
Offidani M, Corvatta L, Piersantelli MN, et al. Thalidomide, dexamethasone, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (ThaDD) for patients older than 65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108(7):2159-64. PMID: 16763209; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-03-013086.
Harousseau JL, Palumbo A, Richardson PG, et al. Superior outcomes associated with complete response in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with non-intensive therapy: analysis of the phase 3 VISTA study of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone. Blood. 2010;116(19):3743-50. PMID: 20628153; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-03-275800.
Falcon T, Dimopoulos M, Dispenzieri A, et al. Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2018;131(3):301-10. PMID: 29150421; https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-07-795047.
Lehners N, Becker N, Benner A, et al. Analysis of long-term survival in multiple myeloma after first-line autologous stem cell transplantation: impact of clinical risk factors and sustained response. Cancer Med. 2018;7(2):307-16. PMID: 29282899; https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1283.
Lonial S, Anderson KC. Association of response endpoints with survival outcomes in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28(2):258-68. PMID: 23868105; https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.220.
Tandon N, Sidana S, Rajkumar SV, et al. Outcomes with early response to first-line treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. 2019;3(5):744-50. PMID: 30824418; https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2018022806.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.