Romanus, Dorothy

AbstractBackgroundExtended first‐line therapy (1LT) has improved clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). This retrospective study of NDMM patients evaluated the relationship between dose‐attenuation of 1LT and duration of therapy (DOT) and DOT on outcomes.MethodsAdults with NDMM not undergoing stem cell transplant (SCT) from January 1, 2012 toMarch 31, 2018 from the Integrated Oncology Network were included; 300 were randomly selected for chart review. 1LT DOT, time to next treatment (TTNT), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Marginal structural models evaluated relationships between DOT and TTNT, PFS, and OS at 2 years accounting for confounders and survival bias from the time‐dependent nature of DOT.ResultsOf 300 chart‐reviewed patients, 93 were excluded for incomplete data or meeting exclusion criteria. Among 207 NDMM patients, median age was 74 years; 146 (70.5%) did not receive dose‐attenuation during 1LT. Patients with short DOT were older, frailer, with a higher comorbidity burden, and a significantly lower proportion had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS = 0. As DOT increased, more patients underwent dose‐attenuation (p < 0.0001). The median 1LT DOT was 20.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.9, 26.4) versus 4.2 months (95% CI: 3.2, 4.9) for patients receiving versus not receiving dose‐attenuation, respectively (p < 0.0001). After accounting for survival bias, confounder‐adjusted TTNT was prolonged with each additional month of 1LT (odds ratio [OR]: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.78]); likelihoods of risks of disease progression (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.86, 0.88]) and death at 2 years (OR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.74]) were reduced with each month of 1LT (p < 0.0001 for all outcomes).ConclusionsDose‐attenuated 1LT was associated with longer DOT among patients with non‐SCT NDMM. Each additional month of 1LT was associated with a reduced adjusted likelihood of disease progression and death at 2 years. Dose‐attenuation of 1LT can extend DOT; longer DOT may improve clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: PIs combined with an Rd backbone are the most commonly used triplet combination regimens in patients (pts) with RRMM in the US. The hallmark trials supporting the efficacy of these regimens were predominantly in pts without prior exposure to lenalidomide (R).1,2 Real-world analyses have shown that R-based regimens are increasingly used in the front-line setting.3-5 Thus, real-world treatment patterns in pts with prior R exposure and the real-world comparative effectiveness of PI-Rd triplets in this population with RRMM needs further elucidation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of RRMM pts initiating IRd, KRd, or VRd in line of therapy (LOT) ≥2 were followed between 7/2007-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. RRMM pts were defined as those initiating LOT ≥2 between 1/2014 and 9/2018 and were categorized as having or not having prior exposure to R (R-exposed; no-prior-R) in any prior LOT. Index regimen was the first use of I-/K-/or V-Rd. LOTs were defined via an algorithm developed with MM specialists to proxy the definition of a LOT in RCTs & in accordance with NCCN MM Guidelines.6 Baseline data included: CRAB (hyperCalcemia, Renal insufficiency, Anemia, and Bone lesions); high risk cytogenetics (defined as del[17p], 1q21 gain, t[4;14], or t[14;16]); Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score; and modified frailty score using age and CCI score. Median duration of therapy (DOT) and time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) (a proxy for PFS; defined as time from index regimen start to subsequent LOT or death) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models (FIGURE). Observations were censored at time of loss to follow-up (f/u)/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Of 650 pts included, 397 were R-exposed (IRd, n=112; KRd, n=115; VRd, n=170); 253 had no-prior-R (IRd, n=29; KRd, n=62; VRd, n=162). R-exposed pts, overall, were treated in later LOTs (LOT2: 55% v 78%) and had a longer median time from diagnosis to index LOT (26.7 v 13.4 months) than no-prior-R pts; this differed between treatment cohorts (TABLE). In R-exposed pts, more pts with symptomatic relapse (≥1 CRAB symptom, 87%) or high-risk cytogenetics (30%) received KRd than IRd (75% & 23%) or VRd (74% & 16%) (TABLE). More pts treated with IRd were ≥75 years old: 42% (IRd) v 36% (VRd) / 21% (KRd). In R-exposed pts, 35.3% of those receiving VRd in LOT ≥2 had prior V-IMID-based and 53.5% had IMID-based therapy (ie, IMID with no PI nor monoclonal antibody) in LOT1; &gt;98% of LOT1 IMID use was R, across groups. In R-exposed pts, 56.5% of those receiving KRd had prior V-IMID-based and 16.5% had IMID-based therapy in LOT1; in IRd pts in LOT ≥2, 29.5% and 43.8% had prior V-IMID-based and IMID-based therapy in LOT1. In unadjusted analysis, at a median f/u of 11, 11.9, and 14.8 months for I-, K-, and V-Rd, median TTNT for R-exposed pts: 12.3 months (IRd), 7.8 months (KRd), and 13.9 months (VRd) (P=0.50); HRs for TTNTLOT stratified: 0.84 (IRd v KRd), 0.96 (IRd v VRd), 1.15 (KRd v VRd), and median regimen DOTs: 8.4 months (IRd), 7.5 months (KRd), and 9.5 months (VRd) (P=0.75). In no-prior-R pts, HRs for TTNTLOT stratified were significant for IRd v KRd (HR=0.33) and KRd v VRd (HR=1.62) (P&lt;0.01, both); IRd v VRd (HR=0.53; P=0.11). In adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences for R-exposed pts by PI-Rd regimens for TTNT (FIGURE), nor for regimen DOT. For no-prior-R pts, adjusted HR for TTNT was significant for I- v K-Rd (HR=0.36; P=0.03) and for regimen DOT was significant for I- v V-Rd (HR=0.34; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, the majority of pts received a PI-Rd combination after prior VRd or Rd in front-line. After controlling for baseline characteristics, including prior PI-exposure, PI-Rd triplets were comparable in TTNT in R-exposed pts treated in LOTs ≥2. TTNT was significantly longer for I- v K-Rd in pts with no-prior-R, although this is limited by small sample size. Published studies indicate that individualized treatment recommendations may improve real-world outcomes, such as IRd v KRd in frail pts which was associated with significantly longer TTNT.6 Prior-R exposure, in our analysis, does not appear to influence the relative PI-triplet regimen effectiveness in LOTs ≥2. With increasing use of R in earlier LOTs, understanding real-world treatment patterns and subsequent PI-Rd effectiveness in consequent LOTs is key for optimizing RRMM pt management. Disclosures Cherepanov: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Romanus:Takeda: Current Employment. Raju:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Blazer:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Farrelly:Xcenda: Current Employment, Other: Xcenda received research funding from Takeda. Stull:Takeda: Current Employment. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding.

AbstractObjectivesHealth‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post‐transplant, when disease symptoms are limited.MethodsWe assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE‐MM3 (NCT02181413).ResultsThe characteristics at study entry were well‐balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ‐C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four‐week intervals using a linear mixed‐effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ‐C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ‐MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least‐squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma.ConclusionsIn addition to improvement in progression‐free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.

Background Multiple myeloma (MM), a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells in the bone marrow, accounts for up to 1.8% of all cancers in the U.S., most frequently affecting people 65-74 years old. A variety of therapies are available to manage MM, including stem cell transplantation (SCT), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), monoclonal antibodies (mAB), and alkylating agents (alk). Given the heterogeneity of MM and the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, MM contemporaneous real-world treatment patterns are not well described. We examined the patient characteristics and first-line (LT1) treatment patterns in NDMM patients. Methods MM patients (≥18 years), diagnosed in April 30, 2015 - April 29, 2017 (early cohort) or in April 30, 2017 - April 30, 2019 (recent cohort), were followed retrospectively from MM diagnosis to last patient activity in the Flatiron Health database - a geographically-diverse, longitudinal electronic health record spanning over 280 community and academic cancer clinics in the U.S. LT1 regimens were described as: 1) containing an IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide [R], or pomalidomide), PI (bortezomib [V], carfilzomib, or ixazomib), alk (melphalan, cyclophosphamide [C], bendamustine), mAB (daratumumab, elotuzumab), or combinations of these; and 2) doublet/monotherapy (doublets-) vs. triplet or greater agent (triplets+) combinations. Treatment patterns were examined by SCT status and by cytogenetic risk (high: del17p, t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); standard: ≥1 cytogenetic tests without high cytogenetic risk) and age groups (<65, 65-74, ≥75). Duration of therapy (DOT) and time to next therapy (TTNT) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods in the early cohort with longer follow-up. Results Of 4,070 NDMM patients, 3,433 were non-SCT (nSCT: early cohort: n=1,736; recent cohort: n=1,697) and 637 had SCT (early cohort: n=407; recent cohort: n=230). In nSCT patients, mean age at diagnosis was 70 years (SD: 10); 46% were female; 36% had stage III (699/1916, among non-missing), and 15% (392/2574, among non-missing) had high risk MM (25% had unknown cytogenetics). SCT patients were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD]: 61 years [9]); 44% were female; 25% (117/470, in non-missing) had stage III, and 19% (102/547, in non-missing) had high risk MM (14% had unknown cytogenetics). Overall, proportions with known cytogenetic risk were similar within SCT status cohorts over time but were lower in the SCT group (nSCT early vs. recent cohort: 26% vs. 24% had unknown cytogenetics; and in SCT: 15% vs. 13%, respectively). In nSCT and SCT patients, respectively, most common regimens were VRd (d: dexamethasone; 44% and 58%), Rd (16% and 7%), Vd (13% and 1%), and VCd (12% and 4%). In nSCT patients, the use of VRd increased over time (37% [early cohort] to 51% [recent cohort]), while frontline therapy with Rd/Vd doublets (19% to 14%/16% to 9%) and with VCd (13% to 11%) decreased. In the nSCT recent cohort, VRd (51%) frontline therapy dominated, with a slightly higher proportion of patients in the high-risk group vs. standard and unknown risk receiving VRd (56% vs. 53% and 46%); use of doublet therapy with Rd/Vd was lower in the high risk (12%/5%) vs. standard risk group (14%/9%). Irrespective of age, VRd was the most common frontline regimen in the nSCT recent cohort, albeit its use was lower among patients 75+ years of age (43%) vs. younger patients (54% [<65 years] and 59% [65-74 years]); 75+ year old patients had a higher use of Rd/Vd doublets (19%/15%) vs. <65 (10%/5%) or 65-74 (10%/6%) years of age. Triplets+ were more commonly used than doublets- across all cohorts: 59% vs. 41% (nSCT early cohort); 74% vs. 26% (nSCT recent cohort); and 89% vs. 11% (SCT early cohort); 95% vs. 5% (SCT recent cohort). mAB use in the recent cohort was low: 1.4% nSCT and 2.2% SCT patients. In the nSCT early cohort, the median (95% CI) LT1 DOT was 10 months (9-11) and for TTNT was 14 months (13-16). Conclusions PI/IMiD treatment combinations were most commonly observed in both nSCT and SCT patients, with an increase in use from early (40%) to recent (56%) cohort in nSCT patients. Use of triplets, generally, is on the rise from early (60%) to recent cohorts (74%). LT1 TTNT was lower than has been shown in clinical trials. These findings indicate a notable change in treatment patterns over time in nSCT NDMM patients, highlighting the changing landscape of MM management. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Cherepanov:Takeda: Employment. Yin:Takeda: Employment. Cheng:Takeda: Employment. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) combined with an Rd backbone constitute commonly used regimens in RRMM in the US. Lack of data from head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of these PI-Rd triplets and the extent to which efficacy translates to benefit in routine care highlight the need for real-world evidence. We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of time to next therapy (TTNT) of these PI-Rd triplet combinations in a real-world representative cohort of RRMM patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, RRMM patients who initiated an index regimen with IRd, KRd, or VRd in ≥2nd line of therapy (LOT 2+) were followed between 1/2014-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. This database captures information on all patients treated by >140,000 providers across 50 states in the US. It is representative of the US general population. Baseline data included: a modified frailty score utilizing age and Charlson Comorbidity Index1, ECOG performance status, CRAB symptoms, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk (high: del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]), history of: cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, stem-cell transplant, and uncontrolled hypertension, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and refractory status, time from diagnosis to start of index LOT, time from start of frontline therapy to start of LOT 2, and treatment-free interval prior to index LOT. Duration of therapy (DOT) and TTNT were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using stratified (by LOT) ± baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models with a repeated measures analysis of pt-LOTs with robust sandwich estimators to account for inclusion of patients in multiple LOTs. The main analysis was repeated in subgroups a priori defined by frailty score, cytogenetic risk, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and LOT. Observations were censored at time of loss to follow up/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Overall, 650 patients with 733 pt-LOTs (IRd, n=168; KRd, n=208; VRd, n=357) were included; 20% of the RRMM patients in this cohort were treated at academic centers. In the I-/K-/V-Rd groups, respectively, median age was 71/65/71 years and 42/22/38% patients were ≥75 years old; 39/55/46% and 28/14/29% patients had a modified frailty score of intermediate and frail, respectively; 71/88/80% had a symptomatic relapse with at least 1 CRAB symptom; 20/28/13% patients had high cytogenetic risk; 69/72/90% patients were treated in 2-3 LOT, and 63/70/32% patients had prior exposure to a PI+IMID (P<0.05 for all). The median follow-up was 14.4 months. Unadjusted median DOT of index LOT was 12.3/7.2/10.0 months, with a lower risk of discontinuation of the oral PI component for I in comparison to both K and V (HR[I vs K] of 0.66 and HR[I vs V] of 0.68) and R component in the IRd vs KRd and VRd groups (HR[I vs K] of 0.64 and HR[I vs V] of 0.75) (P<0.05 for all). Unadjusted median TTNT was 12.7/8.6/14.2 months for I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2; with HR for TTNT of 0.76 (IRd vs KRd; P<0.05); 1.01 (IRd vs VRd; P=0.96); 1.33 (KRd vs VRd; P<0.05). The adjusted HRs for TTNT I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 were 0.82 (IRd vs KRd); 0.93 (IRd vs VRd); 1.13 (KRd vs VRd; P>0.05 for all), and were comparable between all 3 groups. A significant TTNT benefit for IRd vs KRd was observed among patients with high cytogenetic risk (HR: 0.47) and with intermediate frailtymodified score (HR: 0.60; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world representative RRMM cohort, in unadjusted analyses, the IRd group had a longer DOT of the PI and R components and a longer TTNT in comparison with KRd. After adjusting for baseline confounders to separate the treatment effect, the I/K/V-Rd triplet combinations were comparable in TTNT, but IRd was significantly better than KRd in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and with an intermediate frailty score. Residual confounding is always a potential limitation of any non-randomized study. Conversely, the results of randomized, clinical trials are limited in generalizability as 40-60% of patients are excluded due to inability to meet eligibility criteria. This is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population as demonstrated in the real-world effectiveness results in this study. Ref: 1. Palumbo, et al. Blood. 2015;125:2068-2074 Figure Disclosures Chari: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Raju:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda to complete this analyses., Research Funding; Xcenda, LLC: Employment. Cain:Takeda: Employment. Blazer:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Farrelly:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Stull:Takeda: Employment. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background:Maintenance therapy (MT) in NDMM has been increasingly used to prolong duration of response achieved by ASCT. TOURMALINE‐MM3 is a phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study, where ixazomib improved PFS, and is the first study to evaluate the impact of MT on HRQoL post ASCT in NDMM (Dimopoulos et al., Lancet 2019;393:253). HRQoL is an important consideration during MT in NDMM patients with minimal disease burden post ASCT (Anderson et al., Leukemia 2008;22:231).Aims:To assess HRQoL in patients randomized to ixazomib vs. placebo MT in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:In TOURMALINE‐MM3, NDMM patients post ASCT were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo. HRQoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ‐C30 (overall/subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every cycle (1–26), end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. MM‐specific symptoms were assessed by EORTC QLQ‐MY20 (subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every 3 cycles between cycles 1–25, end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. For both instruments, higher scores for global and functional domains indicate better HRQoL, while higher scores on symptom scales represent higher levels of symptomatology. Change from study entry in subscale scores, defined in terms of 30 four‐week intervals, was analyzed using a linear mixed‐effects model among patients who reported HRQoL outcomes at study entry and completed at least one post‐study entry assessment.Results:Characteristics at study entry were well balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms; median age: 58 years; ECOG performance status 0–1: 97%; 79% had at least a very good partial response post ASCT at study entry. At study entry, least squares (LS) mean scores for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 were: Global Health Status/QoL, 69.8 vs. 69.1; Physical Functioning, 82.1 vs. 82.0; Pain, 25.3 vs. 25.7; Nausea/Vomiting, 2.3 vs. 2.0; Diarrhea, 5.9 vs. 6.0; and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 20.3 vs. 19.2; Peripheral Neuropathy, 25.0 vs. 25.6. Compliance with study assessments, averaged across cycles, was high in the treatment phase (≥94%) and similar between treatment groups.Changes in subscale scores across the 4‐week intervals were generally similar between the ixazomib and placebo groups, with treatment differences not reaching the established minimal important difference (MID) of 10 in MM (Kvam et al., Eur J Haematol 2011;87:330). LS mean (95% CI) score changes at interval 24 (week 96) for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 included: Global Health Status/QoL, –0.4 (–3.4, 2.7) vs. 1.8 (–1.7, 5.2); Physical Functioning, 0.7 (–1.8, 3.1) vs. 3.0 (0.3, 5.8); Pain, 4.1 (0.5, 7.7) vs. –1.4 (–5.5, 2.7); and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 5.1 (2.4, 7.9) vs. 0.8 (–2.3, 3.8); Peripheral Neuropathy, –0.7 (–5.1, 3.7) vs. –6.2 (–11.1, –1.3). EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhea subscales, while consistently worse for ixazomib than placebo (LS mean [95% CI] change at interval 24, 5.0 [3.0, 7.0] vs. 1.0 [–1.3, 3.3] and 4.0 [1.1, 6.8] vs. 0.5 [–2.8, 3.8], respectively), were in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile; treatment differences did not exceed the MID.Summary/Conclusion:In addition to improvements in PFS with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained during the protocol‐defined treatment period in both arms, and active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.