Fonseca, Rafaël

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.

A national conversation regarding the price and affordability of drugs exists, where concern for value and benefits of medications is challenged by the increasing price of both injectable and oral medications, including the cost of care of myeloma. At the same time, we have seen unprecedented improvements in the overall survival of patients with myeloma, mostly because of the availability of these new drugs. Here, we present data to assert that these medications and associated expenses are of direct benefit to patients and society. The entrepreneurial reward for drug development in the United States has fueled vigorous drug development efforts that have culminated in the approval of 11 new drugs for the treatment of myeloma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1999. These patented drugs are available to patients in the United States usually at a higher price than in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the majority of patients, via direct copay assistance or through indirect support via third parties, have access to these drugs irrespective of their socioeconomic status. One of the major regulatory hurdles that prevents access to these drugs is the legal impossibility that pharmaceutical companies have in directly supporting copay assistance for patients with government-funded health care. Moreover, assessments of value should include formal pharmacoeconomic analyses performed by experts. Interference with market forces and coercive action, such as price controls, or exercising eminent domain in the quest for cheaper medications will stymie innovation and rob us of the cures of the future.

Purpose Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral, selective exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor, induces apoptosis in cancer cells through nuclear retention of tumor suppressor proteins and the glucocorticoid receptor, along with inhibition of translation of oncoprotein mRNAs. We studied selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to the most active available agents. Patients and Methods This phase II trial evaluated selinexor 80 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, both orally and twice weekly, in patients with myeloma refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide (quad-refractory disease), with a subset also refractory to an anti-CD38 antibody (penta-refractory disease). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Results Of 79 patients, 48 had quad-refractory and 31 had penta-refractory myeloma. Patients had received a median of seven prior regimens. The ORR was 21% and was similar for patients with quad-refractory (21%) and penta-refractory (20%) disease. Among patients with high-risk cytogenetics, including t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p), the ORR was 35% (six of 17 patients). The median duration of response was 5 months, and 65% of responding patients were alive at 12 months. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (59%), anemia (28%), neutropenia (23%), hyponatremia (22%), leukopenia (15%), and fatigue (15%). Dose interruptions for adverse events occurred in 41 patients (52%), dose reductions occurred in 29 patients (37%), and treatment discontinuation occurred in 14 patients (18%). Conclusion The combination of selinexor and dexamethasone has an ORR of 21% in patients with heavily pretreated, refractory myeloma with limited therapeutic options.

Key Points PVD is an active combination in relapsed lenalidomide-refractory MM patients. PVD with weekly bortezomib offers a simpler, more convenient, and well-tolerated regimen option.

PURPOSE: To study the prognostic value of plasmablastic morphology after autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed or primary refractory myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients were studied. Investigators blinded to the clinical details of the individual cases reviewed bone marrow aspirate slides to determine plasmablastic classification. Plasmablasts were defined using strict, well-described criteria. Plasmablastic morphology was considered to be present (plasmablastic myeloma) when 2% or more plasmablasts were present in the plasma-cell population. RESULTS: Patients underwent transplantation 5 to 88 months (median, 20 months) after the initial diagnosis of myeloma. Twenty-eight percent of patients had plasmablastic morphology. A significantly greater proportion of patients with plasmablastic morphology had abnormal cytogenetics compared with those with nonplasmablastic classification (73% v 31%, respectively; P = .003). The overall survival rate measured from the time of transplantation was significantly worse in patients with plasmablastic morphology compared with those without (median survival time, 5 months v 24 months, respectively; P < .001). Progression-free survival time was shortened also, with a median time of 4 months compared with 12 months, respectively (P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, plasmablastic classification was the most powerful prognostic factor after transplantation for both overall (P = .001) and progression-free survival rates (P < .001). We also identified three risk groups based on plasmablastic morphology: plasma-cell labeling index, lactate dehydrogenase, and cytogenetics. The median overall survival time was 38 months when none of these factors was abnormal, 17 months with one abnormal factor, and 8 months with two or more abnormal factors (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Plasmablastic morphology is a powerful independent predictor of poor survival rate after autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed or primary refractory myeloma.