Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.
Administration, Oral
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ pharmacology
Boron Compounds
/ pharmacology
Czech Republic
/ epidemiology
Dexamethasone
/ pharmacology
Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Glycine
/ analogs & derivatives
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Lenalidomide
/ pharmacology
Male
Middle Aged
Multiple Myeloma
/ drug therapy
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ drug therapy
Progression-Free Survival
Prospective Studies
Registries
/ statistics & numerical data
Clinical trial
Dexamethasone
Ixazomib
Lenalidomide
Multiple myeloma
Patient registry
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2021
15 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
20
07
2020
accepted:
14
12
2020
entrez:
16
1
2021
pubmed:
17
1
2021
medline:
7
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33451293
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07732-1
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07732-1
pmc: PMC7810195
doi:
Substances chimiques
Boron Compounds
0
ixazomib
71050168A2
Dexamethasone
7S5I7G3JQL
Lenalidomide
F0P408N6V4
Glycine
TE7660XO1C
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
73Références
Br J Haematol. 1998 Sep;102(5):1115-23
pubmed: 9753033
Blood Cancer J. 2018 Nov 9;8(11):109
pubmed: 30413684
Blood. 2014 Mar 6;123(10):1461-9
pubmed: 24429336
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 10;36(8):728-734
pubmed: 29341834
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1621-34
pubmed: 27119237
Blood. 2016 Nov 17;128(20):2415-2422
pubmed: 27702799
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2009 Apr;9(2):151-3
pubmed: 19406726
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 13;373(7):621-31
pubmed: 26035255
Leuk Lymphoma. 2016 Dec;57(12):2827-2832
pubmed: 27104965
Pathol Oncol Res. 2019 Oct;25(4):1615-1620
pubmed: 30712192
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):142-52
pubmed: 25482145
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Dec;15(13):1503-1512
pubmed: 25456369
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 20;35(12):1312-1319
pubmed: 28240968
Haematologica. 2017 Oct;102(10):1767-1775
pubmed: 28751562
Leukemia. 2006 Sep;20(9):1467-73
pubmed: 16855634
Blood. 2011 May 5;117(18):4691-5
pubmed: 21292775
Br J Haematol. 2017 Aug;178(4):571-582
pubmed: 28485007
Am J Hematol. 2018 May 4;:
pubmed: 29726031
Br J Haematol. 2012 Oct;159(1):111-3
pubmed: 22816982
Blood. 2017 Dec 14;130(24):2610-2618
pubmed: 29054911
Haematologica. 2018 Dec;103(12):2088-2096
pubmed: 30237262
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 6;375(14):1319-1331
pubmed: 27705267