P07 BORTEZOMIB-MELPHALAN-PREDNISONE (VMP) VS. LENALIDOMIDE-DEXAMETHASONE (RD) IN REAL-LIFE MULTIPLE MYELOMA PATIENTS INELIGIBLE FOR TRANSPLANT: UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE RANDOMIZED PHASE IV REAL MM TRIAL
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Larocca A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10171484 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10430276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).
| S-EPMC7109734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating transplant-ineligible myeloma patients with either a bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone (VTD) or a bortezomib plus melphalan plus prednisolone (VMP) treatment in Taiwan. Newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible myeloma patients with VTD or VMP therapy were enrolled from two medical centers in southern Taiwan. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as the measurement unit of the effectiveness evaluation, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used for comparison between the two groups. A net monetary benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were also used for the cost-effectiveness assessment. A one-way sensitivity analysis was used to check the impact of different parameters. In total, 77 patients were enrolled in the study with 43 patients in the VTD group and 34 patients in the VMP group. Clinical presentations were similar without significant difference, except the VTD group had a higher survival rate (p = 0.029). Comparisons of the two groups over an eight-month time horizon revealed a significant lower mean of direct medical costs in the VTD group than in the VMP group (p < 0.001), and a significantly higher average QALY was gained (p < 0.001). The study demonstrated the greater clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of VTD compared to VMP therapy in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed myeloma patients.
| S-EPMC8880219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outlook for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients has improved enormously over recent years with the incorporation of new agents into standard regimens. Novel regimens combine melphalan and prednisone (MP) with bortezomib (VMP), with thalidomide (MPT), and with lenalidomide with (MPR-R) and without (MPR) lenalidomide maintenance. The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens have not yet been compared; therefore, we conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis using data from randomized controlled trials versus MP. Using a Markov model developed from a U.S. payer's perspective, we compared VMP with MPT and MPR-R over a lifetime horizon. MPT and MPR-R were chosen because, like VMP, they are superior to MP in response and outcomes. Data from the Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma (VISTA; VMP), Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) 99-06 (MPT), and MM-015 (MPR-R) trials were used. The IFM 99-06 study was selected because of the superior activity in this study compared with other MPT studies. Using patient-level (VMP) and published (MPT, MPR-R) data, we estimated the health-state transition and adverse event probabilities for each regimen, related costs, and state-specific utility estimates. Costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Discounted lifetime direct medical costs were lowest with VMP at $119,102. MPT cost $142,452 whereas MPR-R cost $248,358. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculations projected that VMP would confer cost savings and better health outcomes relative to MPT and MPR-R. We conclude that VMP is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with MP, MPT, and MPR-R.
| S-EPMC3556252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The superiority and tolerability of daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) was previously described in the global phase 3 ALCYONE study. The primary analysis of the phase 3 OCTANS study further demonstrated the superiority and tolerability of D-VMP (n = 144) versus VMP (n = 71) in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with NDMM. The current analysis describes the final efficacy and safety outcomes for D-VMP versus VMP in OCTANS, with a follow-up of > 3 years. D-VMP demonstrated a benefit versus VMP with regard to the rate of very good partial response or better (80.1% vs. 47.3%), median progression-free survival (38.7 vs. 19.2 months), median time to next treatment (46.8 vs. 20.6 months), rate of complete response or better (46.6% vs. 18.9%), median duration of response (41.3 vs. 18.5 months), achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (40.4% vs. 10.8%), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥ 12 months (24.7% vs. 1.4%) and ≥ 18 months (15.1% vs. 1.4%). Median progression-free survival was longer among patients who achieved MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity. The progression-free survival benefit observed with D-VMP was preserved across most clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetics. No new safety concerns were identified with extended follow-up. This final analysis of OCTANS continues to demonstrate a clinical benefit for D-VMP versus VMP in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with NDMM, consistent with the global ALCYONE study, and supports the use of daratumumab combinations in this population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03217812 submitted July 13, 2017.
| S-EPMC11868237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This phase 3 trial (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] E1A06) compared melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT-T) with melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (mPR-R) in patients with untreated multiple myeloma (MM). A noninferiority design was used, and inferiority was defined as a progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) of MPT-T/mPR-R ≤0.82. A total of 306 patients enrolled, with a median age of 75.7 years. Median follow-up was 40.7 months. Median time on therapy was 12.1 months and 23.1 months for the 46.6% of treated patients who received maintenance, with no differences by arm. Median PFS was 21 months on MPT-T and 18.7 months on mPR-R (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.09). Overall survival was 52.6 months (MPT-T) vs 47.7 months (mPR-R) (P = .476). Per-protocol response rates were 63.6% (MPT-T) and 59.9% (mPR-R) (P = .557). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity was 59.5% for MPT-T vs 40.0% for mPR-R (P = .001). Second malignancies were observed in 18 MPT-T patients vs 14 mPR-R patients. Quality-of-life analysis favored mPR-R by induction end (P = .007). Use of MPT-T or mPR-R in elderly patients with untreated MM demonstrates no statistical or clinically relevant differences in response rates, PFS, and OS; however, quality of life at end of induction was improved and lower toxicity reported with mPR-R. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00602641.
| S-EPMC4566809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought a regimen that incorporates optimal novel agents and balances efficacy with toxicity in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Our study evaluated modified lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD lite) in this population and was administered over a 35-day cycle. Lenalidomide 15 mg was given orally on days 1-21; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 weekly subcutaneously on days 1, 8, 15 and 22; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally was given on the day of and day after bortezomib for 9 cycles followed by 6 cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR); secondary objectives included safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Fifty-three eligible patients were screened between April 2013 and May 2015; 50 received at least one dose of therapy. Median age at study entry was 73 years (range 65-91). The ORR was 86% and 66% of patients achieved a very good partial response or better. Median PFS was 35·1 months (95% confidence interval 30·9-not reached) and median OS was not reached at a median follow-up of 30 months. Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 31 (62%) patients with only 1 patient experiencing grade 3 symptoms. RVD lite is a well-tolerated and highly effective regimen, with robust PFS and OS, in the transplant-ineligible MM population.
| S-EPMC6074026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Substantial efficacy has been demonstrated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in phase III studies in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients using various twice-weekly and once-weekly bortezomib dosing schedules. In VISTA, the regimen comprised four 6-week twice-weekly cycles, plus five 6-week once-weekly cycles. In the GIMEMA MM-03-05 study, the bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone regimen was either per VISTA ('GIMEMA twice-weekly'), or comprised nine 5-week once-weekly cycles ('GIMEMA once-weekly'). In the GEM2005MAS65 study, the regimen comprised one 6-week twice-weekly cycle, plus five 5-week once-weekly cycles. We evaluated the cumulative bortezomib dose administered during bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, as well as efficacy and tolerability, using patient-level study data. Over all bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone cycles (nine in VISTA/GIMEMA; six in GEM2005MAS65), the median cumulative bortezomib dose administered was 38.5, 42.1, 40.3, and 32.9 mg/m(2) in VISTA, GIMEMA twice-weekly, GIMEMA once-weekly, and GEM2005MAS65, respectively, and the respective proportions of planned bortezomib dose actually delivered were 57.0%, 62.3%, 86.1%, and 90.4%. Response rates following bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone were 74-87% and appeared generally similar between studies. Three-year survival rates were 67.9-75.7% across studies. Grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy rates were 13% in VISTA and 14% in GIMEMA twice-weekly, but were lower at 2% in GIMEMA once-weekly and 7% in GEM2005MAS65. Discontinuations and bortezomib dose reductions due to peripheral neuropathy were reduced in GIMEMA once-weekly versus VISTA and GIMEMA twice-weekly. Exclusive or predominant use of once-weekly bortezomib dosing in GIMEMA once-weekly and GEM2005MAS65 resulted in high efficacy, comparable with that demonstrated in VISTA, and similar cumulative bortezomib dose with reduced toxicity. Trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: VISTA (Identifier:00111319), GIMEMA MM-03-05 (Identifier:01063179), and GEM2005MAS65 (Identifier:00443235).
| S-EPMC4040917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10-5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10-5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10-5 and 10-6, and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10-5, the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 .
| S-EPMC11333283 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10430979 | biostudies-literature