biostudies-literatureUnknown43(9)Steinmetz HT<h4>Introduction</h4>Real-world data reflects treatments and outcomes in clinical practice in contrast with controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates real-life multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatments in the second or third therapy line in 2017 in Germany.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a retrospective chart review on adult relapsed/refractory MM patients treated with ≥1 dose of a PI-based regimen in either the second or the third line of therapy. Participating physicians had ≥3 years of clinical experience in treating symptomatic MM patients and used PI according to the label.<h4>Results</h4>Distinct patient profiles for each PI-based regimen emerged. Younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel PI triplets such as carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) or IRd. Patients receiving lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-free regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients, no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained. The complete response rates were highest with KRd (13.0%), followed by carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) (5.7%) and bortezomib (4.8%). The very good partial response rates were highest with IRd (76.9%), followed by KRd (53.7%), Kd (25.7%), and bortezomib (20.5%). None of the KRd- or IRd-treated patients responded below a partial response.<h4>Discussion/conclusion</h4>Clear patient profiles for each PI type were observed. In second-line therapy, younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel-PI-based triplets, e.g., KRd or IRd. Patients treated with lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-sparing regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained due to the limited sample size.Oncology research and treatment449-459https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7845445biostudies-literaturePatient Characteristics and Outcomes of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Patients Treated with Proteasome Inhibitors in Germany.PMC7845445Gonzalez-McQuire SRieth ASteinmetz HTSingh MSchoehl MPoenisch WLebioda AfalsePatient Characteristics and Outcomes of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Patients Treated with Proteasome Inhibitors in Germany.<h4>Introduction</h4>Real-world data reflects treatments and outcomes in clinical practice in contrast with controlled clinical trials. This study evaluates real-life multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatments in the second or third therapy line in 2017 in Germany.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a retrospective chart review on adult relapsed/refractory MM patients treated with ≥1 dose of a PI-based regimen in either the second or the third line of therapy. Participating physicians had ≥3 years of clinical experience in treating symptomatic MM patients and used PI according to the label.<h4>Results</h4>Distinct patient profiles for each PI-based regimen emerged. Younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel PI triplets such as carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) or IRd. Patients receiving lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-free regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients, no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained. The complete response rates were highest with KRd (13.0%), followed by carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) (5.7%) and bortezomib (4.8%). The very good partial response rates were highest with IRd (76.9%), followed by KRd (53.7%), Kd (25.7%), and bortezomib (20.5%). None of the KRd- or IRd-treated patients responded below a partial response.<h4>Discussion/conclusion</h4>Clear patient profiles for each PI type were observed. In second-line therapy, younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients received novel-PI-based triplets, e.g., KRd or IRd. Patients treated with lenalidomide in first-line therapy mostly received lenalidomide-sparing regimens in second-line therapy. In high-risk patients no clear treatment patterns could be ascertained due to the limited sample size.2020-01-01T00:00:00Z20202024-02-15T20:02:00.129Z2021-02-21T05:11:56ZS-EPMC78454453269424310.1159/000509018