Dataset Information

Single response assessment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a supplementary analysis of JCOG1105 (JCOG1105S1).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The International Myeloma Working Group response criteria require two consecutive assessments of paraprotein levels. We conducted an exploratory analysis to evaluate whether a single response assessment could be a substitute for the International Myeloma Working Group criteria using data from JCOG1105, a randomized phase II study on melphalan, prednisolone and bortezomib.

Methods

Of 91 patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 79 patients were included. We calculated the kappa coefficient to evaluate the degree of agreement between the International Myeloma Working Group criteria and the single response assessment.

Results

Based on the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 11 (13.9%), 20 (25.3%), 36 (45.6%) and 12 (15.2%) patients had stringent complete response/complete response, very good partial response, partial response and stable disease, respectively. Based on the single response assessment, 17 (21.5%), 19 (24.1%), 35 (44.3%) and 8 (10.1%) patients had stringent complete response/complete response, very good partial response, partial response and stable disease, respectively. The kappa coefficient was 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.88), demonstrating good agreement. The single response assessment was not inferior to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria in the median progression-free survival (3.8 and 2.9 years) in stringent complete response/complete response patients, suggesting that the single response assessment was not an overestimation.

Conclusions

The single response assessment could be a substitute for the current International Myeloma Working Group criteria for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

SUBMITTER: Nakamura N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8246272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.ObjectiveTo determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020.InterventionsThirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsSequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.