Dataset Information

Second- and third-line treatment strategies in multiple myeloma: a referral-center experience.

ABSTRACT: The treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) has increased. In this study, we aimed to characterize 2nd (n = 1439) and 3rd (n = 1104) line regimens and compare the results between subgroups based on the year of treatment initiation (2nd line: 2003-2008, 2009-2015, 2016-2021; 3rd line: 2004-2009, 2010-2015, and 2016-2021). In both the second- and third- lines, we observed increasing use of novel agents (from 78 to 95% and from 77 to 95%, respectively) and triplet regimens (from 15 to 69% and from 21 to 71%, respectively). The most frequently used regimens in the last studied periods included lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD; 14%), carfilzomib-RD (12%), and daratumumab-RD (10%) for the second-line, and daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (11%) and daratumumab-RD (10%) for the third-line. The median time to the next treatment from second-line therapy has improved from 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.4-12.4) to 16.6 months (95% CI: 13.3-20.3; p < 0.001). The median overall survival from the first relapse increased from 30.9 months (95% CI: 26.8-183.0) to 65.8 months (95% CI: 50.7-72.8; p < 0.001). Over the last two decades, more patients were treated with newer agents and triplets for relapsed MM. The landscape of regimens has become more diverse, and survival after the first relapse is continually improving.

SUBMITTER: Goldman-Mazur S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9723783 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Second- and third-line treatment strategies in multiple myeloma: a referral-center experience.

Goldman-Mazur Sarah S Visram Alissa A Rajkumar S Vincent SV Kapoor Prashant P Dispenzieri Angela A Lacy Martha Q MQ Gertz Morie A MA Buadi Francis K FK Hayman Suzanne R SR Dingli David D Kourelis Taxiarchis T Gonsalves Wilson W Warsame Rahma R Muchtar Eli E Leung Nelson N Kyle Robert A RA Kumar Shaji K SK

Blood cancer journal 20221206 12

The treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) has increased. In this study, we aimed to characterize 2nd (n = 1439) and 3rd (n = 1104) line regimens and compare the results between subgroups based on the year of treatment initiation (2nd line: 2003-2008, 2009-2015, 2016-2021; 3rd line: 2004-2009, 2010-2015, and 2016-2021). In both the second- and third- lines, we observed increasing use of novel agents (from 78 to 95% and from 77 to 95%, respectively) and triplet regimens (from 15 t ...[more]

PMID: 36473843

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of second-line palliative chemotherapy in patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma is not well defined. Several small studies (6-19 patients) have reported on ifosfamide as second-line treatment. In this study we report our single-center experience with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy in patients treated for recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.MethodsA chart review was conducted of all patients with osteosarcoma treated with ifosfamide from 1978 until 2017. Until 1997 a 5 g/m2 regimen was used, and from 1997 onwards a 9 g/m2 regimen was used. Overall survival (OS) from start of ifosfamide was the primary endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of treatment was also studied. To assess difference in survival between groups the log rank test was applied. To investigate the effect of ifosfamide dose and World Health Organization performance status (PS) a Cox proportional hazard regression model was estimated.ResultsSixty-two patients were selected with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma treated with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy (dose of 5 g/m2 , n = 26; 9 g/m2 , n = 36). OS was significantly better in univariate analysis for 9 g/m2 compared with 5 g/m2 (10.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.3-12.6] vs. 6.7 months [95% CI, 5.9-7.6], respectively) and for PS (median OS PS 0, 13.0 months [95% CI, 2.3-23.8]; PS 1, 8.2 months [95% CI, 5.4-11.1]; PS ≥2, 6.2 months [95% CI, 2.2-10.3]; and unknown PS, 5.4 months [95% CI, 2.2-8.5]). In multivariate analysis only PS showed a significant difference. No difference in PFS was found between 5 and 9 g/m2 ifosfamide treatment or PS.ConclusionThis study suggests that ifosfamide is an effective second-line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.Implications for practiceIfosfamide monotherapy is commonly used as second-line treatment in osteosarcoma, although large series to support this are lacking. This retrospective study reports overall and progression-free survival for regimens with 5 g/m2 and with 9 g/m2 . This study was unable to show a significant difference in survival between 5 and 9 g/m2 but showed an important impact of World Health Organization performance status on overall survival. This study sets a standard and reference for comparison with the multiple phase II studies under development.

Project description:Lenalidomide (Len) plus dexamethasone (Dex) is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). It is possible that single-agent Len may be effective as prolonged treatment regimen in RRMM once patients demonstrate an initial response to Len+Dex induction. Patients with RRMM who responded to first-line Len+Dex in an observational study (NCT01430546) received up to 24 cycles of either Len (25 mg/day) or Len+Dex (25 mg/day and 40 mg/week) as prolonged treatment in a subsequent phase 2 clinical trial (NCT01450215). In the observational study (N = 133), median time to response was 1.7 (range 0.6-9.6) months. A complete response to all treatments received in both studies was observed in 11% of patients; very good partial response and partial response rates were 31% and 38%, respectively. Corresponding response rates in the subgroup of patients who did not enter the phase 2 trial (n = 71) were 3%, 18%, and 39%, respectively. Rates of disease progression at 2 years in the phase 2 trial were 47% versus 31% for Len versus Len+Dex (P = 0.14). After 36 months median follow-up in surviving patients, median time to progression was not reached with Len+Dex and was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 12.5-not calculable, P < 0.001) with Len. Three-year OS among the total observational study population was 61% (95% CI, 52-69%). The corresponding rate among patients who entered the phase 2 clinical trial was 73% (95% CI, 60-83%) and was significantly lower among those patients who achieved ≥PR but did not proceed into the phase 2 trial (55%; P = 0.01). In the phase 2 trial, OS was 73% in both treatment arms (P = 0.70). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with prolonged (phase 2 trial) versus short-term (observational study) Len administration but remained manageable. Prolonged treatment with Len with or without Dex provides sustained, clinically relevant responses and demonstrates an acceptable safety profile.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe our experience with office removal of nonpalpable contraceptive implants at our referral center.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the charts of patients referred to our family planning specialty center for nonpalpable or complex contraceptive implant removal from January 2015 through December 2018. We localized nonpalpable implants using high-frequency ultrasonography and skin mapping in radiology, followed by attempted removal in the office using local anesthesia and a modified vasectomy clamp. We abstracted information on demographics, implant location, and outcomes.ResultsOf 61 referrals, 55 patients attended their scheduled appointments. Seven patients had palpable implants; six elected removal. The other 48 patients had ultrasound localization, which identified 47 (98%) of the implants; the remaining patient had successful localization with computed tomography imaging. Nonpalpable implants were suprafascial (n=22), subfascial (n=25) and intrafascial (n=1); four of these patients opted to delay removal. Of 50 attempted office removals, all palpable (n=6), all nonpalpable suprafascial (n=21 [100%, 95% CI 83-100%]), and 19 out of 23 (83%, 95% CI 67-98%) subfascial implants were successful. Three of the four patients with failed subfascial implant office removal had successful operating room removal with a collaborative orthopedic surgeon; the other patient sought removal elsewhere. Transient postprocedure neuropathic complaints were noted in 7 out of 23 (30%, 95% CI 12-49%) subfascial and 1 out of 21 (5%, 95% CI 0-13%) suprafascial removals (P=.048). Nonpalpable implants were more likely to be subfascial in nonobese patients (24/34, 71%) as compared with obese (1/13, 8%) patients (P<.001). Seven (28%) of the 25 subfascially located implants had been inserted during a removal-reinsertion procedure through the same incision.ConclusionMost nonpalpable contraceptive implants can be removed in the office by an experienced subspecialty health care provider after ultrasound localization. Some patients may experience transient postprocedure neuropathic pain. Nonpalpable implants in thinner women are more likely to be in a subfascial location.

Dataset Information

Second- and third-line treatment strategies in multiple myeloma: a referral-center experience.

Publications

Second- and third-line treatment strategies in multiple myeloma: a referral-center experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets