Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Patients Treated with Proteasome Inhibitors in Germany

H. Tilman Steinmetz,Moushmi Singh,Andrea Lebioda,Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire,Achim Rieth,Martina Schoehl,Wolfram Poenisch,H. Tilman Steinmetz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000509018
2020-01-01
Oncology Research and Treatment
Abstract:<span><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> 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. <br/>Oncol Res Treat</span>
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?