Oncology Cologne, Center for Hematology and Oncology, Cologne, Germany,
Health Economics, Amgen Ltd., Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Oncol Res Treat. 2020;43(9):449-459. doi: 10.1159/000509018. Epub 2020 Jul 21.
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.
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.
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.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: 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.
真实世界的数据反映了临床实践中的治疗方法和结果,与对照临床试验形成对比。本研究评估了 2017 年在德国接受基于蛋白酶体抑制剂(PI)的治疗的二线或三线治疗的多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者的真实世界数据。
这是一项回顾性图表审查,纳入了接受≥1 剂基于 PI 方案治疗的二线或三线治疗的成年复发性/难治性 MM 患者。参与研究的医生具有≥3 年治疗有症状 MM 患者的临床经验,并根据标签使用 PI。
每种基于 PI 的方案都出现了不同的患者特征。年轻、健康、适合移植的患者接受了新型 PI 三联疗法,如卡非佐米联合来那度胺和地塞米松(KRd)或 IRd。在一线治疗中接受来那度胺治疗的患者,在二线治疗中大多接受了无来那度胺的方案。在高危患者中,无法确定明确的治疗模式。KRd 的完全缓解率最高(13.0%),其次是卡非佐米联合地塞米松(Kd)(5.7%)和硼替佐米(4.8%)。IRd 的非常好的部分缓解率最高(76.9%),其次是 KRd(53.7%)、Kd(25.7%)和硼替佐米(20.5%)。没有接受 KRd 或 IRd 治疗的患者的缓解率低于部分缓解。
讨论/结论:观察到每种 PI 类型的患者特征明显。在二线治疗中,年轻、健康、适合移植的患者接受了新型 PI 三联疗法,例如 KRd 或 IRd。在一线治疗中接受来那度胺治疗的患者,在二线治疗中大多接受了无来那度胺的方案。在高危患者中,由于样本量有限,无法确定明确的治疗模式。