Department of Clinical Therapeutics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.
Department of Clinical Therapeutics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2024 Jul;24(7):468-477. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2024.03.003. Epub 2024 Mar 19.
The increasing use of lenalidomide (Len) in first-line (1L) therapy of multiple myeloma (MM) has led to a significant proportion of patients becoming Len-refractory following 1L treatment. However, there are limited real-world data on treatment strategies and outcomes of patients who become Len-refractory following 1L therapy.
This real-world retrospective cohort study analyzed Len-refractory and non-Len-refractory patients who received 1L Len and initiated second-line (2L) therapy at a Greek MM center. The Len-exposed cohort (n = 249) included 55.4% Len-refractory patients after 1L.
Compared to non-Len-refractory patients, Len-refractory patients more frequently had high-risk cytogenetics and Revised-International Staging System-3 disease stage at diagnosis, and had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) following 1L therapy. Len-refractory versus non-Len-refractory patients more frequently received triplets (59% vs. 40%), anti-CD38 agents (20% vs. 9%) and pomalidomide (22% vs. 13%). The overall response rate was 53% for Len-refractory patients and 64% for non-Len-refractory patients in 2L therapy; median PFS was 10.7 vs. 18.3 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was shorter for Len-refractory patients vs non-Len-refractory patients (23.8 vs. 53.6 months). Len refractoriness was an independent prognostic factor for both PFS and OS in Len-exposed patients.
In this real-world Len-exposed cohort, Len-refractory patients receiving 1L Len experienced poorer survival outcomes than non-Len-refractory patients, highlighting the unmet need in this patient population which has driven the development of novel therapies.
来那度胺(Len)在多发性骨髓瘤(MM)一线治疗中的应用日益增多,导致相当一部分患者在一线治疗后出现 Len 耐药。然而,对于一线治疗后出现 Len 耐药的患者,其治疗策略和结局的真实世界数据有限。
这项真实世界的回顾性队列研究分析了在希腊骨髓瘤中心接受一线 Len 治疗并开始二线(2L)治疗的 Len 耐药和非 Len 耐药患者。Len 暴露队列(n=249)包括 55.4%的一线治疗后 Len 耐药患者。
与非 Len 耐药患者相比,Len 耐药患者在诊断时更常具有高危细胞遗传学和修订国际分期系统-3 疾病分期,且一线治疗后无进展生存期(PFS)更短。与非 Len 耐药患者相比,Len 耐药患者更常接受三联方案(59%比 40%)、抗 CD38 药物(20%比 9%)和泊马度胺(22%比 13%)。在 2L 治疗中,Len 耐药患者的总缓解率为 53%,而非 Len 耐药患者的总缓解率为 64%;中位 PFS 分别为 10.7 个月和 18.3 个月。中位总生存期(OS)Len 耐药患者较非 Len 耐药患者更短(23.8 个月比 53.6 个月)。在 Len 暴露患者中,Len 耐药是 PFS 和 OS 的独立预后因素。
在这项真实世界的 Len 暴露队列中,接受一线 Len 治疗的 Len 耐药患者的生存结局较非 Len 耐药患者差,突出了这一患者群体的未满足需求,这推动了新型治疗方法的发展。