24 augustus 2018: Bron: HemaSphere: August 2018 - Volume 2 - Issue 4 - p e45

In het blad HemaSphere is een studie gepubliceerd die een overzicht geeft van de resultaten op overall overleving in de periode van 2008 tot 2013 bij patiënten met multiple myeloma (Kahler) in alle stadia vanaf het moment van de diagnose en start van de 1e lijns behandeling. Ik moet er wel bij opmerken dat de laatste 5 jaar er wel progressie is geboekt bij het behandelen van Multiple Myeloma (zie in gerelateerde artikelen) dus de cijfers geven wel een ietwat vertekend beeld van de situatie op dit moment. 

Maar op zich is het wel een duidelijk overzicht omdat het ook uitgesplitst is in eerstelijns, tweedelijns, derdelijns en vierdelijns behandelingen.

Tussen 2008 en 2013, kregen respectievelijk 917, 583, 283, en 139 patiënten een 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e lijns behandeling. Thalidomide werd het meeste gebruikt in de 1e lijns (66%); bortezomib- en lenalidomide in de 2e lijns (41% en 27%, respectievelijk). De mediane OS (95% confidence interval) varieerde van 37.5 maanden (34.8–41.8 maanden) in de 1e lijns tot 9.2 maanden (6.2–12.3 maanden) in de 4e lijns behandelingen. Univariabele analyses toonden aan dat de grootste progressie in overall overleving werd geboekt door jongere patienten. (≤65 vs >65 years).

Het volledige studierapport: Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective Analysis of the Dutch Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies (PHAROS) is gratis in te zien.

Hier het abstract van de studie: 

Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective Analysis of the Dutch Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies (PHAROS)

Verelst, Silvia G.R.1; Blommestein, Hedwig M.2,3,4; De Groot, Saskia2,4; Gonzalez-McQuire, Sebastian5; DeCosta, Lucy6; de Raad, Johan B.7; Uyl-de Groot, Carin A.2,3,4; Sonneveld, Pieter1

Registry data are important for monitoring the impact of new therapies on treatment algorithms and outcomes, and for guiding clinical decision making in multiple myeloma (MM). This observational study analyzed real-world data from patients in the Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies who were treated for symptomatic MM from 2008 to 2013 in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from initiation of first-line treatment. Secondary endpoints included OS and progression-free survival per treatment line, treatment patterns, and treatment response. Between 2008 and 2013, 917, 583, 283, and 139 patients had initiated first, second, third, and fourth treatment lines, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens were the most frequently used first-line treatment (66%); bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens were most often used in the second line (41% and 27%, respectively). The median OS (95% confidence interval) ranged from 37.5 months (34.8–41.8 months) in the first line to 9.2 months (6.2–12.3 months) in the fourth line. Univariate analyses showed that survival benefits were most apparent in younger patients (≤65 vs >65 years). These analyses provide important real-world information on treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with MM.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoint of the study was OS from initiation of the first treatment line. The secondary endpoints included OS from the second, third, and fourth line, PFS, best treatment response, and treatment received, all by treatment line. We also performed analyses of OS and PFS according to age, ISS stage at diagnosis, (previous) SCT status, and treatment type.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical analyses

No formal hypotheses were tested. Patients were grouped according to treatment line. Patients who initiated a treatment line between 2008 and 2013 were included for each treatment line; therefore, individuals could have been included in multiple treatment lines if these were initiated within the time frame of these analyses. Patient characteristics and most commonly used treatment regimens were summarized by line of therapy. A line of therapy was considered as a period during which a patient was treated with a specific antitumor regimen and the period following treatment. A treatment line ended when a new treatment was initiated, the end of the follow-up period was reached, or the patient died. A new treatment line was defined as the initiation of treatment with a new antitumor drug regimen when the patient appeared to be refractory, or after disease progression. Changes in dosing were not considered a new line of therapy. Retreatment with the same antitumor regimen was considered a new line of therapy only if it followed disease progression. Patients may have been diagnosed with MM (or with SMM), but did not immediately start treatment; hence, it was possible that there was a delay between diagnosis and first-line treatment initiation.

All analyses were descriptive, and no formal comparisons were made. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Treatment responses were described by treatment line and depth of response, and patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the various registration teams of the Netherlands Cancer Registry for the data collection. PHAROS is a cooperation of HOVON (Dutch–Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology), the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Comprehensive Cancer Organization, the Netherlands (IKNL).

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Moreau P, San Miguel J, Ludwig H, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24 (suppl 6):vi133–vi137.
2. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49:1374–1403.
3. Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008; 111:2516–2520.
4. Willenbacher E, Weger R, Rochau U, et al. Real-world use of 3rd line therapy for multiple myeloma in Austria: an Austrian Myeloma Registry (AMR) analysis of the therapeutic landscape and clinical outcomes prior to the use of next generation myeloma therapeutics. PLoS ONE 2016; 11:e0147381.
5. Verelst SGR, Van Norden Y, Coebergh JWW, et al. Multiple myeloma: treatment and survival in the era of novel agents. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2013; 13 (suppl 1):S228.
6. Celgene Europe Ltd. Thalidomide Celgene summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000823/WC500037050.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2016).
7. Celgene Europe Ltd. Revlimid summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000717/WC500056018.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2016).
8. Janssen-Cilag Ltd. Velcade summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000539/WC500048471.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2016).
9. Blommestein HM, Franken MG, Uyl-de Groot CA. A practical guide for using registry data to inform decisions about the cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs: lessons learned from the PHAROS registry. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33:551–560.
10. Verelst S, van Norden Y, Blommestein H, et al. Treatment sequencing and efficacy in newly diagnosed non-transplant eligible myeloma patients in the Netherlands: a population based study. Blood 2012; 120:4284.
11. Verelst S, van Norden Y, Sonneveld P. Age versus frailty: what should determine treatment choice in the elderly myeloma patients these days? Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015; 15 (suppl 3):e69–e70.
12. Blommestein HM, Verelst SG, de Groot S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of real-world treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma using a full disease model. Eur J Haematol 2016; 96:198–208.
13. Lokhorst H, Huijgens PC, Raymakers R, et al. Modern treatment methods for multiple myeloma: guidelines from the Dutch Haemato-Oncology Association (HOVON). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005; 149:808–813.
14. Lokhorst HM, Zweegman S, Kersten MJ, et al. Richtlijnen behandeling multipel myeloom anno 2008. Ned Tijdschr Hematol 2008; 5:150–156.
15. Sonneveld P, Zweegman S, Vellenga E, et al. Richtlijnen behandeling plasmacelaandoeningen anno 2010. Ned Tijdschr Hematol 2010; 7:84–95.
16. Zweegman S, Lokhorst HM, Levin M-D, et al. Richtlijnen behandeling multipel myeloom 2012. Ned Tijdschr Hematol 2012; 9:300–320.
17. Hájek R, Jarkovsky J, Campioni M, et al. Long-term outcomes and treatment patterns in patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma in the real-world setting: a retrospective analysis of the Czech RMG registry. Value Health 2016; 19:A158.
18. Yong K, Delforge M, Driessen C, et al. Multiple myeloma: patient outcomes in real-world practice. Br J Haem 2016; 175:252–264.
19. Astellas Pharma GmbH. Levact summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/spcpil/documents/spcpil/con1427431950045.pdf. (Accessed March 22, 2017).
20. Celgene Europe Ltd. Imnovid summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002682/WC500147717.pdf (Accessed March 6, 2017).
21. Novartis Europharm Ltd. Farydak summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003725/WC500193298.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2016).
22. Amgen. Kyprolis summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003790/WC500197692.pdf (Accessed September 5, 2016).
23. Takeda Pharma. NINLARO summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003844/WC500217620.pdf (Accessed January 5, 2017).
24. Janssen-Cilag International NV. DARZALEX summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/004077/WC500207296.pdf (Accessed July 21, 2016).
25. Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG. Empliciti summary of product characteristics. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003967/WC500206673.pdf (Accessed August 16, 2016).
26. De Angelis R, Minicozzi P, Sant M, et al. Survival variations by country and age for lymphoid and myeloid malignancies in Europe 2000–2007: results of EUROCARE-5 population-based study. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51:2254–2268.
27. Mehta J, Cavo M, Singhal S. How I treat elderly patients with myeloma. Blood 2010; 116:2215–2223.
28. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:91–97.
29. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1875–1883.
30. Kastritis E, Zervas K, Symeonidis A, et al. Improved survival of patients with multiple myeloma after the introduction of novel agents and the applicability of the International Staging System (ISS): an analysis of the Greek Myeloma Study Group (GMSG). Leukemia 2009; 23:1152–1157.
31. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20:1467–1473.
32. Mateos MV, Richardson PG, Schlag R, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2259–2266.
33. San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:906–917.
34. Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H, et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone is superior to vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the IFM 2005-01 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:4621–4629.
35. Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IG, van der Holt B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:2946–2955.
36. Cavo M, Pantani L, Petrucci MT, et al. Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone is superior to thalidomide-dexamethasone as consolidation therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2012; 120:9–19.
37. Rosinol L, Oriol A, Teruel AI, et al. Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood 2012; 120:1589–1596.
38. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Larocca A, et al. Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and improved survival. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:634–640.
39. Lokhorst HM, van der Holt B, Zweegman S, et al. A randomized phase 3 study on the effect of thalidomide combined with adriamycin, dexamethasone, and high-dose melphalan, followed by thalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2010; 115:1113–1120.
40. Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Marit G, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1782–1791.
41. Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:29–37.
42. Roussel M, Lauwers-Cances V, Robillard N, et al. Front-line transplantation program with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination as induction and consolidation followed by lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma: a phase II study by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2712–2717.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health Inc., on behalf of the European Hematology Association.

Plaats een reactie ...

Reageer op "Nederlandse studie geeft overzicht van overall overleving bij Multiple Myeloma (Kahler) in alle stadia in periode 2008 tot 2013."


Gerelateerde artikelen
 

Gerelateerde artikelen

Nederlandse studie geeft overzicht >> Belangrijke abstracten van >> Meta-analysis Shows Association >> Hoewel overall overleving >> CAR T-celtherapie met het >> Cryotherapie tijdens toediening >> Daratumumab (Darzalex) in >> Elotuzumab - een immuuntherapeutisch >> Genentest blijkt voorspellende >> lenalidomide na autologe stamceltransplantatie >>