Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 653. Myeloma: Therapy, excluding Transplantation: Poster II
Background
MM is a diagnosis of the elderly, with a median age of 70. Novel agents,
such as proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, V), and immunomodulatory agents
(thalidomide, T; lenalidomide, R) have improved response rates and survival in transplant-ineligible
patients; however, the disease is incurable and relapse is inevitable. Since
older patients are particularly vulnerable to adverse events (AEs), the safety
profile, particularly of multidrug regimens, is one of the most important considerations
in treatment selection.
While numerous phase 3 studies have been done in this patient population, each study is limited to a comparison of no more than 2 or 3 regimens. Given the cost and time to conduct phase 3 studies, Bayesian NMA is a powerful tool that has been used to extract additional information from precious resources. The goal of our study is to compare the safety and preliminary efficacy of induction regimens for transplant ineligible MM patients using data from published phase 3 studies.
Methods
To identify phase 3 clinical trials comparing induction regimens in transplant
ineligible patients, we conducted a systematic literature search using Pubmed,
Google Scholar, Embase, ASH and ASCO meeting abstracts with the MeSH terms
“multiple myeloma”, “randomized controlled trial” and “bortezomib” or “lenalidomide”
or “thalidomide” or equivalent. 18 trials met our inclusion criteria. Among
these trials, 9 trials did not have sufficient data on AEs (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism and neuropathy
grade 3 or higher by CTCAE) to be statistically analyzed. Data were pooled and
reported as odds ratio (OR) for the 9 trials incorporated in the analysis.
Bayesian NMA under the random-effects model was performed with STATA ver. 14.0.
Results
Because MP was the most frequently incorporated
regimen in the 9 studies, it was utilized as the reference for NMA. The pooled
OR of treatment A to have AEs compared to treatment B and 95 % confidence
interval (CI) is presented in the table. The pooled OR of Rd 18 compared to MP
was 0.57 and statistically significant. Continuous Rd (Rd) and VTP trended
towards less AEs than MP (pooled OR 0.63 and 0.6, respectively) but were not
statistically significant. The remaining regimens trended to have more AEs than
MP. Rd, Rd 18 and VTP were associated with significantly less AEs than VMP with
OR 0.31, 0.29, 0.3 respectively.
Existing evidence has demonstrated that the triplet regimens MPT, MPR and VMP have longer progression free survival (PFS) than MP. Rd is better than MPT and VMPT is better than VMP in terms of PFS. There is no head to head comparison to determine the best regimen among Rd, MPT, VMP, VMPT. We are contacting primary researchers of original trials to obtain individual patient data in order to conduct NMA for PFS and cost effectiveness.
Conclusion
Rd and VTP trend safer than MP and are significantly safer than VMP. Based on
the systematic review, we do not have sufficient data to select the best
regimen in terms of PFS. Further statistical analysis for efficacy will be
available upon receipt of individual patient data.
Disclosures: Chari: Celgene: Consultancy , Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees , Research Funding ; Biotest: Other: Institutional Research Funding ; Novartis: Consultancy , Research Funding ; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy , Research Funding ; Onyx: Consultancy , Research Funding ; Array Biopharma: Consultancy , Other: Institutional Research Funding , Research Funding .
See more of: Myeloma: Therapy, excluding Transplantation
See more of: Oral and Poster Abstracts
*signifies non-member of ASH