Treatment pattern and outcomes of re-induction therapy prior to stem cell transplantation in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Germany
-
Published:2024-03-14
Issue:6
Volume:59
Page:880-889
-
ISSN:0268-3369
-
Container-title:Bone Marrow Transplantation
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Bone Marrow Transplant
Author:
Sauer SandraORCID, Engelhardt MonikaORCID, Trautmann-Grill Karolin, Kimmich Christoph, Hänel Mathias, Schmidt-Hieber Martin, Salwender Hans, Flossmann Carmen, Heckmann Hiltrud, Ertel Franziska, Friederich Andrea, Patel Sachin, Thun Barbara, Raab Marc S.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractThere are limited data guiding choice of re-induction therapies for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) prior to stem cell transplantation (SCT). We performed a retrospective medical chart review of 171 patients with RRMM in Germany who received re-induction therapy in second line (78%; n = 134) or third line (22%; n = 37) prior to re-SCT. Index therapy was defined as first completed re-induction therapy for planned myeloablative conditioning and SCT in second/third line within the eligibility period (1/2016–12/2019). Most common pre-index first line and maintenance therapy used were bortezomib-based combinations (91%; n = 155/171) and lenalidomide (55%; n = 29/53), respectively. Median duration of index therapy line was 9 months; carfilzomib-based combinations were the most widely used in second/third line re-induction therapy (49%; n = 83/171), followed by daratumumab-based combinations (21%; n = 36/171). Overall response rates in second/third line were 87% after re-induction and 96% after SCT; median time to next treatment line after start of index therapy was 31 months; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 29 months; and median overall survival after index date was not reached. Based on these data, re-induction therapy with salvage SCT appears to be beneficial in selected patients with RRMM in clinical practice in Germany, translating into deep responses, long PFS and prolonged time to next treatment.
Funder
Amgen GmbH (Munich, Germany) and Amgen Europe GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference36 articles.
1. Zhou L, Yu Q, Wei G, Wang L, Huang Y, Hu K, et al. Measuring the global, regional, and national burden of multiple myeloma from 1990 to 2019. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:606. 2. Huang J, Chan SC, Lok V, Zhang L, Lucero-Prisno DE 3rd, Xu W, et al. The epidemiological landscape of multiple myeloma: a global cancer registry estimate of disease burden, risk factors, and temporal trends. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9:e670–e677. 3. Pulte D, Jansen L, Castro FA, Emrich K, Katalinic A, Holleczek B, et al. Trends in survival of multiple myeloma patients in Germany and the United States in the first decade of the 21st century. Br J Haematol. 2015;171:189–96. 4. Bobin A, Liuu E, Moya N, Gruchet C, Sabirou F, Lévy A, et al. Multiple myeloma: an overview of the current and novel therapeutic approaches in 2020. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:2885. 5. Piechotta V, Skoetz N, Engelhardt M, Einsele H, Goldschmidt H, Scheid C. Patients with multiple myeloma or monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022;119:253–60.
|
|