Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2024
Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma After Exposure to Lenalidomide in First Line of Therapy: A Single Center Database Review in Greece.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kastritis Efstathios, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos Ioannis, Theodorakakou Foteini, Migkou Magdalini, Roussou Maria, Malandrakis Panagiotis, Kanellias Nikolaos, Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou Evangelos, Fotiou Despina, Spiliopoulou Vassiliki, Gavriatopoulou Maria, Patel Sachin, Majer Istvan, Boukis Christos, Fetani Andriani, Dimopoulos Meletios A, Terpos Evangelos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.