The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
On Saturday 15 June at the 24th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA), Charlotte Pawlyn from the Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK, presented an exploratory subgroup analysis of the phase III Myeloma XI study.1 This trial (NCT01554852) compared the efficacy of quadruplet induction therapy with carfilzomib (K), cyclophosphamide (C), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (d; KCRd) versus triplet combinations (CRd or CTd [thalidomide, T instead of R]), in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients.
The Myeloma XI trial was the first, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III trial to show in its primary analysis that carfilzomib addition to induction regimens leads to deep responses and a good toxicity profile in the naïve MM setting.2
In this Myeloma XI subgroup analysis, the efficacy of KCRd versus the triplet combinations was assessed in different molecular risk patient subpopulations that were involved in the study. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) per subgroup.
C, cyclophosphamide; d, dexamethasone; ISS; international staging system, standard risk; defined as no high-risk lesions, high-risk; defined as one high-risk lesion, ultra high-risk lesion; defined as ≥1 high-risk lesion; K, carfilzomib; R, lenalidomide; T, thalidomide; WHO, world health organization |
|||
Baseline characteristic |
CTd arm (n=265) |
CRd arm (n=265) |
KCRd arm (n=526) |
---|---|---|---|
Male patients |
58.9% |
64.2% |
60.3% |
Median age (range) |
61 (38–74) |
62 (36–74) |
61 (33–75) |
WHO performance: 0 1 2 ≥3 Not applicable |
46.4% 32.5% 12.5% 3.8% 4.9% |
38.1% 37.0% 11.3% 6.8% 6.8% |
42.8% 36.9% 11.0% 4.0% 5.3% |
ISS: I II III Not applicable |
31.7% 37.4% 22.3% 8.7% |
30.2% 35.8% 23.8% 10.2% |
31.7% 37.6% 22.2% 8.4% |
High-risk lesions: t(4;14) t(14;16) t(14;20) del(17p) gain(1q) |
11.7% 0% 0% 7.4% 31.9% |
12.9% 0% 0% 4.7% 35.3% |
13.7% 3.4% 1.0% 8.35 34.8% |
Risk category: Standard risk High risk Ultra high risk |
59.6% 30.9% 9.6% |
55.3% 36.5% 8.2% |
49.5% 39.7% 10.8% |
|
CTd arm (n=265) |
CRd arm (n=265) |
KCRd arm (n=526) |
---|---|---|---|
Prior ASCT |
|
|
|
ORR |
52.8% |
64.9% |
82.3%* |
|
CTd arm (n=159) |
CRd arm (n=179) |
KCRd arm (n=394) |
After ASCT |
|
|
|
ORR |
76.1% |
82.1% |
91.9% |
* p<0.0001 between KCRd and CTd or CRd arms. ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; C, cyclophosphamide; d, dexamethasone; K, carfilzomib; ORR, overall response rate; R, lenalidomide; T, thalidomide |
This subgroup analysis of the phase III Myeloma XI study, based on patient populations with standard, high or ultra-high molecular risk, showed that KCRd did not lead to different response rates in these subgroups. Moreover, the PFS benefit observed with KCRd treatment (3-year PFS 64.5% vs 50.3%) remained the same among patients with different molecular risk. Even with KCRd, patients with ultra-high-risk disease continue to have poor long-term outcomes, constituting a serious unmet medical need.
References