Clinical features and survival outcomes in IgD myeloma: a study by Asia Myeloma Network (AMN)
Lee, Jae Hoon
Kim, Min Kyoung
Chng, Wee Joo
Kumar, Shaji K
MetadataShow full item record
SponsorsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/13965
- Immunoglobulin D myeloma: clinical features and outcome in the era of novel agents.
- Authors: Zagouri F, Kastritis E, Symeonidis AS, Giannakoulas N, Katodritou E, Delimpasi S, Repousis P, Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Greek Myeloma Study Group.
- Issue date: 2014 Apr
- Is IgD Myeloma a Separate Clinical Entity? Report of Six Cases Investigated by Isoelectric Focusing.
- Authors: McLachlan R, Richardson GE, Wolf MM
- Issue date: 1990
- Clinical characteristics and prognosis of immunoglobulin D myeloma in the novel agent era.
- Authors: Chen L, Fan F, Deng J, Xu J, Xu A, Sun C, Hu Y
- Issue date: 2019 Apr
- IgD myeloma: clinical, biological and laboratory features.
- Authors: Sinclair D
- Issue date: 2002
- IgD multiple myeloma: Clinical, biological features and prognostic value of the serum free light chain assay.
- Authors: Djidjik R, Lounici Y, Chergeulaïne K, Berkouk Y, Mouhoub S, Chaib S, Belhani M, Ghaffor M
- Issue date: 2015 Sep
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Utilization of novel systemic therapies for multiple myeloma: A retrospective study of front-line regimens using the SEER-Medicare dataKhairnar, R.; Yared, J.A.; Onukwugha, E.; Slejko, J.F. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2019)The landscape of treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly changed over the last decade due to novel agents that have shown superiority in efficacy such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) over traditional therapies. However, the real-world utilization of these new agents has not been studied well. This study evaluated year-to-year changes in treatment choices in a cohort of patients aged 66 or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare) data who were diagnosed with MM between 2007 and 2011. We identified 2477 symptomatic newly diagnosed patients who were followed for 6 months or more postdiagnosis and treated with systemic therapies but not with stem cell transplantation. Symptomatic patients were identified by evidence of hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions (CRAB criteria). The minimum follow-up was imposed to ensure sufficient data to characterize treatment. Our analysis found that the proportion of treated patients increased from 75% in the 2007 cohort to 79% in the 2011 cohort. The share of PI-based regimens including PI plus alkylating agents, PI plus IMiD, and PI-only increased from 9% to 21%, 3% to 11%, and 16% to 22%, respectively, between 2007 and 2011. These findings translate to the share of PI-based regimens having increased from 28% to 55% and that of IMiDs-based regimens (excluding PI plus IMiD) having decreased from 43% to 27%. In conclusion, while the usage of PIs among elderly MM patients increased significantly replacing IMiD-based regimens (with or without alkylating agents but not with PI) between 2007 and 2011, this significant shift did not increase the proportion of treated patients. Copyright 2019 The Authors.
A phase 1 clinical trial evaluating marizomib, pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (NPI-0052-107): final study resultsSpencer, A.; Harrison, S.; Zonder, J. (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2018)Marizomib (MRZ) is an irreversible, pan‐subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) in clinical development for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and glioma. This study analysed MRZ, pomalidomide (POM) and low‐dose dexamethasone (Lo‐DEX) [PMD] in RRMM to evaluate safety and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Intravenous MRZ (0·3–0·5 mg/m2) was administered over 2 h on days 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3–4 mg) on days 1–21; and Lo‐DEX (5 or 10 mg) on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22 and 23 of every 28‐day cycle. Thirty‐eight patients were enrolled that had received a median of 4 (range 1–10) prior lines of therapy; all patients received prior lenalidomide and bortezomib. No dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed and 0·5 mg/m2 MRZ was determined to be the RP2D. The most common treatment‐related ≥Grade 3 adverse events were: neutropenia (11/38 patients: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 patients 11%), anaemia (4/38 patients; 11%) and thrombocytopenia (4/38 patients; 11%). The overall response rate and clinical benefit rate was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively. In conclusion, PMD was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pre‐treated, high‐risk RRMM patients. Copyright 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Corneal Epithelial Findings in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Antibody–Drug Conjugate Belantamab Mafodotin in the Pivotal, Randomized, DREAMM-2 StudyFarooq, Asim V.; Degli Esposti, Simona; Popat, Rakesh; Thulasi, Praneetha; Lonial, Sagar; Nooka, Ajay K.; Jakubowiak, Andrzej; Sborov, Douglas; Zaugg, Brian E.; Badros, Ashraf Z.; et al. (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-07-25)Introduction: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) represent an unmet clinical need. Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; GSK2857916) is a first-in-class antibody–drug conjugate (ADC; or immunoconjugate) that delivers a cytotoxic payload, monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF), to myeloma cells. In the phase II DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678), single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-myeloma activity (overall response rate 32%) in patients with heavily pretreated disease. Microcyst-like epithelial changes (MECs) were common, consistent with reports from other MMAF-containing ADCs. Methods: Corneal examination findings from patients in DREAMM-2 were reviewed, and the clinical descriptions and accompanying images (slit lamp microscopy and in vivo confocal microscopy [IVCM]) of representative events were selected. A literature review on corneal events reported with other ADCs was performed. Results: In most patients receiving single-agent belamaf (72%; 68/95), MECs were observed by slit lamp microscopy early in treatment (69% had their first event by dose 4). However, IVCM revealed hyperreflective material. Blurred vision (25%) and dry eye (15%) were commonly reported symptoms. Management of MECs included dose delays (47%)/reductions (25%), with few patients discontinuing due to MECs (1%). The first event resolved in most patients (grade ≥2 MECs and visual acuity[each 77%], blurred vision [67%], and dry eye [86%]), with no reports of permanent vision loss to date. A literature review confirmed that similar MECs were reported with other ADCs; however, event management strategies varied. The pathophysiology of MECs is unclear, though the ADC cytotoxic payload may contribute to on- or off-target effects on corneal epithelial cells. Conclusion: Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for patients with RRMM. As with other ADCs, MECs were observed and additional research is warranted to determine their pathophysiology. A multidisciplinary approach, involving close collaboration between eye care professionals and hematologist/oncologists, is needed to determine appropriate diagnosis and management of these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03525678. © 2020, The Author(s).