Summary
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a subclonal disease characterized by large heterogeneity with a complex treatment landscape. Patients with MM have a myriad of available treatment options, prescribed based on several factors, including genetic testing, comorbidities, risk status, age, patient preference, and/or prior treatment failures. Cytogenetic abnormalities determines risk stratification and prognosis. The prognostic significance of t(11;14)-positivity has been debated and it is currently considered a standard-risk abnormality; however, testing for t(11;14) may be of potential therapeutic significance. Despite recent advances in treatment that have improved response rates and survival, MM remains incurable. This results in a continuous treat-to-failure approach that eventually leads to a lack of effective therapeutic options. Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients by lines of therapy (LOT) in real-world settings provide important benchmarks for assessments of future targeted therapies.
Methods
Data were retrospectively collected from the ConcertAI Patient360 database containing aggregated electronic health record data of patients treated in primarily community-based oncology centers in the US. Adults diagnosed with MM (2011-2022) who received a National Comprehensive Cancer Network-guideline recommended treatment and had ≥2-months follow up were included; this analysis focused on patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) MM who are t(11;14)-positive and received ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy. Baseline characteristics were determined for the third-line plus (3L+) subgroup of patients with t(11;14) RRMM. Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results were stratified by the use of doublet or triplet regimens, in which patients were treated with 2 or 3 classes of treatments among 6 options (ie, proteasome inhibitors [PI], immunomodulatory imide drugs [IMID], anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, chemotherapy, BCL-2 inhibitors, exportin-1 inhibitors, or steroid therapy), respectively, at any time during the LOT.
Results
Eighty-four patients with t(11;14) RRMM received 3L+ of therapy. Of patients, 43% were female, 20% were Black, and 75% were White. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 64 (37-84), and the median (range) follow-up since diagnosis was 76 (10-209) months. At 24 months since the initiation of treatment, the median (range) PFS for all t(11;14)-positive patients that received 3L+ of therapy was 7.5 (5.9-9.4) months, and the median (range) PFS rate was 14.8% (9.7%-22.5%) (Figure); the median (range) OS for all t(11;14)-positive patients that received 3L+ of therapy was 32.1 (25.4-48.0) months, and the median (range) OS rate was 58.3% (51.0%-66.6%). The most common treatment regimens used in 3L+ included Daratumumab + Pomalidomide ± Dexamethasone (12%), Venetoclax monotherapy (9%), Pomalidomide ± Dexamethasone (7%), and Bortezomib ± Dexamethasone (7%). Of doublet regimens used in 3L+ (n = 69 LOT), 18 (26%) were IMID + steroid, 14 (20%) were PI + steroid, and 11 (16%) monoclonal antibody (MA)+ steroid. For triplet regimens used at 3L+ (n = 97 LOT), 28 (29%) were IMID + MA + steroid, 23 (24%) were IMID + PI + steroid, and 12 (12%) were MA + PI + steroid. Triplet regimen use increased from 52% in 3L to 61% in 4L and was associated with slightly longer PFS in 3L, relative to doublet regimen use. For patients that received 3L+ therapies, the median (95% CI) PFS was 6.7 (5.4-11.1) months for patients receiving doublet regimens, and 7.7 (5.9-11.3) months for patients receiving triplet regimens.
Conclusions
Triplet regimens were more commonly used than doublet regimens as 3L+ therapy. Triplets were also associated with slightly longer PFS in 3L; however, PFS rates were low and did not translate into longer OS, suggesting an unmet need for novel therapeutic options for patients with t(11;14) RRMM.
