Real World Outcomes with Venetoclax (Ven)-Based Therapies in Patients with Heavily Pretreated Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): A Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCC) Experience

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Ven is a BCL2 inhibitor that has shown clinical efficacy in RRMM patients (pts) particularly those that harbor t(11;14). Ven has been evaluated in clinical trials as a single agent, in combination with dexamethasone (dex), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MAb) yet its place in the therapeutic landscape remains in question. In this retrospective analysis, we aim to evaluate the real-world efficacy of Ven-based regimens in RRMM pts treated outside of a clinical trial across the 3-site MCCC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pts with RRMM treated with Ven-based regimens between January 2015 and October 2023 at the MCCC. Refractoriness was defined by progression on or within 60 days of stopping treatment. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square tests and continuous variables were compared with t-tests. Outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared between the groups using log-rank tests. Results: 83 pts were included in the analysis. The median age was 71 (39-93), 63% were male, 93% were white, 27% had ISS III, 18% had high risk cytogenetics (HRCyto), 76% had t(11;14), the median prior lines of therapy (LOT) was 4 (1-15), 68% received ≥ 4 prior LOT, 87% received prior autologous transplant, 58% were triple-class refractory (TCR), 64%/23% were penta-drug exposed/refractory (PDE/R), 8% received prior BCMA-directed therapies (BDT), 58% received Ven+dex, 25% received Ven+PI +/-dex, 6 % received Ven+anti-CD38 MAb+/-dex and 11% received Ven+other. The median follow-up time from start of a Ven-based regimen was 29 months (mo). The median Ven dose was 800mg (20-1600) with 25% of pts receiving Ven ramp-up dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) to a Ven-based regimen was 58% and was 64% for pts with t(11;14) and 40% for pts without t(11;14); p=0.06. Ven-treated pts with HRCyto had inferior PFS (3mo) and OS (8mo) compared to patients who did not have HRCyto who had a PFS of 9mo (p=0.020) and OS of 80mo (p<0.001). The ORR for TCR and PDR pts were 52% and 42%, respectively. No significant ORR differences were noted across the different Ven-based regimens (p=0.32). The median PFS for pts with t(11;14) was 10mo compared to 2mo for pts w/o t(11;14); p=<0.001. The median OS for pts with t(11;14) was 80mo compared to 10mo for pts without t(11;14); p=0.001. Ven-treated pts who received 1-3 prior LOT has superior ORR, median PFS, and median OS; 89%, 25mo, and 99mo, respectively, compared to pts who received ≥4 prior LOT who achieved an ORR of 43% (p<0.001), median PFS of 5mo (p<0.001) and median OS of 25mo (p<0.001). Ven-treated pts that were TCR had inferior PFS (5mo) and OS (26mo) compared to pts who were not TCR who achieved a PFS of 12mo (p<0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts that were PDR had inferior PFS (4mo) and OS (22mo) compared to pts who were not PDR who achieved a PFS of 9mo (p<0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts who received prior BDT (n=7) achieved an ORR of 29% and had a median PFS and OS of 2mo and 6mo, respectively on a Ven-based therapy. 59 pts received additional therapy in the post Ven-progression setting. The ORR to post-Ven progression therapies was 53% (n=31/59), the median PFS was 9mo and median OS was 35mo. The most common post-Ven progression regimens used were PI-based (n=16; ORR=56%), anti-CD38 MAb-based (n=14; ORR=50%), BDT (n=12; ORR=83%), selinexor-based (n=3; ORR=0%) with BDT resulting in highest ORR (p=0.048) and PFS (p=0.005). Conclusions: Ven-based regimens are effective in heavily pre-treated pts with RRMM however they are more effective when used within 1-3 prior LOT, in pts with t(11;14), and in pts without HRCyto, TCR or PDR MM. BDT appear to be the most efficacious therapies in the post-Ven progression setting.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.