User login
In Part 2 of this editorial, Katja Weisel, MD, of University Hospital Tubingen in Germany, addresses the barriers to longer treatment in patients with multiple myeloma.
Attitudes regarding longer treatment can present barriers to widespread adoption of this approach in multiple myeloma (MM).
Indeed, some clinicians continue to follow a fixed-duration approach to treatment in MM, only considering further treatment once the patient has relapsed rather than treating the patient until disease progression.
In the MM community, some are reluctant to adopt a strategy of treating longer because of the modest efficacy gains observed with early research or concern over tolerability issues, including the risk of developing peripheral neuropathy or secondary malignancies.1
Others are uncertain about the optimal duration of therapy or the selection of an agent that will balance any potential gain in depth of response with the risk of late-onset or cumulative toxicities.
The potentially high cost of longer treatment for patients, their families, and/or the healthcare system overall also presents a challenge.
It is feasible that treating patients for longer may drive up healthcare utilization and take a toll on patients and caregivers, who may incur out-of-pocket costs because of the need to travel to a hospital or doctor’s office for intravenous therapies, requiring them to miss work.2
It is important to recognize, however, that more convenient all-oral treatment regimens are now available that do not require infusion at a hospital or clinic. Furthermore, results from recent studies suggest the majority of cancer patients prefer oral over intravenous therapies, which could reduce non-pharmacy healthcare costs.3,4
Healthcare providers might be more likely to accept and adopt a longer treatment approach for MM if they had access to data describing the optimal duration, dosage, schedule, toxicity, and quality of life standards.
Ongoing, randomized, phase 3 trials are evaluating the benefits of treating longer with an oral proteasome inhibitor in patients with newly diagnosed MM.5,6
Updated treatment guidelines and consensus statements will provide further guidance for clinicians on the benefits of maintenance therapy in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.
The recently updated MM guidelines from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend longer treatment or maintenance therapy in patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).7
Based on evidence from studies such as FIRST and SWOG S0777, ESMO also recommends continuous treatment or treatment until progression with lenalidomide-dexamethasone and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in MM patients who are ineligible for HSCT.7-9
As there is no one-size-fits-all treatment approach in MM, a personalized treatment plan should be designed for each patient. This plan should take into account a number of factors, including age, disease characteristics, performance status, treatment history, and the patient’s goals of care and personal preferences.10
If the patient is a candidate for longer treatment, the clinician should carefully weigh the potential impact on disease-free and overall survival against the potential side effects, as well as assess the patient’s likelihood of adhering to the medication.
With the availability of newer, less-toxic medications that can be tolerated for a greater duration and are easy to administer, aiding in overall treatment compliance, sustained remissions are possible.11-13
Forty years ago, MM patients had very few treatment options, and the 5-year survival rate was 26%.14
Since then, novel therapies, including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, have replaced conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, leading to major improvements in survival.15,16
With emerging research that supports the value of longer treatment strategies for both patients and the healthcare system, clinicians will have a proven strategy to help their patients attain long-term disease control while maintaining quality of life.2, 17-19
Dr. Weisel has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda. She has received research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, and Janssen.
The W2O Group provided writing support for this editorial, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.
1. Lipe B et al. Blood Cancer J. 2016; 6(10): e485. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2016.89
2. Goodwin J et al. Cancer Nurs. 2013; 36(4):301-8. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182693522
3. Eek D et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10:1609-21. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S106629
4. Bauer S et al. Value in Health. 2017; 20: A451. Abstract PCN217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.299
5. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Citrate (MLN9708) Maintenance Therapy in Participants With Multiple Myeloma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02181413 (Identification No. NCT02181413).
6. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Treated With Stem Cell Transplantation. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02312258 (Identification No. NCT02312258).
7. Moreau P et al. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: iv52-iv61. doi: https://org/10.1093/annonc/mdx096
8. Facon T et al. Blood. 2018131(3):301-310. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-07-795047
9. Durie BG et al. Lancet. 2017; 389(10068):519-527. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X.
10. Laubach J et al. Leukemia. 2016; 30(5):1005-17. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.356
11. Ludwig H et al. Blood. 2012; 119: 3003-3015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-11-374249
12. Lehners N et al. Cancer Med. 2018; 7(2): 307–316. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1283
13. Attal M et al. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1872-1791. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138
14. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975-2014. National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
15. Kumar SK et al. Blood. 2008 Mar 1;111(5):2516-20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129
16. Fonseca R et al. Leukemia. 2017 Sep;31(9):1915-1921. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.380
17. Palumbo A, Niesvizky R. Leuk Res. 2012; 36 Suppl 1:S19-26. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2126(12)70005-X
18. Girnius S, Munshi NC. Leuk Suppl. 2013; 2(Suppl 1): S3–S9. doi: 10.1038/leusup.2013.2
19. Mateos M-V, San Miguel JF. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2013; 2013:488-95. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.488
In Part 2 of this editorial, Katja Weisel, MD, of University Hospital Tubingen in Germany, addresses the barriers to longer treatment in patients with multiple myeloma.
Attitudes regarding longer treatment can present barriers to widespread adoption of this approach in multiple myeloma (MM).
Indeed, some clinicians continue to follow a fixed-duration approach to treatment in MM, only considering further treatment once the patient has relapsed rather than treating the patient until disease progression.
In the MM community, some are reluctant to adopt a strategy of treating longer because of the modest efficacy gains observed with early research or concern over tolerability issues, including the risk of developing peripheral neuropathy or secondary malignancies.1
Others are uncertain about the optimal duration of therapy or the selection of an agent that will balance any potential gain in depth of response with the risk of late-onset or cumulative toxicities.
The potentially high cost of longer treatment for patients, their families, and/or the healthcare system overall also presents a challenge.
It is feasible that treating patients for longer may drive up healthcare utilization and take a toll on patients and caregivers, who may incur out-of-pocket costs because of the need to travel to a hospital or doctor’s office for intravenous therapies, requiring them to miss work.2
It is important to recognize, however, that more convenient all-oral treatment regimens are now available that do not require infusion at a hospital or clinic. Furthermore, results from recent studies suggest the majority of cancer patients prefer oral over intravenous therapies, which could reduce non-pharmacy healthcare costs.3,4
Healthcare providers might be more likely to accept and adopt a longer treatment approach for MM if they had access to data describing the optimal duration, dosage, schedule, toxicity, and quality of life standards.
Ongoing, randomized, phase 3 trials are evaluating the benefits of treating longer with an oral proteasome inhibitor in patients with newly diagnosed MM.5,6
Updated treatment guidelines and consensus statements will provide further guidance for clinicians on the benefits of maintenance therapy in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.
The recently updated MM guidelines from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend longer treatment or maintenance therapy in patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).7
Based on evidence from studies such as FIRST and SWOG S0777, ESMO also recommends continuous treatment or treatment until progression with lenalidomide-dexamethasone and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in MM patients who are ineligible for HSCT.7-9
As there is no one-size-fits-all treatment approach in MM, a personalized treatment plan should be designed for each patient. This plan should take into account a number of factors, including age, disease characteristics, performance status, treatment history, and the patient’s goals of care and personal preferences.10
If the patient is a candidate for longer treatment, the clinician should carefully weigh the potential impact on disease-free and overall survival against the potential side effects, as well as assess the patient’s likelihood of adhering to the medication.
With the availability of newer, less-toxic medications that can be tolerated for a greater duration and are easy to administer, aiding in overall treatment compliance, sustained remissions are possible.11-13
Forty years ago, MM patients had very few treatment options, and the 5-year survival rate was 26%.14
Since then, novel therapies, including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, have replaced conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, leading to major improvements in survival.15,16
With emerging research that supports the value of longer treatment strategies for both patients and the healthcare system, clinicians will have a proven strategy to help their patients attain long-term disease control while maintaining quality of life.2, 17-19
Dr. Weisel has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda. She has received research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, and Janssen.
The W2O Group provided writing support for this editorial, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.
1. Lipe B et al. Blood Cancer J. 2016; 6(10): e485. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2016.89
2. Goodwin J et al. Cancer Nurs. 2013; 36(4):301-8. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182693522
3. Eek D et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10:1609-21. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S106629
4. Bauer S et al. Value in Health. 2017; 20: A451. Abstract PCN217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.299
5. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Citrate (MLN9708) Maintenance Therapy in Participants With Multiple Myeloma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02181413 (Identification No. NCT02181413).
6. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Treated With Stem Cell Transplantation. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02312258 (Identification No. NCT02312258).
7. Moreau P et al. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: iv52-iv61. doi: https://org/10.1093/annonc/mdx096
8. Facon T et al. Blood. 2018131(3):301-310. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-07-795047
9. Durie BG et al. Lancet. 2017; 389(10068):519-527. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X.
10. Laubach J et al. Leukemia. 2016; 30(5):1005-17. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.356
11. Ludwig H et al. Blood. 2012; 119: 3003-3015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-11-374249
12. Lehners N et al. Cancer Med. 2018; 7(2): 307–316. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1283
13. Attal M et al. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1872-1791. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138
14. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975-2014. National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
15. Kumar SK et al. Blood. 2008 Mar 1;111(5):2516-20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129
16. Fonseca R et al. Leukemia. 2017 Sep;31(9):1915-1921. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.380
17. Palumbo A, Niesvizky R. Leuk Res. 2012; 36 Suppl 1:S19-26. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2126(12)70005-X
18. Girnius S, Munshi NC. Leuk Suppl. 2013; 2(Suppl 1): S3–S9. doi: 10.1038/leusup.2013.2
19. Mateos M-V, San Miguel JF. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2013; 2013:488-95. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.488
In Part 2 of this editorial, Katja Weisel, MD, of University Hospital Tubingen in Germany, addresses the barriers to longer treatment in patients with multiple myeloma.
Attitudes regarding longer treatment can present barriers to widespread adoption of this approach in multiple myeloma (MM).
Indeed, some clinicians continue to follow a fixed-duration approach to treatment in MM, only considering further treatment once the patient has relapsed rather than treating the patient until disease progression.
In the MM community, some are reluctant to adopt a strategy of treating longer because of the modest efficacy gains observed with early research or concern over tolerability issues, including the risk of developing peripheral neuropathy or secondary malignancies.1
Others are uncertain about the optimal duration of therapy or the selection of an agent that will balance any potential gain in depth of response with the risk of late-onset or cumulative toxicities.
The potentially high cost of longer treatment for patients, their families, and/or the healthcare system overall also presents a challenge.
It is feasible that treating patients for longer may drive up healthcare utilization and take a toll on patients and caregivers, who may incur out-of-pocket costs because of the need to travel to a hospital or doctor’s office for intravenous therapies, requiring them to miss work.2
It is important to recognize, however, that more convenient all-oral treatment regimens are now available that do not require infusion at a hospital or clinic. Furthermore, results from recent studies suggest the majority of cancer patients prefer oral over intravenous therapies, which could reduce non-pharmacy healthcare costs.3,4
Healthcare providers might be more likely to accept and adopt a longer treatment approach for MM if they had access to data describing the optimal duration, dosage, schedule, toxicity, and quality of life standards.
Ongoing, randomized, phase 3 trials are evaluating the benefits of treating longer with an oral proteasome inhibitor in patients with newly diagnosed MM.5,6
Updated treatment guidelines and consensus statements will provide further guidance for clinicians on the benefits of maintenance therapy in both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.
The recently updated MM guidelines from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend longer treatment or maintenance therapy in patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).7
Based on evidence from studies such as FIRST and SWOG S0777, ESMO also recommends continuous treatment or treatment until progression with lenalidomide-dexamethasone and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in MM patients who are ineligible for HSCT.7-9
As there is no one-size-fits-all treatment approach in MM, a personalized treatment plan should be designed for each patient. This plan should take into account a number of factors, including age, disease characteristics, performance status, treatment history, and the patient’s goals of care and personal preferences.10
If the patient is a candidate for longer treatment, the clinician should carefully weigh the potential impact on disease-free and overall survival against the potential side effects, as well as assess the patient’s likelihood of adhering to the medication.
With the availability of newer, less-toxic medications that can be tolerated for a greater duration and are easy to administer, aiding in overall treatment compliance, sustained remissions are possible.11-13
Forty years ago, MM patients had very few treatment options, and the 5-year survival rate was 26%.14
Since then, novel therapies, including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, have replaced conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, leading to major improvements in survival.15,16
With emerging research that supports the value of longer treatment strategies for both patients and the healthcare system, clinicians will have a proven strategy to help their patients attain long-term disease control while maintaining quality of life.2, 17-19
Dr. Weisel has received honoraria and/or consultancy fees from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda. She has received research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, and Janssen.
The W2O Group provided writing support for this editorial, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.
1. Lipe B et al. Blood Cancer J. 2016; 6(10): e485. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2016.89
2. Goodwin J et al. Cancer Nurs. 2013; 36(4):301-8. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182693522
3. Eek D et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10:1609-21. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S106629
4. Bauer S et al. Value in Health. 2017; 20: A451. Abstract PCN217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.299
5. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Citrate (MLN9708) Maintenance Therapy in Participants With Multiple Myeloma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02181413 (Identification No. NCT02181413).
6. A Study of Oral Ixazomib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Treated With Stem Cell Transplantation. (2014). Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02312258 (Identification No. NCT02312258).
7. Moreau P et al. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: iv52-iv61. doi: https://org/10.1093/annonc/mdx096
8. Facon T et al. Blood. 2018131(3):301-310. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-07-795047
9. Durie BG et al. Lancet. 2017; 389(10068):519-527. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X.
10. Laubach J et al. Leukemia. 2016; 30(5):1005-17. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.356
11. Ludwig H et al. Blood. 2012; 119: 3003-3015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-11-374249
12. Lehners N et al. Cancer Med. 2018; 7(2): 307–316. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1283
13. Attal M et al. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1872-1791. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138
14. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975-2014. National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
15. Kumar SK et al. Blood. 2008 Mar 1;111(5):2516-20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129
16. Fonseca R et al. Leukemia. 2017 Sep;31(9):1915-1921. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.380
17. Palumbo A, Niesvizky R. Leuk Res. 2012; 36 Suppl 1:S19-26. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2126(12)70005-X
18. Girnius S, Munshi NC. Leuk Suppl. 2013; 2(Suppl 1): S3–S9. doi: 10.1038/leusup.2013.2
19. Mateos M-V, San Miguel JF. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2013; 2013:488-95. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.488