
收稿日期: 2025-01-17
录用日期: 2025-04-27
网络出版日期: 2025-07-28
基金资助
昆山市重点研发计划(社会发展)项目(KS2238)
Efficacy analysis in elderly and frail newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with dose-reduced lenalidomide/melphalan/prednisone acetate regimens
Received date: 2025-01-17
Accepted date: 2025-04-27
Online published: 2025-07-28
Supported by
Kunshan Key Research and Development Plan (Social Development) Project(KS2238)
目的·探讨剂量减低的来那度胺/美法仑/醋酸泼尼松(lenalidomide/melphalan/prednisone acetate,RMP)全口服方案在老年虚弱新诊断多发性骨髓瘤(newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,NDMM)患者中的疗效和安全性。方法·回顾性纳入2018年4月—2024年3月在上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院及昆山市第三人民医院血液科就诊的老年虚弱NDMM患者,收集临床资料及实验室检查指标,采用RMP方案治疗。运用SPSS 27.0和R软件,对正态分布定量资料用独立样本t检验、非正态分布定量资料用Mann-Whitney U检验、定性资料用χ2检验及Fisher确切概率法进行统计学分析,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线法及Log-rank检验。结果·22例接受RMP治疗的老年虚弱NDMM患者,中位年龄76.3(68.4,95.0)岁,中位随访25.5个月。总反应率(overall response rate,ORR)为68.2%,≥非常好的部分缓解(very good partial response,VGPR)率为36.4%。中位无进展生存期(progression-free survival,PFS)为20.53个月,其中≤75岁组中位PFS为25.23(95%CI 12.95~37.52)个月,>75岁组为18.23(95%CI 14.86~21.61)个月,2组比较差异无统计学意义。≥部分缓解(partial response,PR)组中位PFS为20.67(95%CI 13.57~27.76)个月,<PR组为8.53(95%CI 6.48~10.59)个月,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.011)。中位疗程数为11(2,24)个。所有级别的血液学治疗相关不良事件(treatment-related adverse events,TRAE)发生率为63.6%,≥3级发生率为18.2%。最常见血液学TRAE是粒细胞减少(63.6%),其中≥3级占13.6%。常见非血液学TRAE为乏力(22.7%)、呼吸道感染(18.2%)、皮疹(18.2%)、胃肠道反应(18.2%)、血栓(13.6%)。6例(27.3%)患者因严重的TRAE导致减量或暂停治疗。结论·剂量减低的全口服RMP方案治疗老年虚弱NDMM患者安全有效,值得临床应用。
张兴利 , 田洁 , 罗菁 , 刘倩 , 欧阳皖雁 , 邱宏春 , 王焰 , 糜坚青 . 剂量减低的来那度胺/美法仑/醋酸泼尼松方案治疗老年虚弱新诊断多发性骨髓瘤的效果分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2025 , 45(7) : 815 -822 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.07.002
Objective ·To investigate the efficacy and safety of a dose-reduced, all-oral lenalidomide/melphalan/prednisone acetate (RMP) regimen in elderly and frail patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Methods ·Elderly and frail NDMM patients who visited the Department of Hematology of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, and the Third People's Hospital of Kunshan from April 2018 to March 2024 were retrospectively included. Clinical data and laboratory indicators were collected, and all patients were treated with the RMP regimen. SPSS 27.0 and R software were used for statistical analysis. Independent t-test was applied to normally distributed quantitative data, Mann-Whitney U test to non-normally distributed quantitative data, and χ2 test and Fisher's exact probability method to qualitative data. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Results ·Among the 22 elderly and frail NDMM patients treated with RMP, the median age was 76.3 (68.4, 95.0) years, and the median follow-up time was 25.5 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 68.2%, and the rate of ≥ very good partial response (VGPR) was 36.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.53 months. The median PFS in the ≤75-year-old group was 25.23 (95%CI 12.95‒37.52) months, while in the >75-year-old group it was 18.23 (95%CI 14.86‒21.61) months. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The median PFS in the ≥ partial response (PR) group was 20.67 (95%CI 13.57‒27.76) months, and in the < PR group it was 8.53 (95%CI 6.48‒10.59) months, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.011). The median number of treatment courses was 11 (2, 24). The incidence of treatment-related hematological adverse events of all grades was 63.6%, and ≥ grade 3 hematological adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients. The most common treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) in hematology was neutropenia (63.6%), of which ≥ grade 3 neutropenia accounted for 13.6%. Common non-hematological TRAEs included fatigue (22.7%), respiratory tract infections (18.2%), rash (18.2%), gastrointestinal reactions (18.2%), and thrombosis (13.6%). Six patients (27.3%) required dose reduction or treatment suspension due to severe TRAEs. Conclusion ·The dose-reduced, all-oral RMP regimen is safe and effective in treating elderly and frail NDMM patients and is worthy of clinical application.
| [1] | COWAN A J, GREEN D J, KWOK M, et al. Diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma: a review[J]. JAMA, 2022, 327(5): 464-477. |
| [2] | SIEGEL R L, MILLER K D, JEMAL A. Cancer statistics, 2020[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(1): 7-30. |
| [3] | IBARRA G, PE?A M, ABRIL L, et al. Dose intensity and treatment duration of bortezomib in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma[J]. Eur J Haematol, 2021, 107(2): 246-254. |
| [4] | FACON T, DIMOPOULOS M A, DISPENZIERI A, et al. Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma[J]. Blood, 2018, 131(3): 301-310. |
| [5] | MIAN H, FIALA M, WILDES T M. Adherence to lenalidomide in older adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma[J]. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2020, 20(2): 98-104.e1. |
| [6] | ALEXANIAN R, HAUT A, KHAN A U, et al. Treatment for multiple myeloma. Combination chemotherapy with different melphalan dose regimens[J]. JAMA, 1969, 208(9): 1680-1685. |
| [7] | PALUMBO A, FALCO P, CORRADINI P, et al. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide treatment for newly diagnosed myeloma: a report from the GIMEMA: Italian Multiple Myeloma Network[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2007, 25(28): 4459-4465. |
| [8] | ZWEEGMAN S, VAN DER HOLT B, MELLQVIST U H, et al. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma[J]. Blood, 2016, 127(9): 1109-1116. |
| [9] | 中国医师协会血液科医师分会, 中华医学会血液学分会. 中国多发性骨髓瘤诊治指南(2022年修订)[J]. 中华内科杂志, 2022, 61(5): 480-487. |
| Chinese Hematology Association, Chinese Society of Hematology.Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma in China (2022 revision)[J]. Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine, 2022, 61(5): 480-487. | |
| [10] | FACON T, DIMOPOULOS M A, MEULEMAN N, et al. A simplified frailty scale predicts outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated in the FIRST (MM-020) trial[J]. Leukemia, 2020, 34(1): 224-233. |
| [11] | CHIHARA D, HUANG E P, FINNIGAN S R, et al. Trends in grade 5 toxicity and response in phase Ⅰ trials in hematologic malignancy: 20-year experience from the cancer therapy evaluation program at the National Cancer Institute[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2022, 40(17): 1949-1957. |
| [12] | LEE J Y, PARK S S, JEON Y W, et al. Comparisons of efficacy between frontline treatment with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and lenalidomide-dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a multicenter real-world based registry report, CAREMM-2102 study[J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2023, 149(13): 11907-11918. |
| [13] | FACON T, COOK G, USMANI S Z, et al. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: frailty subgroup analysis of MAIA[J]. Leukemia, 2022, 36(4): 1066-1077. |
| [14] | HORIGOME Y, IINO M, HARAZAKI Y, et al. A prospective, multicenter, observational study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Japan[J]. Ann Hematol, 2024, 103(2): 475-488. |
| [15] | 吴超, 徐文彬, 黄磊, 等. RVD方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤的疗效及安全性研究[J]. 内科理论与实践, 2020, 15(4): 251-256. |
| WU C, XU W B, HUANG L, et al. Efficacy and safety of combined treatment of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone on patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Journal of Internal Medicine Concepts & Practice, 2020, 15(4): 251-256. | |
| [16] | JACKSON G H, DAVIES F E, PAWLYN C, et al. Response-adapted intensification with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus no intensification in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma Ⅺ): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet Haematol, 2019, 6(12): e616-e629. |
| [17] | EEK D, KROHE M, MAZAR I, et al. Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature[J]. Patient Prefer Adherence, 2016, 10: 1609-1621. |
| [18] | BENBOUBKER L, DIMOPOULOS M A, DISPENZIERI A, et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma[J]. N Engl J Med, 2014, 371(10): 906-917. |
| [19] | MIAN H, LEBLANC R, LOUZADA M, et al. Real-world data on lenalidomide dosing and outcomes in patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma: results from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database[J]. Cancer Med, 2023, 12(4): 4357-4362. |
| [20] | KEITH STEWART A, JACOBUS S, FONSECA R, et al. Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide vs melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (ECOG E1A06) in untreated multiple myeloma[J]. Blood, 2015, 126(11): 1294-1301. |
| [21] | DIMOPOULOS M A, PALUMBO A, HAJEK R, et al. Factors that influence health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma aged ≥ 65 years treated with melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance: results of a randomized trial[J]. Leuk Lymphoma, 2014, 55(7): 1489-1497. |
| [22] | JONES A, BOWCOCK S, RACHET B. Survival trends in elderly myeloma patients[J]. Eur J Haematol, 2021, 106(1): 126-131. |
| [23] | PAWLYN C, CAIRNS D, KAISER M, et al. The relative importance of factors predicting outcome for myeloma patients at different ages: results from 3 894 patients in the Myeloma Ⅺ trial[J]. Leukemia, 2020, 34(2): 604-612. |
| [24] | COOK G, PAWLYN C, ROYLE K L, et al. Fitness, a UK Myeloma Research Alliance (UK-MRA) frailty-adjusted therapy study, supports the feasibility of recruiting frail newly diagnosed myeloma patients to large clinical trials[J]. Blood, 2021, 138: 81. |
| [25] | SCHJESVOLD F H, RICHARDSON P G, FACON T, et al. Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis[J]. Haematologica, 2021, 106(4): 1182-1187. |
| [26] | WHITE P, COOLEY A, BAL S, et al. Disparities in clinical trial participation among older adults with multiple myeloma in the United States[J]. J Geriatr Oncol, 2022, 13(8): 1241-1243. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |