Advertisement

Should Overall Survival Remain an Endpoint for Multiple Myeloma Trials?

  • Sarah A. Holstein
  • Vera J. Suman
  • Philip L. McCarthyEmail author
Stem Cell Transplantation (R Maziarz, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Stem Cell Transplantation

Abstract

Purpose of Review

While the traditional gold standard for demonstrating clinical benefit of a therapy has been to show prolongation of overall survival (OS), there are multiple factors which can hinder the use of OS as a primary endpoint in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we analyze recent myeloma RCTs and evaluate the issues relevant to current and future myeloma RCT design.

Recent Findings

A review of recent phase III RCTs that led to approval of new agents/combinations reveals that none were designed with OS as the primary endpoint, but instead utilized time to progression (TTP) or progression-free survival (PFS). These studies illuminate the inherent difficulties of designing trials with the primary endpoint of OS/PFS in a disease characterized by increasingly prolonged survival times, availability of effective salvage therapies, and competing events such as co-morbid conditions.

Summary

Alternative primary endpoints other than OS or PFS need to be developed for future myeloma RCTs. Validated surrogate endpoints with novel clinical trial designs will help improve the feasibility of conducting comparative clinical trials in a timely manner.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Overall survival Primary endpoint Clinical trial 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sarah Holstein reports serving as an advisory board member for Celgene, Takeda, and Adaptive Biotechnologies and as a consultant for Celgene and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Vera Suman declares no potential conflicts of interest. Philip McCarthy reports receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Binding Site and research funding from Celgene and has served on advisory committees/review panels/board membership for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Binding Site, and Karyopharm outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Costa LJ, Brill IK, Omel J, Godby K, Kumar SK, Brown EE. Recent trends in multiple myeloma incidence and survival by age, race, and ethnicity in the United States. Blood Adv. 2017;1:282–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson JR, Temple R. Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugs. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985;69:1155–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1404–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleming TR, Powers JH. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2012;31:2973–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6••.
    Cartier S, Zhang B, Rosen VM, Zarotsky V, Bartlett JB, Mukhopadhyay P, et al. Relationship between treatment effects on progression-free survival and overall survival in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trial data. Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38:88–94 Systematic review of trial-level data assessing PFS as a surrogate for OS in myeloma. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovic B, Jin X, Kennedy SA, Hylands M, Pedziwiatr M, Kuriyama A, et al. Evaluating progression-free survival as a surrogate outcome for health-related quality of life in oncology: a systematic review and quantitative analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1586–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freidlin B, Little RF, Korn EL. Design issues in randomized clinical trials of maintenance therapies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, Rajkumar SV, Epstein J, Kahanic SP, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:519–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10•.
    Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci M, Galli M, Pantani L, Dozza L, et al., editors. A triplet bortezomib- and immunomodulator-based therapy before and after double ASCT improves overall survival of newly diagnosed MM patients: final analysis of phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 Study. EHA Learning Center 2018;214500 https://learningcenter.ehaweb.org/eha/2018/stockholm/214500/paola.tacchetti.a.triplet.bortezomib-.and.immunomodulatorbased.therapy.before.html?f=listing%3D0%2Abrowseby%3D8%2Asortby%3D1%2Asearch%3Dgimema-mmy230062018. Accessed 15 Jun 2018. Provides a new benchmark for OS in the newly diagnosed setting.
  11. 11.
    Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet. 2010;376:2075–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, Leleu X, Caillot D, Escoffre M, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stadtmauer EA, Pasquini MC, Blackwell B, Knust K, Bashey A, Devine SM, et al. Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT), bortezomib, lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (RVD) consolidation with Len maintenance (ACM), tandem autoHCT with Len maintenance (TAM) and autoHCT with Len maintenance (AM) for up-front treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM): primary results from the randomized phase III trial of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 0702 - StaMINA trial). Blood (ASH Abstracts). 2016;128:LBA-1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:906–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M, et al. Persistent overall survival benefit and no increased risk of second malignancies with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:448–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Facon T, Dimopoulos MA, Dispenzieri A, Catalano J, Belch AR, Cavo M. Final survival analysis from the FIRST Trial: lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until progression (Rd Cont) v melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT), and Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18) for transplant-ineligible (TNE) patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 17:e63–e4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benboubker L, Dimopoulos MA, Dispenzieri A, Catalano J, Belch AR, Cavo M, et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:906–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zweegman S, van der Holt B, Mellqvist UH, Salomo M, Bos GM, Levin MD, et al. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma. Blood. 2016;127:1109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stewart AK, Jacobus S, Fonseca R, Weiss M, Callander NS, Chanan-Khan AA, et al. Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide vs melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (ECOG E1A06) in untreated multiple myeloma. Blood. 2015;126:1294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palumbo A, Cavallo F, Gay F, Di Raimondo F, Ben Yehuda D, Petrucci MT, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, Conticello C, Catalano L, Corradini P, et al. Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1617–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cavo M, Palumbo A, Zweegman S, Dimopoulos M, Hajek R, Pantani L, et al. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) versus novel agent-based therapy for multiple myeloma (MM): a randomized phase 3 study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM trial). J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:abstr 8000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23•.
    . Holstein SA, Jung SH, Richardson PG, Hofmeister CC, Hurd DD, Hassoun H, et al. Updated analysis of CALGB (Alliance) 100104 assessing lenalidomide versus placebo maintenance after single autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e431–e42 Provides a new benchmark for OS in the post-transplant setting. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy PL, Owzar K, Hofmeister CC, Hurd DD, Hassoun H, Richardson PG, et al. Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1770–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Marit G, Caillot D, Moreau P, Facon T, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1782–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dimopoulos MA, Chen C, Spencer A, Niesvizky R, Attal M, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009;23:2147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, Prince HM, Harousseau JL, Dmoszynska A, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber DM, Chen C, Niesvizky R, Wang M, Belch A, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, Irwin D, Stadtmauer EA, Facon T, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2487–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster M, Irwin D, Stadtmauer E, Facon T, et al. Extended follow-up of a phase 3 trial in relapsed multiple myeloma: final time-to-event results of the APEX trial. Blood. 2007;110:3557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moreau P, Mateos MV, Berenson JR, Weisel K, Lazzaro A, Song K, et al. Once weekly versus twice weekly carfilzomib dosing in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (A.R.R.O.W.): interim analysis results of a randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:953–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dimopoulos MA, Goldschmidt H, Niesvizky R, Joshua D, Chng WJ, Oriol A, et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Palumbo A, Joshua D, Pour L, Hajek R, et al. Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, San-Miguel J, Bahlis NJ, Usmani SZ, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1319–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, Nooka AK, Masszi T, Beksac M, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:754–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siegel DS, Dimopoulos MA, Ludwig H, Facon T, Goldschmidt H, Jakubowiak A, et al. Improvement in overall survival with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:728–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Masszi T, Spicka I, Oriol A, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:142–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moreau P, Masszi T, Grzasko N, Bahlis NJ, Hansson M, Pour L, et al. Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1621–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, White D, Grosicki S, Spicka I, et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:621–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    San-Miguel JF, Hungria VT, Yoon SS, Beksac M, Dimopoulos MA, Elghandour A, et al. Overall survival of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with panobinostat or placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (the PANORAMA 1 trial): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2016;3:e506–e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    San-Miguel JF, Hungria VT, Yoon SS, Beksac M, Dimopoulos MA, Elghandour A, et al. Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Richardson P, Rocafiguera AO, Beksac M, Liberati AM, Galli M, Schjesvold F, et al., editors. OPTIMISMM: phase 3 trial of pomalidomide, bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone vs bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. European Hematology Association Annual Meeting; 2018.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Voorhees PM, Rodriguez C, Reeves B, Nathwani N, Costa LJ, Lutska Y, et al. Efficacy and updated safety analysis of a safety run-in cohort from Griffin, a phase 2 randomized study of daratumumab (Dara), bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (D; Dara-Vrd) Vs. Vrd in patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Blood. 2018;132:151.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vogl DT, Dingli D, Cornell RF, Huff CA, Jagannath S, Bhutani D, et al. Selective inhibition of nuclear export with oral selinexor for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:859–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Landgren O, Iskander K. Modern multiple myeloma therapy: deep, sustained treatment response and good clinical outcomes. J Intern Med. 2017;281:365–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kumar SK, Buadi FK, LaPlant B, Halvorson A, Leung N, Kapoor P, et al. Phase 1/2 trial of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8:70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Richardson PG, Hofmeister CC, Rosenbaum CA, Htut M, Vesole DH, Berdeja JG, et al. Twice-weekly ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2018;182:231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wester R, van der Holt B, Asselbergs E, Zweegman S, Kersten MJ, Vellenga E, et al. Carfilzomib combined with thalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone for remission induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: the Carthadex Trial. Blood. 2017;130:3141.Google Scholar
  49. 49•.
    . Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC, Owen RG, Child JA, Thakurta A, et al. Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:28–35 Meta-analysis demonstrating the superior survival outcomes of patients achieving MRD negativity. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Davies FE. Is molecular remission the goal of multiple myeloma therapy? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017:205–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Amur S, LaVange L, Zineh I, Buckman-Garner S, Woodcock J. Biomarker qualification: toward a multiple stakeholder framework for biomarker development, regulatory acceptance, and utilization. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;98:34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kemp R, Prasad V. Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? BMC Med. 2017;15:134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chen C, Anderson K, Mehrotra DV, Rubin EH, Tse A. A 2-in-1 adaptive phase 2/3 design for expedited oncology drug development. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;64:238–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lin J, Bunn V. Comparison of multi-arm multi-stage design and adaptive randomization in platform clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017;54:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simon R. Critical review of umbrella, basket, and platform designs for oncology clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;102:934–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah A. Holstein
    • 1
  • Vera J. Suman
    • 2
  • Philip L. McCarthy
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology and HematologyUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and InformaticsMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Blood and Marrow Transplant Center, Transplant and Cellular Therapy ProgramRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer CenterBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations