Real world study of ixazomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in treatment of multiple myeloma
10.3760/cma.j.cn115356-20210408-00073
- VernacularTitle:伊沙佐米联合来那度胺和地塞米松方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤的真实世界研究
- Author:
Fengdi WANG
1
;
Jianming YU
;
Fei ZHAO
;
Haiming KOU
;
Lin LIU
;
Fang LIU
;
Chun ZHANG
Author Information
1. 华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院血液病研究所，武汉 430022
- Keywords:
Multiple myeloma;
Ixazomib;
Peripheral neuropathy;
Real world
- From:
Journal of Leukemia & Lymphoma
2022;31(2):87-91
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixazomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) regimen in treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the real world practice.Methods:The clinical data of 24 MM patients treated with IRd regimen from January 2019 to January 2021 in the Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology were retrospectively analyzed, and their efficacy and adverse reactions were analyzed. Among the 24 patients, 5 patients were relapsed and refractory (relapsed/refractory group), and 19 newly treated patients (conversion group) who responded to bortezomib induction therapy but converted to IRd regimen due to adverse reactions or other reasons.Results:The 24 patients were treated for a median of 4 cycles (2-7 cycles), with 8 cases of complete remission (CR), 6 cases of very good partial remission (VGPR), 8 cases of partial remission (PR), 1 case of disease progression (PD), 1 case of minimal response (MR), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 91.7% (22/24); the median progression-free survival (PFS) time was 15 months (95% CI 6.6-23.4 months); 6 CR patients were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD). The common adverse reactions were hematological adverse reactions, peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, gastrointestinal reactions, and infections. The incidence rate of grade 3-4 adverse reactions was 25.0% (6/24). In the relapsed/refractory group, the best efficacy was VGPR in 1 case, PR in 3 cases, and MR in 1 case, all patients withdrew from the IRd regimen therapy due to PD after transient remission or poor effect; in the conversion group, the best efficacy was CR in 8 cases, VGPR in 5 cases, PR in 5 cases, and PD in 1 case, 57.9% (11/19) patients maintained their original best response, and 36.8% (7/19) patients improved their best response to CR; the difference in median PFS time between the two groups was statistically significant (7 months vs. not reached, P = 0.018). Conclusions:The IRd regimen is safe and effective for MM patients, especially for the conversion patients after effective bortezomib induction therapy. Although patients with relapsed/refractory MM who have previously used multi-line therapy respond to IRd regimen, the duration of remission is limited.
