Venetoclax in Patients with Multiple Myeloma with or without t(11;14): A Real-World Analysis
Authors: Cliff Edward R Scheffer , Kaiser Martin F , Sborov Douglas W. , Fonseca Rafael , Mohyuddin Ghulam Rehman 
Published: December 2024

Introduction:

Although not formally approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax (ven) has shown promising activity in patients (pts) with MM whose disease harbors t(11;14). The randomized BELLINI trial (VenVd vs Vd in unselected MM pts, Kumar Lancet Oncol 2020) demonstrated improved PFS, especially in the 35 patients with t(11;14) [HR 0.11], although worse OS in the intention to treat population due to increased treatment related mortality. The subsequent CANOVA trial (Vendex vs Pomdex in MM pts with t(11;14), Mateos IMS 2023) failed to show a PFS benefit (median PFS 9.9 mo vs 5.8 mo, p=0.237), leaving an uncertain future for ven in myeloma, despite the biological rationale and clinical activity. We therefore analyzed real world physician practice patterns using off-label ven for MM in the US.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study used data from the US nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified longitudinal database. The Flatiron Health database contains structured and unstructured data curated via technology-enabled abstraction from approx. 280 cancer clinics and 800 unique sites of care. We included all patients in the Flatiron Health database with multiple myeloma (ICD-9 203.0x or ICD-10 C90.0x, confirmed with clinical review) who had received ven as part of any line of MM treatment. This included patients who commenced ven between 2016-2024. The primary endpoint was time to next treatment or death (TTNT) from ven initiation, with overall survival (OS) from ven initiation as the key secondary endpoint, both of which were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model, using R v 4.3.0.

Results:

We included 208 patients who received ven for MM. They had a median of three prior lines of therapy (range 0-12), a median age of 67 years (Range 34-85 yrs), and 59% were male. Race/ethnicity breakdown was: Non-Hispanic White: 136 pts (72.7%), Black 36 (19.3%), Hispanic 10 (5.3%), Asian 5 (2.7%), other/unknown 21 (10.1%). Most had commercial insurance (188 pts, 91.3%) and 108 pts (52%) were cared for in academic settings while 100 (48%) were in community settings. ECOG performance status was 0 in 50 pts (24%), 1 in 80 pts (38.5%), ≥2 in 31 pts (14.9%) and unknown in 47 (22.6%). ISS Stage was I in 42 pts (20.2%), II in 43 pts (20.7%), III in 52 pts (25.0%) and unknown in 71 (34.1%). 148 pts had t(11;14) (71.2%), while 25 pts did not (12%) and 35 pts had unknown t(11;14) status (16.8%).

Most pts received ven as part of a triplet combination (106 pts, 51%), followed by doublets (39, 18.8%; 21 ven+dex and 18 ven+non-dex doublet), quads (38, 18.3%), as a single agent (17, 8.2%) or in other combinations such as with multi-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy or in addition to quadruplet therapy (8, 3.9%). Most common first ven-containing regimens used were VenDd (34 pts), VenKd (31), VenVd (25), Vendex (21), VenDVd (13), VenDKd (7). Ven was used as part of ≥2 different regimens in 20 patients, in 10 of whom those regimens were non-consecutive.

Median TTNT was 10.2 months (mo) in all comers, 12 mo in pts with t(11;14), 3.4 mo in pts without t(11;14) and 7.6 mo in pts with unknown t(11;14) status. Median OS was 27.6 mo in all comers, 30.5 mo in pts with t(11;14), 8.1 mo in pts without t(11;14) and 27.9 mo in pts with unknown t(11;14) status. Pts with t(11;14) receiving ven had a significantly longer TTNT than those without t(11;14) [median 12 mo vs 3.4 mo, HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.42-0.84, p=0.003]. and a significantly longer OS [median 30.5 mo vs 8.1 mo, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 - 0.89, p=0.012].

Discussion:

We evaluated US ven prescribing patterns in 208 pts with MM in the largest real world study of ven in MM to date. While it was mostly used in pts with t(11;14) (71%), there was occasional use in pts without t(11;14), and it was used in a wide variety of combination regimens. Ven achieved meaningful TTNT in some patients and both TTNT and OS were greater in pts with t(11;14) than those without. This suggest that despite mixed data from clinical trials, clinicians are using ven for MM patients in practice and further data is required to optimize its use and understand its best combination treatment partners in MM.