EHA Library - The official digital education library of European Hematology Association (EHA)

INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPARE ‘REAL WORLD’ DATA FROM MYELOMA REGISTRIES: BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS, FIRST-LINE THERAPIES AND EARLY OUTCOMES FROM AUSTRIA AND AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND
Author(s):
Krystal Bergin
,
Krystal Bergin
Affiliations:
Haematology,Alfred Health-Monash University,Melbourne,Australia
Roman Weger
,
Roman Weger
Affiliations:
Oncotyrol Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine,Innsbruck,Austria
Elizabeth Moore
,
Elizabeth Moore
Affiliations:
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine,Monash University,Melbourne,Australia
Zoe McQuilten
,
Zoe McQuilten
Affiliations:
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine,Monash University,Melbourne,Australia
Erica Wood
,
Erica Wood
Affiliations:
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine,Monash University,Melbourne,Australia
Wolfgang Willenbacher
,
Wolfgang Willenbacher
Affiliations:
Hematology & Oncology,Medical University Innsbruck,Innsbruck,Austria
Andrew Spencer
Andrew Spencer
Affiliations:
Haematology,Alfred Health-Monash University,Melbourne,Australia
(Abstract release date: 05/18/17) EHA Library. Bergin K. 05/18/17; 182702; PB1988
Krystal Bergin
Krystal Bergin
Contributions
PDF Abstract
Abstract

Abstract: PB1988

Type: Publication Only

Background
Most outcome data for multiple myeloma (MM) come from clinical trials which can not necessarily be extrapolated to ‘real world’ patients. More information is needed on patients treated in the ‘real world’ and in a wider range of settings.

Aims
To compare and contrast baseline characteristics, investigations, and initial therapies in different geographical regions, Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and Austria, through first analysis of data from two established MM registries on behalf of the steering committees of the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry and the Austrian Myeloma Registry

Methods
Analysis of data from newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled on the Austrian Myeloma Registry (AMR) and the ANZ Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (MRDR) from 2012-2016.

Results
Available data from 250 and 691 patients from the AMR and ANZ MRDR, respectively, were included.

DEMOGRAPHICS: The AMR cohort was younger (median age m:f 63.5 yrs:64 years vs 65 yrs:66 yrs on the AMR and MRDR, respectively). The proportion of male/female patients was similar between the AMR and MRDR (m:f 56%:44% and 61%:39% respectively).
PRESENTATION: IgG myeloma was the most common sub-type of disease in both registries (m:f 64%:55% and 55%:58%, respectively) with more light chain only disease on the AMR (m:f 26%:33% vs 20%:19%). Presence of documented preceding plasma cell dyscrasias was similar (m:f 21%:19% vs 15%:20%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).
INVESTIGATIONS: A higher proportion of patients underwent MRI (m:f 51%:58% vs 25%:27%) and skeletal survey (SS) (78% vs 60%) at diagnosis on the AMR than the MRDR, respectively. Baseline laboratory investigations were similar, however, patients on the MRDR demonstrated higher median LDH (m:f 176:178 vs 187:186 units/L) and serum calcium (m:f 2.34:2.28 vs 2.41:2.45 mmol/L) but decreased serum albumin (m:f 39:39g/L vs 35:35g/L) when compared to the AMR.
STAGE: ISS staging was similar on both registries with ISS stage 2 being most common in both cohorts (m:f 42%:37% vs 40%:40%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively) while ECOG performance status at diagnosis was lower in the MRDR cohort (ECOG≤1 m:f 43%:44% vs 81%:78%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).
FIRST LINE THERAPY: First line therapy was predominantly bortezomib (Velcade - V) based on both registries (81% vs 85%). V/dexamethasone (D) was the most common on the AMR (29%) followed by V/thalidomide/D (VTD) (25%) with V/cyclophosphamide/D (VCD) (79%) most common on the MRDR. V was predominantly administered subcutaneously on both registries (79% vs 88%) but more commonly weekly on the MRDR (51% vs 67%) versus twice weekly on the AMR (40% vs 27%).
RESPONSE TO THERAPY: Overall response rates were similar between the two cohorts but with higher CR rates on the AMR (CR 21% vs 11%, VGPR 27% vs 31%, PR 31% vs 43%, SD 12% vs 14% and PD 8% vs 2%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).

Conclusion
This pilot study between the AMR and ANZ MRDR demonstrates many similarities but also highlights significant differences, particularly in first line therapy and depth of response. Future studies between the AMR and MRDR will provide a platform for ongoing international benchmarking.

Session topic: 14. Myeloma and other monoclonal gammopathies - Clinical

Keyword(s): Diagnosis, Therapy, Myeloma, epidemiology

Abstract: PB1988

Type: Publication Only

Background
Most outcome data for multiple myeloma (MM) come from clinical trials which can not necessarily be extrapolated to ‘real world’ patients. More information is needed on patients treated in the ‘real world’ and in a wider range of settings.

Aims
To compare and contrast baseline characteristics, investigations, and initial therapies in different geographical regions, Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and Austria, through first analysis of data from two established MM registries on behalf of the steering committees of the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry and the Austrian Myeloma Registry

Methods
Analysis of data from newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled on the Austrian Myeloma Registry (AMR) and the ANZ Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (MRDR) from 2012-2016.

Results
Available data from 250 and 691 patients from the AMR and ANZ MRDR, respectively, were included.

DEMOGRAPHICS: The AMR cohort was younger (median age m:f 63.5 yrs:64 years vs 65 yrs:66 yrs on the AMR and MRDR, respectively). The proportion of male/female patients was similar between the AMR and MRDR (m:f 56%:44% and 61%:39% respectively).
PRESENTATION: IgG myeloma was the most common sub-type of disease in both registries (m:f 64%:55% and 55%:58%, respectively) with more light chain only disease on the AMR (m:f 26%:33% vs 20%:19%). Presence of documented preceding plasma cell dyscrasias was similar (m:f 21%:19% vs 15%:20%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).
INVESTIGATIONS: A higher proportion of patients underwent MRI (m:f 51%:58% vs 25%:27%) and skeletal survey (SS) (78% vs 60%) at diagnosis on the AMR than the MRDR, respectively. Baseline laboratory investigations were similar, however, patients on the MRDR demonstrated higher median LDH (m:f 176:178 vs 187:186 units/L) and serum calcium (m:f 2.34:2.28 vs 2.41:2.45 mmol/L) but decreased serum albumin (m:f 39:39g/L vs 35:35g/L) when compared to the AMR.
STAGE: ISS staging was similar on both registries with ISS stage 2 being most common in both cohorts (m:f 42%:37% vs 40%:40%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively) while ECOG performance status at diagnosis was lower in the MRDR cohort (ECOG≤1 m:f 43%:44% vs 81%:78%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).FIRST LINE THERAPY: First line therapy was predominantly bortezomib (Velcade - V) based on both registries (81% vs 85%). V/dexamethasone (D) was the most common on the AMR (29%) followed by V/thalidomide/D (VTD) (25%) with V/cyclophosphamide/D (VCD) (79%) most common on the MRDR. V was predominantly administered subcutaneously on both registries (79% vs 88%) but more commonly weekly on the MRDR (51% vs 67%) versus twice weekly on the AMR (40% vs 27%). RESPONSE TO THERAPY: Overall response rates were similar between the two cohorts but with higher CR rates on the AMR (CR 21% vs 11%, VGPR 27% vs 31%, PR 31% vs 43%, SD 12% vs 14% and PD 8% vs 2%, on the AMR and MRDR, respectively).

Conclusion
This pilot study between the AMR and ANZ MRDR demonstrates many similarities but also highlights significant differences, particularly in first line therapy and depth of response. Future studies between the AMR and MRDR will provide a platform for ongoing international benchmarking.

Session topic: 14. Myeloma and other monoclonal gammopathies - Clinical

Keyword(s): Diagnosis, Therapy, Myeloma, epidemiology

Premium Sponsors

What's new at EHA

Browse the open-source material from EHA past Congresses and meetings.

References

EHA Terms & Conditions
2025 ©
European Hematology Association
USER TERMS AND CONDITIONS / PRIVACY POLICY
(Amended according to GDPR)

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies