This forum thread can be used to discuss the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that take place on Day 1 (Friday, June 3) and Day 2 (Saturday, June 4) of the conference. Feel free to use this space to highlight interesting abstracts, summarize the presentations as they happen, ask questions, and discuss any relevant topics. Everyone is encouraged to participate.
Feel free to also check out the discussions for Day 3, and Day 4.
Forums
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
Welcome to The Myeloma Beacon's forum coverage of ASCO this year. I'll be posting descriptions of the events and summaries of the presentations as they happen. For those of you who are also here in Chicago attending the meeting, feel free to post too about the meeting and the myeloma sessions. For those who aren't able to attend the meeting, feel free to ask questions, share you thoughts and feedback on the ASCO proceedings, or to look through the meeting abstracts and share your thoughts on those.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
ASCO officially started yesterday. There was only one myeloma-related presentation yesterday. During an education session in the afternoon, Dr. Raphael Fonseca from the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, spoke about high-risk multiple myeloma. I hadn't yet arrived at the meeting, so I wasn't able to attend Dr. Fonseca's talk. However, Boris Simkovich posted a copy of Dr. Fonseca's presentation further down in this thread.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
Dr. Kenneth Anderson from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is currently being awarded the David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award for his achievements in myeloma research, including his studies on novel therapies that have helped transform myeloma therapy.
This is a big achievement for Dr. Anderson. Among all of the cancer researchers in the world, he is receiving one of the highest honors that ASCO awards each year. It's great to know that the advances being made in myeloma research are groundbreaking enough for a myeloma researcher to be recognized as changing the way oncologists think about the practice of oncology.
In addition to a special session this morning in which the award is being presented to Dr. Anderson, it is also being announced on "ASCO TV" that plays on all of the shuttles transporting meeting attendees to and from their hotels and the convention center, and there is a large banner hanging in the convention center entry way with Dr. Anderson's photo and photos of this year's other award winners.
This is a big achievement for Dr. Anderson. Among all of the cancer researchers in the world, he is receiving one of the highest honors that ASCO awards each year. It's great to know that the advances being made in myeloma research are groundbreaking enough for a myeloma researcher to be recognized as changing the way oncologists think about the practice of oncology.
In addition to a special session this morning in which the award is being presented to Dr. Anderson, it is also being announced on "ASCO TV" that plays on all of the shuttles transporting meeting attendees to and from their hotels and the convention center, and there is a large banner hanging in the convention center entry way with Dr. Anderson's photo and photos of this year's other award winners.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
The rest of today is filled with myeloma-related poster sessions in which researchers can present results from their clinical trials in the form of posters. This morning's poster session is on lymphoma and plasma cell disorders. The room is filled with several rows of boards where researchers pin up their posters. There is room in total for 26 posters, although not all of the boards are filled. Very few of the posters are accompanied by a researcher who was involved with the study. Most are just on display for meeting attendees to view. Several also have printouts of the poster so that attendees can take a copy for later viewing.
This session features four posters about carfilzomib studies. Three of the studies were conducted by a similar group of researchers from across the United States and even Canada. The other study was conducted by researchers at the University of Arkansas and a non-profit research institute in Seattle.
All of the carfilzomib studies are Phase 2 clinical trials in relapsed / refractory (resistant) myeloma patients. These studies include a clinical trial of single-agent carfilzomib, a study of carfilzomib in combination with Revlimid (lenalidomide) and dexamethasone (Decadron), a study of carfilzomib in patients who have never been treated with Velcade (bortezomib), and a study of carfilzomib in combination with current myeloma treatments.
In general, all four studies show that carfilzomib (alone or incombination) is effective at treating patients with advanced myeloma and that carfilzomib is well tolerated. Overall response rates range from 20 percent in patients with very advanced disease when used alone to 37 percent when used in combination with other therapies to around 50 percent in Velcade-naive patients to 78 percent when used in combination with Revlimid and dexamethasone.
The main side effects seemed to be low blood cell counts. Peripheral neuropathy (pain and tingling in the extremities) appears to be less of an issue with carfilzomib as compared to Velcade.
Stay tuned for The Beacon's Daily Update from Days 1 and 2 of ASCO 2011 (a news article to be published on the homepage) for more results from these studies.
This session features four posters about carfilzomib studies. Three of the studies were conducted by a similar group of researchers from across the United States and even Canada. The other study was conducted by researchers at the University of Arkansas and a non-profit research institute in Seattle.
All of the carfilzomib studies are Phase 2 clinical trials in relapsed / refractory (resistant) myeloma patients. These studies include a clinical trial of single-agent carfilzomib, a study of carfilzomib in combination with Revlimid (lenalidomide) and dexamethasone (Decadron), a study of carfilzomib in patients who have never been treated with Velcade (bortezomib), and a study of carfilzomib in combination with current myeloma treatments.
In general, all four studies show that carfilzomib (alone or incombination) is effective at treating patients with advanced myeloma and that carfilzomib is well tolerated. Overall response rates range from 20 percent in patients with very advanced disease when used alone to 37 percent when used in combination with other therapies to around 50 percent in Velcade-naive patients to 78 percent when used in combination with Revlimid and dexamethasone.
The main side effects seemed to be low blood cell counts. Peripheral neuropathy (pain and tingling in the extremities) appears to be less of an issue with carfilzomib as compared to Velcade.
Stay tuned for The Beacon's Daily Update from Days 1 and 2 of ASCO 2011 (a news article to be published on the homepage) for more results from these studies.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
This morning's poster session concluded with a discussion of some of the posters. Dr. Jonathan Kaufman from Emory University discussed the first three carfilzomib studies; he was an investigator on two of them.
In the first study, participants were required to only have at least 2 prior therapies; however, the median number of prior therapies was 5. 73 percent of participants were refractory (resistant) to Velcade, and 77 percent had mild baseline peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate was 24 percent (0.4 percent complete response, 5 percent very good partial response, 18 percent partial response). The response rate in Velcade-refractory patients was 18 percent. The duration of response was 8 months. 15 percent of participants completed 1 year of therapy.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study carfilzomib is effective as monotherapy in heavily pre-treated patients and it is generally well tolerated. Several questions remain, however:
What is the optimal dosing?
Is there a survival advantage vs best supportive care?
Should study participants be able to have significant baseline neuropathy?
How can we predict responders?
The second study was conducted in Velcade-naive patients. It included 2 groups of patients that were recruited sequentially. The first group received a lower dose of carfilzomib. The second group received a higher dose after the 1st cycle. Dexamethasone was administered before the first cycle to prevent certain side effects. The overall response rate was 42 percent for the first group and 51 percent for the second group. 30% of participants completed 12 cycles of treatment. Time to progression was 8 months for the first group and not yet reached for the second group.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study carfilzomib is very effective and well tolerated. Several questions remain:
Is there a dose response effect? Should we investigate higher doses?
Is there a progression-free or overall survival advantage compared to the standard of care?
How does the safety and efficacy compare to Velcade, especially newer and safer methods of administration such as weekly or subcutaneous administration?
The third study investigated carfilzomib in combination with Revlimid and low-dose dexamethasone (CRd) in relapsed/refractory patients. The overall response rate was 78 percent. The most common side effects were fatigue and diarrhea. Some patients experienced severe low blood cell counts.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study CRd is very effective and safe. Some questions remain:
Is there an advantage over Rd alone? This is currently being investigated in a Phase 3 study.
What about other carfilzomib combinations? (e.g., carfilzomib-dexamethasone or cyclophosphamide-carfilzomib-dexamethasone)
Should CRd be use as front line therapy?
In the first study, participants were required to only have at least 2 prior therapies; however, the median number of prior therapies was 5. 73 percent of participants were refractory (resistant) to Velcade, and 77 percent had mild baseline peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate was 24 percent (0.4 percent complete response, 5 percent very good partial response, 18 percent partial response). The response rate in Velcade-refractory patients was 18 percent. The duration of response was 8 months. 15 percent of participants completed 1 year of therapy.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study carfilzomib is effective as monotherapy in heavily pre-treated patients and it is generally well tolerated. Several questions remain, however:
What is the optimal dosing?
Is there a survival advantage vs best supportive care?
Should study participants be able to have significant baseline neuropathy?
How can we predict responders?
The second study was conducted in Velcade-naive patients. It included 2 groups of patients that were recruited sequentially. The first group received a lower dose of carfilzomib. The second group received a higher dose after the 1st cycle. Dexamethasone was administered before the first cycle to prevent certain side effects. The overall response rate was 42 percent for the first group and 51 percent for the second group. 30% of participants completed 12 cycles of treatment. Time to progression was 8 months for the first group and not yet reached for the second group.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study carfilzomib is very effective and well tolerated. Several questions remain:
Is there a dose response effect? Should we investigate higher doses?
Is there a progression-free or overall survival advantage compared to the standard of care?
How does the safety and efficacy compare to Velcade, especially newer and safer methods of administration such as weekly or subcutaneous administration?
The third study investigated carfilzomib in combination with Revlimid and low-dose dexamethasone (CRd) in relapsed/refractory patients. The overall response rate was 78 percent. The most common side effects were fatigue and diarrhea. Some patients experienced severe low blood cell counts.
Dr. Kaufman said that based on this study CRd is very effective and safe. Some questions remain:
Is there an advantage over Rd alone? This is currently being investigated in a Phase 3 study.
What about other carfilzomib combinations? (e.g., carfilzomib-dexamethasone or cyclophosphamide-carfilzomib-dexamethasone)
Should CRd be use as front line therapy?
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
The afternoon included two poster sessions that each had one poster relevant to myeloma.
The first was a study investigating GDC-0941, a new oral drug that is in the early stages of clinical testing. The dosing of GDC-0941 was studied in this Phase 1 trial in patients with advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Initial results were available for patients with solid tumors, showing that it was generally well tolerated and that a few patients responded to the therapy. Results are not yet available for the study participants with multiple myeloma.
The other was a large Phase 3 trial comparing subcutaneous Xgeva (denosumab) with intravenous Zometa (zoledronic acid). Xgeva and Zometa are both used to treat cancer patients with bone disease. This particular study included patients with bone metasteses from solid tumors or bone lesions due to multiple myeloma. The results showed that patients receiving denosumab were 10 percent less likely to experience a skeletal-related event as compared to patients receiving Zometa.
The first was a study investigating GDC-0941, a new oral drug that is in the early stages of clinical testing. The dosing of GDC-0941 was studied in this Phase 1 trial in patients with advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Initial results were available for patients with solid tumors, showing that it was generally well tolerated and that a few patients responded to the therapy. Results are not yet available for the study participants with multiple myeloma.
The other was a large Phase 3 trial comparing subcutaneous Xgeva (denosumab) with intravenous Zometa (zoledronic acid). Xgeva and Zometa are both used to treat cancer patients with bone disease. This particular study included patients with bone metasteses from solid tumors or bone lesions due to multiple myeloma. The results showed that patients receiving denosumab were 10 percent less likely to experience a skeletal-related event as compared to patients receiving Zometa.
-
Julie Shilane - Name: Julie Shilane, Beacon Staff
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
I would be most interested in finding out what Dr. Forseca had to say about high risk myeloma. Will that info. be posted, or do you know another way that I could access it?
-
wetm
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
Hi wetm,
Our colleague Julie Shilane was not able to attend Dr. Fonseca's presentation, and an abstract of the presentation is not currently available.
We are checking, however, if there is some other way to get a summary of Dr. Fonseca's presentation, and we will let you know what we find out.
Best regards,
Boris.
Our colleague Julie Shilane was not able to attend Dr. Fonseca's presentation, and an abstract of the presentation is not currently available.
We are checking, however, if there is some other way to get a summary of Dr. Fonseca's presentation, and we will let you know what we find out.
Best regards,
Boris.
-
Boris Simkovich - Name: Boris Simkovich
Founder
The Myeloma Beacon
Re: ASCO 2011 Multiple Myeloma Discussion - Day 1 & 2
Hello again wetm,
Dr. Fonseca was generous enough to provide us with a copy of the presentation he made during the educational session. We've created a PDF of the slide deck -- to reduce its size a bit -- and included it with this posting as an attachment.
Fair warning -- The presentation is very technical. It's not for the faint of heart. That's probably not surprising given that it was developed for an educational session for physicians.
All of us here at The Beacon are deep in the midst of our coverage of the ASCO meeting, so I'm afraid we can't take the time right now to provide a summary of the slide deck. We'll try to get back to it, however, a little later in the week.
If you review it and feel comfortable sharing your summary of it with everyone else, please don't hesitate to do so. (Ditto for anyone else who reviews and wants to share a summary.)
Best regards,
Boris.
Dr. Fonseca was generous enough to provide us with a copy of the presentation he made during the educational session. We've created a PDF of the slide deck -- to reduce its size a bit -- and included it with this posting as an attachment.
Fair warning -- The presentation is very technical. It's not for the faint of heart. That's probably not surprising given that it was developed for an educational session for physicians.
All of us here at The Beacon are deep in the midst of our coverage of the ASCO meeting, so I'm afraid we can't take the time right now to provide a summary of the slide deck. We'll try to get back to it, however, a little later in the week.
If you review it and feel comfortable sharing your summary of it with everyone else, please don't hesitate to do so. (Ditto for anyone else who reviews and wants to share a summary.)
Best regards,
Boris.
- Attachments
-
20110603_Fonseca_ASCO_The_Treatment_Of_High_Risk_MM_Part_1.pdf- (829.36 KiB) Downloaded 163 times
-
- 20110603_Fonseca_ASCO_The_Treatment_Of_High_Risk_MM_Part_2.pdf
- (1.36 MiB) Downloaded 164 times
-
Boris Simkovich - Name: Boris Simkovich
Founder
The Myeloma Beacon
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1