Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy and safety of venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer volume 23, Article number: 1058 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Venetoclax is clinically active in treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax or venetoclax with other agents in treating RRMM.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched. We included studies investigating the efficacy and safety of venetoclax or venetoclax with other agents in treating RRMM. Overall response rates (ORR), stringent complete response rates (sCR), complete response rates (CR), very good partial response rates (VGPR), partial response rates (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and adverse events were synthesized using either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model.

Results

A total of 7 clinical trials with 482 patients with RRMM were included. Concerning venetoclax with other agents, the pooled ORR, sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, SD, and PD were 0.76 (95% CIs: 0.62, 0.87), 0.11 (95% CIs: 0.04, 0.21), 0.18 (95% CIs: 0.11, 0.26), 0.16 (95% CIs: 0.12, 0.25), 0.29 (95% CIs: 0.25, 0.34), 0.07 (95% CIs: 0.05, 0.10), and 0.11 (95% CIs: 0.04, 0.23). The overall rate of adverse events ≥ Grade 3 was 0.84 (95% CIs: 0.77, 0.91). The most common non-hematologic adverse events were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, back pain, and vomiting; hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia.

Conclusions

This study indicates that venetoclax alone or in combination with other agents reveals favorable treatment responses and acceptable adverse events in treating RRMM.

Peer Review reports

Background

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy characterized by relapses and remissions [1]. Generally, clinical symptoms of MM include hypercalcemia, elevated serum creatinine, renal insufficiency, anemia, and bone destruction [2, 3]. With a global incidence of approximately 4/100,000 per year, MM accounts for about 10% of all hematological malignancies [4,5,6]. Until 2000, the standard therapy for MM was melphalan or doxorubicin-based regimens with corticosteroids. Applying proteasome suppressants, histone deacetylase inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal antibodies has posed various treatment choices for MM patients. Unfortunately, most MM patients eventually relapse and become resistant to different therapies with a decreased response rates to the regimens in subsequent recurrences [7]. It is widely deemed that genomic instability, clonal heterogeneity, and myeloma microenvironment interactions are pivotal causes of treatment resistance and relapse [1, 8]. Antiapoptotic BCL-2 family proteins are key in regulating the internal apoptotic pathway and cell survival [9,10,11]. It has been proven that BCL-2 is overexpressed in myeloma cell subsets and participates in their survival [12]. Analysis of BCL-2 homologous domain three recently confirmed the role of BCL-2 in maintaining MM cell survival [13].

Moreover, the selective inhibition of BCL-2 restores the apoptotic pathway of malignant cells [14,15,16]. Venetoclax, an oral, potent inhibitor of BCL-2, has been observed to show antitumor activity in many hematological malignancies [14,15,16]. It has been proven to induce apoptosis in human MM cell lines and original samples of MM patients, especially those cells carrying t(11; 14) chromosome translocation [17]. In addition, venetoclax as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents showed significant clinical activity against relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), particularly in patients with t(11;14) [18,19,20]. Combining venetoclax and agents with complementary action mechanisms (such as IMiDs) or agents that increase BCL-2 dependency may enhance the anti-MM activity of venetoclax [21]. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of venetoclax and the combined therapy with other agents by synthesizing the results from published articles.

Methods

This meta-analysis was done based on previously published studies that had declared ethical approvals, thereby ethical approval was not required for this study. This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) [22].

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched the electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, up to November 7, 2022, with citations in English. The following key terms were used: BCL-2, venetoclax, and multiple myeloma. The detailed search strategy is shown in Supplementary Table 1. The references of included articles were also searched to assay additional studies. Inclusion criteria were: (1) clinical trials investigating the efficacy and adverse events of venetoclax or venetoclax with other agents in patients with RRMM. (2) Outcomes regarding treatment responses and adverse events could be extracted or calculated. (3) If studies recruited participants over the same period or from the same center, we only included the study with the largest sample size. We excluded case reports, reviews, comments, editorials, and conference abstracts with unavailable indicators. Two independent investigators (Xiaohui Gao and Xiaoyan Zhao) performed a literature search and study inclusion. When disagreement occurred, they discussed their arguments, and a third reviewer (Gang Zhang) was involved when no consensus was achieved.

Data extraction and quality assessments

Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract according to the inclusion criteria. Then a full-text reading of the literature was performed for the final identification for eligibility. The following information was extracted: name of the first author, year of publication, study design, number of patients, age, treatment regimens, the dosage of venetoclax, percentage of patients positive for t(11;14), and treatment outcomes. The outcomes comprised overall response rates (ORR), stringent complete response rates (sCR), complete response rates (CR), very good partial response rates (VGPR), partial response rates (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) as well as adverse events. We assessed the quality of the enrolled studies using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).

Statistical analysis

We used the R studio (Version 3.6.1; A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) for statistical analyses. A Cochran Q test and I² statistic were used to investigate heterogeneity [23]. The pooled ORR, sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, SD, PD, and adverse events rates with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random or fixed-effects model. A random-effects model was used if the I² value was > 50%. Otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used [24]. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed based on population baselines, including study design, age, sample size, regimen, the dose of venetoclax, and t(11;14) status. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to check the stability of pooled outcomes. Furthermore, Egger’s tests were performed to assess the potential publication bias. A probability of P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

We identified 1155 articles from the databases searched. Afterward, 54 duplicates were removed, and 992 studies were excluded through an initial screening. After a full-text assessment of the remaining 19 articles, seven studies were identified for inclusion [18,19,20,21, 25,26,27] (Fig. 1). The selected seven studies containing 482 patients with diagnosed RRMM provided the outcomes needed in this study. Six trials reported the efficacy and safety of venetoclax in combination with other agents, and one trial investigated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax monotherapy. The quality of included studies was rated as moderate to high according to the MINORS tool. Table 1 shows detailed information on included studies.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search results and flow chart of the meta-analysis

Full size image
Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

Efficacy

An open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 study of venetoclax monotherapy in 66 patients with RRMM revealed that the ORR was 0.21 (14/66), and 15% achieved VGPR or better. Most responses (12/14) were reported in patients with t(11;14). For included studies about venetoclax with other agents, the pooled ORR, sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, SD, and PD were 0.76 (95% CIs: 0.62, 0.87; I2 = 84%, p < 0.0001), 0.11 (95% CIs: 0.04, 0.21; I2 = 77%, p = 0.0052), 0.18 (95% CIs: 0.11, 0.26; I2 = 65%, p = 0.0209), 0.16 (95% CIs: 0.12, 0.25; I2 = 57%, p = 0.0388), 0.29 (95% CIs: 0.25, 0.34; I2 = 0%, p = 0.5967), 0.07 (95% CIs: 0.05, 0.10; I2 = 0%, p = 0.4423), and 0.11 (95% CIs: 0.04, 0.23; I2 = 85%, p = 0.0015), respectively (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Figures S1-S2). In a 2-phase study by Kaufman et al., t(11;14), only patients were recruited; the ORR was 60% and 48% in phase 1 and phase 2, respectively.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of overall response rates

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of stringent complete response rates

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of complete response rates

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of very good partial response rates

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot of partial response rates

Full size image

Median progression-free survival ranged from 22.4 to 22.8 months. Gasparetto’s study reported overall survival at six months of 87.5%. The 18-month PFS rate was 90.5% (95% CI, 67.0 to 97.5) with venetoclax + daratumumab + dexamethasone and 66.7% (95% CI, 42.5 to 82.5) with venetoclax + daratumumab + bortezomib + dexamethasone in the trial of Bahlis et, al.

Adverse events

In the included study of venetoclax monotherapy, the most common adverse events had mild gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea [47%], diarrhea [36%], and vomiting [21%]). Cytopenias were the most common grade 3/4 events, with thrombocytopenia (32%), neutropenia (27%), anemia (23%), and leukopenia (23%) reported. For included studies investigating venetoclax with other agents, the overall rate of adverse events ≥ Grade 3 was 0.84 (95% CIs: 0.77, 0.91; I2 = 61%, p = 0.0235) (Figure S3). The most common non-hematologic adverse event included nausea (0.38), diarrhea (0.53), fatigue (0.33), back pain (0.18), and vomiting (0.19) (Table 2, Figures S4-S8). Hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia (0.25), neutropenia (0.21), anemia (0.22), leukopenia (0.20), and lymphopenia (0.26) (Table 2, Figures S9-S13).

Table 2 Summary of adverse events
Full size table

Publication bias

Egger’s tests for publication bias revealed p-values of 0.5348, 0.3949, 0.9958, 0.7642, 0.4547, 0.1241, 0.3522, and 0.9626 for the analyses of ORR, sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, SD, PD, and adverse events rates ≥ Grade 3, respectively.

Sensitivity analysis

The pooled outcomes showed robustness in sensitivity analysis with the leave-one-out method (Figures S14-S21).

Discussion

In the past two decades, there were dramatic advances in the treatment of MM, beginning with the reported use of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in 1996 [28], followed by the introduction of the immunomodulatory drugs [29], the proteasome inhibitors (PI) [30] and BCL-2 inhibitor [31]. Those drugs are active in RRMM and expanded the treatment options for patients. This meta-analysis included seven published articles comprising 482 patients with diagnosed RRMM and treated with venetoclax-based regimens. For venetoclax monotherapy, Kumar’s phase 1 trial showed an ORR of 0.21. For included studies investigating venetoclax with other agents, the pooled ORR, sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, SD, and PD were 0.76, 0.11, 0.18, 0.16, 0.29, 0.07, and 0.11. Median PFS ranged from 22.4 to 22.8 months. Gasparetto’s study reported overall survival at six months of 87.5%. In the Bahlis et al. trial, venetoclax + daratumumab + dexamethasone had a higher 18-month PFS rate compared to venetoclax + daratumumab + bortezomib + dexamethasone [25]; and an increased rate of fatal infections was observed in patients treated with venetoclax + bortezomib + dexamethasone in the phase 3 BELLINI trial [20]. The combination of different drugs may affect drug metabolism, leading to differences in efficacy and safety. It may be one of the underlying causes of the diversity in PFS, which needs further investigation.

Preclinical studies have shown that both the dexamethasone and the proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib and carfilzomib) can increase BCL­2 dependency in MM cells by shifting MCL­1 to BCL­2 and by decreasing MCL­1 activity through the upregulation of Noxa (PMAIP1) [32,33,34,35,36]. Furthermore, daratumumab, a CD38 monoclonal antibody, can induce cellular death in MM cells through complement-dependent cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis with an expansion of clonal effector T cells, and decrease of regulatory T cells and, therefore, could eliminate emergent resistant subclones [37]. Venetoclax, in turn, was demonstrated to enhance adaptive immunity by increasing the CD4 + and CD8 + effector memory cells in the blood and improving the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade [38]. In addition, a combination of venetoclax and pomalidomide was proven to increase immune stimulation [38, 39]. Regarding adverse events, the most common non-hematologic adverse events were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, back pain, and vomiting. Hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia. The pooled rate of adverse events ≥ Grade 3 was 0.84.

In this meta-analysis, there were significant heterogeneities in all indicators. The heterogeneity may be attributed to differences in baseline characteristics of the study participants, study design, drug compliance, median lines of prior therapy in each study, and other relevant factors. Regardless, sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results of this meta-analysis, and Egger’s publication test also showed no significant publication bias in the included studies.

We acknowledge additional limitations of this study: firstly, the heterogeneity existed on venetoclax doses and combinations in included studies, which subgroup analysis could not address due to a limited number of studies in each subgroup. Secondly, the included studies were single-armed clinical trials, or data from one arm of one randomized controlled clinical trial was analyzed. These trials were limited by the lack of a randomized design, not to mention the inherent limitations of cross-trial comparisons. Finally, the subgroup of patients with multiple myeloma with or without t(11;14) was not performed because the data from included studies relevant to these subgroups could not be extracted. Individual patient data are warranted to address this issue. Despite limitations in this meta-analysis, the results provide a pooled analysis of the efficacy and safety of venetoclax with a large sample size and a comprehensive description and quality assessment of the relevant clinical trial profiles. This study addresses gaps in the existing evidence and supports future clinical trials with a different focus.

Conclusions

Based on the outcomes of this meta-analysis, we may conclude that venetoclax combined with other agents has promising clinical response rates in treating RRMM patients who received at least one line of prior therapy, with acceptable adverse effects. It is expected that well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials and real-world studies be conducted to address issues in evaluating the efficacy and safety of venetoclax monotherapy or in combination with novel agents in treating RRMM.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary information file.

Abbreviations

RRMM:

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

ORR:

Overall response rates

sCR:

Stringent complete response rates

CR:

Complete response

VGPR:

Very good partial response rates

PR:

Partial response

SD:

Stable disease

PD:

Progressive disease

MM:

Multiple myeloma

MGUS:

Monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

MINORS:

Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies

CIs:

Confidence intervals

PI:

Proteasome inhibitors

References

  1. Nair R, Patel K. Emerging role of CAR T cell therapy in Multiple Myeloma. Adv Cell Gene Therapy. 2018;1:e22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Michels TC, Petersen KE. Multiple Myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95:373–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kehrer M, Koob S, Strauss A, Wirtz DC, Schmolders J. Multiple Myeloma - current Status in Diagnostic Testing and Therapy. Z Orthop Unfall. 2017;155:575–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rajkumar SV, Kumar S. Multiple Myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:101–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Ludwig H, Dimopoulos MA, Blade J, Mateos MV, et al. Personalized therapy in Multiple Myeloma according to patient age and vulnerability: a report of the European Myeloma Network (EMN). Blood. 2011;118:4519–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kriegsmann K, Kriegsmann M, Cremer M, Schmitt M, Dreger P, Goldschmidt H, et al. Cell-based immunotherapy approaches for Multiple Myeloma. Br J Cancer. 2019;120:38–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van de Donk N, Pawlyn C, Yong KL. Multiple Myeloma. Lancet. 2021;397:410–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu C, Zhang L, Brockman QR, Zhan F, Chen L. Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies for Multiple Myeloma. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12:120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Green DR, Walczak H. Apoptosis therapy: driving cancers down the road to ruin. Nat Med. 2013;19:131–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scarfò L, Ghia P. Reprogramming cell death: BCL2 family inhibition in hematological malignancies. Immunol Lett. 2013;155:36–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delbridge AR, Grabow S, Strasser A, Vaux DL. Thirty years of BCL-2: translating cell death discoveries into novel cancer therapies. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16:99–109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bodet L, Gomez-Bougie P, Touzeau C, Dousset C, Descamps G, Maïga S, et al. ABT-737 is highly effective against molecular subgroups of Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2011;118:3901–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Touzeau C, Ryan J, Guerriero J, Moreau P, Chonghaile TN, Le Gouill S, et al. BH3 profiling identifies heterogeneous dependency on Bcl-2 family members in Multiple Myeloma and predicts sensitivity to BH3 mimetics. Leukemia. 2016;30:761–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Konopleva M, Pollyea DA, Potluri J, Chyla B, Hogdal L, Busman T, et al. Efficacy and Biological correlates of response in a phase II study of Venetoclax Monotherapy in patients with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1106–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts AW, Davids MS, Pagel JM, Kahl BS, Puvvada SD, Gerecitano JF, et al. Targeting BCL2 with Venetoclax in Relapsed Chronic lymphocytic Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:311–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stilgenbauer S, Eichhorst B, Schetelig J, Coutre S, Seymour JF, Munir T, et al. Venetoclax in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic Leukaemia with 17p deletion: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:768–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Touzeau C, Dousset C, Le Gouill S, Sampath D, Leverson JD, Souers AJ, et al. The Bcl-2 specific BH3 mimetic ABT-199: a promising targeted therapy for t(11;14) Multiple Myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:210–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaufman JL, Gasparetto C, Schjesvold FH, Moreau P, Touzeau C, Facon T, et al. Targeting BCL-2 with venetoclax and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory t(11;14) Multiple Myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:418–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar S, Kaufman JL, Gasparetto C, Mikhael J, Vij R, Pegourie B, et al. Efficacy of venetoclax as targeted therapy for relapsed/refractory t(11;14) Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2017;130:2401–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar SK, Harrison SJ, Cavo M, de la Rubia J, Popat R, Gasparetto C, et al. Venetoclax or placebo in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory Multiple Myeloma (BELLINI): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1630–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gasparetto C, Bowles KM, Abdallah AO, Morris L, Mander G, Coppola S, et al. A phase II study of Venetoclax in Combination with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021;21:775–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dziri C. How to assess heterogeneity for a meta-analysis? Tunis Med. 2022;100:353.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tao Y, Zhou H, Niu T. Safety and Efficacy Analysis of Selinexor-based treatment in Multiple Myeloma, a Meta-analysis based on prospective clinical trials. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:758992.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bahlis NJ, Baz R, Harrison SJ, Quach H, Ho SJ, Vangsted AJ, et al. Phase I study of Venetoclax Plus Daratumumab and Dexamethasone, with or without Bortezomib, in patients with relapsed or refractory Multiple Myeloma with and without t(11;14). J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3602–.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Costa LJ, Davies FE, Monohan GP, Kovacsovics T, Burwick N, Jakubowiak A, et al. Phase 2 study of venetoclax plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory Multiple Myeloma. Blood Adv. 2021;5:3748–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Moreau P, Chanan-Khan A, Roberts AW, Agarwal AB, Facon T, Kumar S, et al. Promising efficacy and acceptable safety of venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory MM. Blood. 2017;130:2392–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, Sotto JJ, Fuzibet JG, Rossi JF, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. Intergroupe Francais Du Myelome. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:91–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Singhal S, Mehta J, Desikan R, Ayers D, Roberson P, Eddlemon P, et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1565–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, Singhal S, Jagannath S, Irwin D, et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2609–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sidiqi MH, Al Saleh AS, Kumar SK, Leung N, Jevremovic D, Muchtar E, et al. Venetoclax for the treatment of Multiple Myeloma: outcomes outside of clinical trials. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:1131–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kuhn DJ, Chen Q, Voorhees PM, Strader JS, Shenk KD, Sun CM, et al. Potent activity of carfilzomib, a novel, irreversible inhibitor of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, against preclinical models of Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2007;110:3281–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Qin JZ, Ziffra J, Stennett L, Bodner B, Bonish BK, Chaturvedi V, et al. Proteasome inhibitors trigger NOXA-mediated apoptosis in Melanoma and Myeloma cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65:6282–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kervoëlen C, Ménoret E, Gomez-Bougie P, Bataille R, Godon C, Marionneau-Lambot S, et al. Dexamethasone-induced cell death is restricted to specific molecular subgroups of Multiple Myeloma. Oncotarget. 2015;6:26922–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Matulis SM, Gupta VA, Nooka AK, Hollen HV, Kaufman JL, Lonial S, et al. Dexamethasone treatment promotes Bcl-2 dependence in Multiple Myeloma resulting in sensitivity to venetoclax. Leukemia. 2016;30:1086–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Punnoose EA, Leverson JD, Peale F, Boghaert ER, Belmont LD, Tan N, et al. Expression Profile of BCL-2, BCL-XL, and MCL-1 predicts pharmacological response to the BCL-2 selective antagonist Venetoclax in Multiple Myeloma models. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:1132–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van de Donk N, Usmani SZ. CD38 antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: mechanisms of Action and modes of Resistance. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2134.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kohlhapp FJ, Haribhai D, Mathew R, Duggan R, Ellis PA, Wang R, et al. Venetoclax increases Intratumoral Effector T cells and Antitumor Efficacy in Combination with Immune Checkpoint Blockade. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:68–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dredge K, Marriott JB, Todryk SM, Muller GW, Chen R, Stirling DI, et al. Protective antitumor immunity induced by a costimulatory thalidomide analog in conjunction with whole Tumor cell vaccination is mediated by increased Th1-type immunity. J Immunol. 2002;168:4914–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by Technology Plan Project of Zhejiang Province (No. 2021434504), the Jiaxing Key Discipline Fund (No. 2019ZC-10), and Jiaxing Science and Technology Program (No. 2021AD30147). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiaohui Gao, Hui Zeng these authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Pediatrics, The Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, 314000, Zhejiang, China

    Xiaohui Gao & Fei Sun

  2. Departments of Hematology, The Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, 314000, Zhejiang, China

    Hui Zeng, Xiaoyan Zhao, Haibing Wu, Minchao Yan, Yuan Li & Gang Zhang

Authors
  1. Xiaohui Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoyan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haibing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Minchao Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fei Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaohui Gao, Hui Zeng conceived and designed this study. Xiaoyan Zhao, Haibing Wu were responsible for the collection, extraction, and analysis of the data. Fei Sun, Gang Zhang was responsible for writing the paper. Minchao Yan, Yuan Li performed the quality evaluation and completed data analysis. Gang Zhang, Fei Sun polished the English language. All authors and participants reviewed the paper and reached an agreement to approve the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gang Zhang or Fei Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, X., Zeng, H., Zhao, X. et al. Efficacy and safety of venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 23, 1058 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11553-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11553-3

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us