Search

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and adequate hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection is crucial to ensure hematologic recovery after ASCT. In this prospective, observational study we evaluated HSC mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), cyclophosphamide, and 'on-demand' plerixafor (in patients with <20×106 CD34+ cells/L after at least 4 days of G-CSF or failing to collect ≥1×106 CD34+ cells/kg after the first apheresis) in NDMM patients treated with novel agent-based induction therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of poor mobilizers (patients collecting <2×106 CD34+ cells/kg or requiring plerixafor rescue to reach an adequate HSC harvest). Secondary endpoints included the rate of patients collecting ≥2×106 CD34+ cells/kg after plerixafor administration and the identification of factors predicting mobilization failure or plerixafor need. Overall, 301 patients (median age 60 years) were enrolled. Two hundred and eighty-seven of 301 (95%) and 274 of 301 (93%) patients collected ≥2×106 and ≥4×106 CD34+ cells/kg, respectively, with a median of 9.9×106 CD34+ cells/kg collected. Poor mobilizers were 48 of 301 (16%): 34 of 301 (11%) required plerixafor rescue, and 14 of 301 (5%) failed HSC collection regardless of plerixafor. Thirty-four of 38 (90%) patients receiving plerixafor collected ≥2×106 CD34+ cells/kg. Bone marrow plasmacytosis at diagnosis >60% (odds ratio [OR]=4.14), lenalidomide use (OR=4.45), and grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities during induction (OR=3.53) were independently associated with a higher risk of mobilization failure or plerixafor need. Cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF and 'on-demand' plerixafor is an effective strategy in NDMM patients treated with novel agents, resulting in a high rate of HSC collection and high HSC yield (clinicaltrials gov. identifier: NCT03406091).

Abstract: The prognostic impact of achieving and in particular maintaining measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity in multiple myeloma is now established; therefore, identifying among MRD-negative patients the ones at higher risk of losing MRD negativity is of importance. We analyzed predictors of unsustained MRD negativity in patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). MRD was performed by multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity of 10-5) at premaintenance and every 6 months thereafter. The cumulative incidence (CI) of MRD resurgence and/or progression was analyzed in MRD-negative patients. A total of 306 of 474 (65%) MRD-negative patients were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months from MRD negativity, 185 of 306 (60%) patients were still MRD negative and progression free, 118 (39%) lost their MRD-negative status, and 3 patients (1%) died without progression. Amp1q vs normal (4-year CI, 63% vs 34), ≥2 concomitant high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities vs 0 (4-year CI, 59% vs 33%), circulating tumor cells at baseline (high vs low at 4-year CI, 62% vs 32%), and time-to-reach MRD negativity postconsolidation vs preconsolidation (4-year CI, 46% vs 35%) were associated with a higher risk of unsustained MRD negativity in a multivariate Fine-Gray model. During the first 2 years of maintenance, patients receiving carfilzomib-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide alone had a lower risk of unsustained MRD negativity (4-year CI, 20% vs 33%)., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk., Methods: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m 2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA., Interpretation: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need., Funding: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RM has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and Amgen; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKlin; and has served on scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline. LP has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Janssen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen. BG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. AP has served on the advisory board for Amgen; has received support for meeting fees, travel, and lodging expenses from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and has received non-financial support from Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and Amgen. NG has received research grants from Celgene and Janssen Pharmaceutical; has received sponsorship for clinical studies from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Millennium Pharmaceutical; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen Pharmaceutical; and has received support for attending meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AG has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Janssen; and has served on the advisory boards for Takeda and Janssen. MC has received advisory fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Celgene. SB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen. EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. AB has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloRd) enhanced the clinical benefit over Rd with a manageable toxicity profile in the ELOQUENT-2 trial, leading to its approval in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The present study is a 3-year follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloRd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-55), 236 patients experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18.4 and 34 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analyses showed a significant reduction of PFS and OS benefit magnitude only in cases with International Staging System stage III. Major adverse events included grade 3/4 neutropenia (18.5%), anemia (15.4%), lymphocytopenia (12.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 33.9% and 18.9%, respectively. No new safety signals with longer follow-up have been observed. Of 319 patients, 245 (76.7%) reached at least a partial remission. A significantly lower response rate was found in patients previously exposed to lenalidomide. In conclusion, our study confirms that EloRd is a safe and effective regimen for RRMM patients, maintaining benefits across multiple unfavorable subgroups., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The lack of a randomized trial comparing carfilzomib (K) versus elotuzumab (Elo) associated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) prompted us to assess the relative usefulness of one triplet over the other. Five independent retrospective cohorts of 883 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients, including 300 EloRd and 583 KRd cases, outside clinical trials, entered this non-randomized comparison. KRd cohort accounted for a higher incidence of younger patients, cases with ≥3 lines of therapy, already exposed to lenalidomide, International Staging System (ISS) stage III, and abnormal lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level compared with EloRd cohort. Moreover, cytogenetic risk categories, detected in roughly one-third of cases, were equally distributed between the two therapy arms. The probability of CR+VGPR response was significantly higher in KRd (n = 314, 53.9%) than in EloRd patients (n = 111, 37.0%). Likewise, the cumulative incidence function of CR+VGPR, taking into account the competitive risk of death, was significantly higher in KRd arm patients than those in the EloRd arm (p = .003). Moreover, KRd treatment significantly reduced the progression or death risk by 46% in an adjusted multivariate analysis (HR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, p < .0001). Finally, in an adjusted illness-progression/death model, the effect of KRd versus EloRd was of higher magnitude among those who achieved CR+VGPR (-39% hazard ratio reduction, p = .02) than among those who achieved < VGPR (-29% hazard ratio reduction, p = .007). With limitations characteristic to any retrospective analysis, this current clinical practice study's overall results demonstrated potential benefits of KRd therapy compared with EloRd. This observation may help the daily clinical practice., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m 2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group., Interpretation: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone., Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Translation: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, and bluebird bio. PM has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline. AB has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline; and received consultancy fees from Takeda. MGa has received, in the past 2 years, honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. MO has received honoraria from and served on the scientific advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. SB has received honoraria from and served on the scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Novartis. MC has received advisory fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and received research funding from Celgene. FP has served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. MD has received honoraria for lectures from Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline. NG has received research grants from Celgene and Janssen Pharmaceutical; received sponsorship for clinical studies from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Millennium Pharmaceutical; served on advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen Pharmaceutical; and received support for attending meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AP has received support for meetings fees and travel and lodging expenses from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and received non-financial support from Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and Amgen. BG has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, and Takeda; and served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda. RZ has served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and Takeda. MTP has received honoraria from and served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, and Karyopharm. PC has received honoraria from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; received support for attending meetings and for travel from Novartis, Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Gilead/Kite, Amgen, and AbbVie; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ADC Therapeutics. MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Roche; served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Roche, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P =0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P =0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P =0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P =0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196., (Copyright© 2020 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Background: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment., Findings: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2-67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3-64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5-46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62-0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3-49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0-not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5-58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63-0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%])., Interpretation: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone., Funding: Janssen and Celgene., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Extramedullary disease is relatively frequent in multiple myeloma, but our knowledge on the subject is limited and mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Little is known regarding the role of new drugs in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis of eight trials focused on the description of extramedullary disease characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. A total of 2,332 newly diagnosed myeloma patients have been included; 267 (11.4%) had extramedullary disease, defined as paraosseous in 243 (10.4%), extramedullary plasmocytoma in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 25.3 months and 25.2 in extramedullary disease and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease did not impact on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.15, P =0.06), while other known prognostic factors retained their significance. Patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs, mainly lenalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors had similar progression-free survival and progression-free survival-2 regardless of extramedullary disease presence. Median overall survival was 63.5 months and 79.9 months ( P =0.01) in extramedullary and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively, and in multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.41, P <0.001), in line with other prognostic factors. With the limits of the use of low sensitivity imaging techniques, that lead to an underestimation of extramedullary disease, we conclude that in patients treated with new drugs the detrimental effect of extramedullary disease at diagnosis is limited, that lenalidomide is effective as are proteasome inhibitors, and that these patients tend to acquire a more aggressive disease in later stages. (EUDRACT2005-004714-32, NCT01063179 NCT00551928, NCT01091831, NCT01093196, NCT01190787, NCT01346787, NCT01857115)., (Copyright© 2020 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m 2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m 2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m 2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m 2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P =0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P =0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P =0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P =0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P =0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P =0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m 2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers : 01857115 (IST-CAR-561 ) and 01346787 ( IST-CAR-506)., (Copyright© 2019 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

This multicentre, open-label phase 1/2 trial determined safety and efficacy of weekly carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (wKCyd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients aged ⩾65 years or transplant ineligible. Patients received wKCyd for up to nine 28-day cycles, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib until progression/intolerance. The phase 1 portion used a 3+3 dose-escalation scheme to determine the maximum tolerated dose of weekly carfilzomib: 12 patients received wKCyd with carfilzomib doses of 45, 56 and 70 mg/m 2 . The recommended phase 2 dose was established at 70 mg/m 2 and 54 patients (phase 1 and 2) received weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m 2 : 85% of them achieved ⩾partial response (PR), 66% ⩾very good PR, 30%⩾near-complete response (CR) and 15% CR. Responses improved in 40 patients who started maintenance: 98% achieved ⩾PR, including 29% CR and 10% stringent CR. After a median follow-up of 18 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 53.2% and 81%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3-5 toxicities were neutropenia (22%) and cardiopulmonary adverse events (9%). This is the first study of weekly carfilzomib plus an alkylating agent in elderly patients with NDMM. wKCyd was effective, with an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, and thus can be a valid option in this setting.

The combination of melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) has demonstrated efficacy and acceptable toxicity in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Panobinostat is a potent oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi). In preclinical and clinical studies, panobinostat showed good anti-myeloma activity in combination with several agents. This phase II study evaluated the combination of a fixed dose of MPT with escalating doses of panobinostat (three times weekly for 3 weeks, followed by a 9-day rest period) in relapsed/refractory MM. We used a two-stage design to determine whether the combination was safe and effective. At least a partial response was observed in 38.5% of patients. The maximum tolerated dose of panobinostat in combination with MPT could not be determined due to the high rate of dose-limiting toxicities experienced with panobinostat at doses of 10 and 15 mg. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (71%) and thrombocytopenia (35.5%). In conclusion, MPT in combination with panobinostat three times weekly for 3 weeks followed by a 9-day rest period is not well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Future studies should evaluate alternative dose schedules of panobinostat.

In a randomized, phase 3 study, superior complete/near-complete response (CR/nCR) rates and extended progression-free survival were demonstrated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma patients (intention-to-treat analysis; VTD, n = 236; TD, n = 238). This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specifically assessed the efficacy and safety of consolidation with VTD or TD. Before starting consolidation, CR/nCR rates were not significantly different in the VTD (63.1%) and TD arms (54.7%). After consolidation, CR (60.6% vs 46.6%) and CR/nCR (73.1% vs 60.9%) rates were significantly higher for VTD-treated versus TD-treated patients. VTD consolidation significantly increased CR and CR/nCR rates, but TD did not (McNemar test). With a median follow-up of 30.4 months from start of consolidation, 3-year progression-free survival was significantly longer for the VTD group (60% vs 48% for TD). Grade 2 or 3 peripheral neuropathy (8.1% vs 2.4%) was more frequent with VTD (grade 3, 0.6%) versus TD consolidation. The superior efficacy of VTD versus TD as induction was retained despite readministration as consolidation therapy after double autologous transplantation. VTD consolidation therapy significantly contributed to improved clinical outcomes observed for patients randomly assigned to the VTD arm of the study. The study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01134484.

Background: Intracranial involvement in multiple myeloma is extremely rare. The effect of new drugs (eg, thalidomide, bortezomib, lenalidomide) with respect to old drugs (eg, alkylators, steroids) has not been reported., Methods: We collected clinical and biological data of patients presenting with an osteo-dural or primary dural multiple myeloma (OD-DMM) or a central nervous system myelomatosis (CNS-MM) by sending a questionnaire to the centers of the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell'Adulto (GIMEMA)., Results: A total of 50 patients were registered. New therapies were used in 35 patients, whereas 15 patients received old treatments. Twenty-five out of 50 patients obtained a complete remission or a very good partial remission (CR+VGPR). Overall survival (OS) for CNS-MM was 6 months, for OD-DMM 25 months. OS was 25 months for patients treated with new agents versus 8 months with old agents. Improved OS and progression-free survival were predicted by response (CR+VGPR) and by patients who underwent stem cell transplantation versus chemotherapy. β2-Microglobulin >5 mmol/L was a poor prognostic factor. Multivariate analysis showed poor survival for patients with β2-microglobulin >5 mmol/L and better survival for patients achieving CR+VGPR., Conclusions: The overall data highlight the relevance of therapy with new drugs in intracranial myeloma, providing a framework for future clinical trials., (Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.)

The introduction of new drugs such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib has led to novel treatment strategies and significantly improved the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The enhanced knowledge of myeloma pathogenesis has allowed the identification of new therapeutic targets and many clinical trials are either planned or in progress to evaluate these more selective drugs in the near future. The results of these studies, however, will have to be compared with the results of existing novel therapies for the treatment of MM in order to define whether new protocols do not duplicate current new standards and constitute a real improvement. We reviewed the results of a series of phase I, II, III studies with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib combinations for newly diagnosed MM in order to define a reasonable standard in terms of activity, efficacy, and toxicity and to have a potentially useful starting point for comparisons with future investigational trials. Three-drug regimens appear to double the complete remission (CR) rate (20%), though regimens containing 4 drugs triple the CR rate (30%), compared with those containing only 2 agents (10%). These improvements in the depth and quality of response translate into a progressive increase in the progression-free survival rate at 2 years (from approximately 54%-62% to 75%, respectively). Conversely, by using additional agents, a marked increase in hematologic toxicity has been described (8%, 28%, and 28% respectively), whereas nonhematologic toxicity appears to be similar (26%, 24%, and 27%, respectively). These results suggest that new trials in the future will constitute significant progress if they can improve on the current relatively favorable efficacy/toxicity ratio. Nonetheless, exciting new combinations in development do hold promise and results from these studies are eagerly awaited.

Introduction: High-dose chemotherapy conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation generally give similar results in multiple myeloma. We compared two regimens: melphalan versus melphalan plus busulphan., Methods: In all, 30 untreated patients with stage III low-risk multiple myeloma were studied. After induction with three VAD courses and mobilization with cyclophosphamide 7 g/m(2) and recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF) (10 microg/kg b.w./die), they received melphalan 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or busulphan 16 mg/kg plus melphalan 100 mg/m(2) (arm B) for conditioning for transplantation. All patients received maintenance therapy with Interferon 3 MU x 3/week., Results: Time to engraftment after transplantation was similar in both groups. All patients received rHuG-CSF after reinfusion of peripheral stem cells. No differences emerged in transplant-related infective and noninfective complications. There were no transplant-related deaths. A better response was observed in the melphalan plus busulphan regimen (85 versus 75%, P<0.05). The 5-year overall survival with this regimen was 56 versus 49% with melphalan, and the median survival was 126 months versus 108 months for melphalan (P=0.7). The median progression-free survival was 121 months for melphalan plus busulphan versus 97 months for melphalan (P=0.05)., Conclusion: These two conditioning regimens showed similar overall response rate and overall survival, though progression-free survival was better with busulphan plus melphalan.