Search

Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy typically characterised by neoplastic plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. Treatment for multiple myeloma consists of multi-line chemotherapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation and has been rapidly evolving in recent years. However, clinical trials are unable to provide patients and clinicians with long-term prognostic information nor policymakers with the full body of evidence needed to perform economic evaluation of new therapies or make reimbursement decisions. To address these limitations of the available evidence, this study aimed to develop and validate the EpiMAP Myeloma model, a discrete-event simulation model of multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways. Risk equations were estimated using the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma & Related Diseases Registry after multiple imputation of missing data. Risk equation coefficients were combined with multiple myeloma patients at diagnosis from the Registry to perform the simulation. The model was validated with 100 bootstraps of an out-of-sample prediction analysis using a 70/30 split of the 4,121 registry patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2023, resulting in 2,884 and 1,237 patients in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. For 90% of the 120 months in the 10-year post-diagnosis period, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the validation and simulated cohorts. These results highlight that the EpiMAP Myeloma model is robust at predicting multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways in Australia & New Zealand. In the future, clinicians will be able to use the EpiMAP Myeloma model to provide personalised estimates of life expectancy to patients based on their specific characteristics, disease stage, and response to treatment. Policymakers will also be able to use the model to perform economic evaluation, to forecast the number of patients receiving treatment at different stages, and to determine the downstream impact of listing new, effective therapies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist, (Copyright: © 2024 Irving et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Additional copies of chromosome 1 long arm (1q) are frequently found in multiple myeloma (MM) and predict high-risk disease. Available data suggest a different outcome and biology of patients with amplification (Amp1q, ≥4 copies of 1q) vs. gain (Gain1q, 3 copies of 1q) of 1q. We evaluated the impact of Amp1q/Gain1q on the outcome of newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). Among 400 patients with available 1q data, 52 (13%) had Amp1q and 129 (32%) Gain1q. After a median follow-up of 62 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.2 months in the Amp1q group, 54.9 months in Gain1q, and not reached (NR) in Normal 1q. PFS was significantly hampered by the presence of Amp1q (HR 3.34 vs. Normal 1q, P < 0.0001; HR 1.99 vs. Gain1q, P = 0.0008). Patients with Gain1q had also a significantly shorter PFS compared with Normal 1q (HR 1.68, P = 0.0031). Concomitant poor prognostic factors or the failure to achieve MRD negativity predicted a median PFS < 12 months in Amp1q patients. Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone plus autologous stem cell transplantation treatment improved the adverse effect of Gain1q but not Amp1q. Transcriptomic data showed that additional 1q copies were associated with deregulation in apoptosis signaling, p38 MAPK signaling, and Myc-related genes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Despite significant improvement in the outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with novel therapies, there is still an underserved high-risk (HR) population that experiences early disease progression and death. With the median survival crossing 10 years, we defined ultrahigh-risk (uHR)MM as MM leading to death within 24-36 months of diagnosis and HRMM as MM leading to death within 36-60 months. Several features have emerged as markers of uHRMM: the co-occurrence of two or more high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia and a high-risk gene expression profiling signature. The heterogeneous risk definition across trials, the few trials available designed for HR patients, and the small HR subgroups in all-comers trials make it difficult to generate recommendations with high levels of evidence. Nevertheless, regardless of treatment administered, several studies consistently showed that achieving and maintaining measurable residual disease negativity is now considered the main factor able to mitigate the adverse prognosis related to baseline features. For fit patients with HR transplant-eligible (TE) NDMM, quadruplet induction/consolidation treatment with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors and dexamethasone, and autologous stem-cell transplant and maintenance with, if available, at least a doublet combination could be considered the option of choice. For non-TE NDMM, considering the recent data generated and carefully reviewing those upcoming, quadruplet treatment consisting of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and dexamethasone should also be considered. Future trials integrating BCMA-directed novel generation immunotherapies hold great potential for further advancing the treatment landscape in all NDMM patients with HR disease.

Human bone marrow permanently harbors high numbers of neutrophils, and a tumor-supportive bias of these cells could significantly impact bone marrow-confined malignancies. In individuals with multiple myeloma, the bone marrow is characterized by inflammatory stromal cells with the potential to influence neutrophils. We investigated myeloma-associated alterations in human marrow neutrophils and the impact of stromal inflammation on neutrophil function. Mature neutrophils in myeloma marrow are activated and tumor supportive and transcribe increased levels of IL1B and myeloma cell survival factor TNFSF13B (BAFF). Interactions with inflammatory stromal cells induce neutrophil activation, including BAFF secretion, in a STAT3-dependent manner, and once activated, neutrophils gain the ability to reciprocally induce stromal activation. After first-line myeloid-depleting antimyeloma treatment, human bone marrow retains residual stromal inflammation, and newly formed neutrophils are reactivated. Combined, we identify a neutrophil-stromal cell feed-forward loop driving tumor-supportive inflammation that persists after treatment and warrants novel strategies to target both stromal and immune microenvironments in multiple myeloma., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, despite the development of numerous drug classes and combinations that have contributed to improved overall survival. Immunotherapies directed against cancer cell-surface antigens, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibodies, have recently received regulatory approvals and shown unprecedented efficacy. However, these immunotherapies have unique mechanisms of action and toxicities that are different to previous treatments for myeloma, so experiences from clinical trials and early access programmes are essential for providing specific recommendations for management of patients, especially as these agents become available across many parts of the world. Here, we provide expert consensus clinical practice guidelines for the use of bispecific antibodies for the treatment of myeloma. The International Myeloma Working Group is also involved in the collection of prospective real-time data of patients treated with such immunotherapies, with the aim of learning continuously and adapting clinical practices to optimise the management of patients receiving immunotherapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PR-O reports personal fees derived from consulting or advisory board roles from Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi, and H3Biomedicine; steering committee membership from Celgene-BMS, Regeneron, and Janssen; speaker's bureau fess from Janssen, Celgene-BMS, GSK, Sanofi, and AbbVie; and a travel grant from Pfizer. SU reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, EdoPharma, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, and Seagen; speakers’ bureau fees, consulting and advisory board participation, and steering committee membership from Janssen; participation on advisory boards from Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, SkylineDx, and Takeda; and grants from Moderna, TeneoBio, and Pharmacyclics, outside the submitted work. ADC reports personal fees and participation on advisory boards from GSK; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, iTeos, Ichnos, Arcellx, and Legend; personal fees and participation on advisory boards from Genentech/Roche; participation on advisory boards from Novartis, outside the submitted work; and has a patent licensed for Novartis. NWCJvdD reports personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Adaptive, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Servier, outside the submitted work. JGP-L reports personal fees from Janssen and GSK, outside the submitted work. MVM reports personal fees from Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. HE reports personal fees and research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and GSK; and personal fees from Amgen, Takeda, and Novartis; outside the submitted work. MM reports personal fees from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, WebMD global, GSK, and CDR-Life; and research funding from Siemens and BeiGene; outside the submitted work. BAD reports advisory board participation and consulting fees from COTA and Janssen; personal fees from Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation; honoraria for CME-related activities from Plexus Communications; research funding from Amgen and GSK; and involvement as an independent reviewer of a clinical trial for BMS; outside the submitted work. NP reports research funding and accomodation expenses from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and The Binding Site; research funding from Sanofi, and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. PJH reports personal fees from Antengene, Gilead, iTeos Therapeutics, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. W-JC reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, GSK, and Novartis; and grants and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. GG reports personal fees from and is a shareholder of XNK Therapeutics Sweden, and personal fees from Fujimoto Pharmaceutical corporation, outside the submitted work. FS reports personal fees from AbbVie, GSK, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis, SkyliteDX, Pfizer, and Daiki-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. JCY reports personal fees from Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, Regeneron, GSK, Pfizer, Menarini, outside the submitted work. EZ reports personal fees from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. RP reports personal fees and travel support from GSK and Janssen; and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. CN reports personal fees and participation on advisory boards from Janssen; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GSK, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and DKSH; and personal fees and participation on advisory boards from Amgen, outside the submitted work. YL reports grants and personal fees from Janssen; personal fees from Sanofi, NexImmune, Caribou, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Genentech; and personal fees and participation on data safety monitoring boards from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AC reports personal fees from AbbVie, Adaptive, Amgen, Antengene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Forus, Genetech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Millenium/Takeda, and Sanofi/Genzyme, outside the submitted work. JM reports personal fees from Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. MC reports personal fees from Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Sanofi, Amgen, Menarini-Stemline, AbbVie, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status., Results: At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P = 0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group., Conclusions: The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Multiple myeloma is a clinically and biologically highly heterogeneous disease, as the overall survival can vary from more than a decade in patients with standard risk disease treated with intensive chemotherapy to 2-3 years in patients with high-risk features. The current staging systems, which rely on baseline biological risk factors to stratify patients into groups with differing risks of progression or death, are sometimes suboptimal tools for identifying high-risk patients. This is particularly evident when considering the so-called functional high-risk patients-patients who do not necessarily display baseline high-risk features but typically show a suboptimal response to induction therapy or relapse early after treatment initiation: the survival of these patients is particularly poor even in the context of newer therapies. The prompt identification, as well as a consistent definition, of this subset of patients, as well as their management, currently represents an unmet medical need. In this review we explore the main characteristics of functional high-risk patients, the available known risk factors and scoring systems, and the possible management., (Copyright © 2023 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are emerging as an important novel class of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), and are set to be more widely used in clinical practice. However, this new class of therapies is associated with a distinct adverse event (AE) profile that includes cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, as well as AEs leading to increased infection risk such as cytopenias and hypogammaglobulinemia, and infections themselves. As preliminary data with this class of agents shows an increased risk of infections as compared with conventional MM treatment regimens, such as immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), guidance on infection monitoring, prophylaxis and treatment is required. This review provides consensus recommendations from a panel of 13 global experts, following a meeting in August 2022. The meeting objective was to review existing literature and identify relevant information on infections with all BsAbs in patients with MM, as well as to discuss clinical experience of experts in managing these infections. The recommendations outlined here can be used to guide management of infection risk factors, such as hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia. In addition, they can be used to guide the monitoring, prophylaxis, and treatment of bacterial, viral and fungal infections, including emerging infections of interest, such as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), and the use of vaccinations prior to and during BsAb treatment. The recommendations have been graded by the panel based on level of data available. Key recommendations include universal herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus prophylaxis, screening for hepatitis B virus reactivation risk in all patients, monthly intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for immunoparesis and in the absence of life-threatening infectious manifestations, use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with Grade 3 neutropenia, universal pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis and no routine anti-fungal prophylaxis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) have revolutionised multiple myeloma therapy, but adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and infections are common. This Policy Review presents a consensus from the European Myeloma Network on the prevention and management of these adverse events. Recommended measures include premedication, frequent assessing for symptoms and severity of cytokine release syndrome, step-up dosing for several BsAbs and some CAR T-cell therapies; corticosteroids; and tocilizumab in the case of cytokine release syndrome. Other anti-IL-6 drugs, high-dose corticosteroids, and anakinra might be considered in refractory cases. ICANS often arises concomitantly with cytokine release syndrome. Glucocorticosteroids in increasing doses are recommended if needed, as well as anakinra if the response is inadequate, and anticonvulsants if convulsions occur. Preventive measures against infections include antiviral and antibacterial drugs and administration of immunoglobulins. Treatment of infections and other complications is also addressed., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HL reports honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards from Celgene-BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, AbbVie, and Pfizer; and research funding from Amgen and Sanofi. ET reports grants from Amgen, Janssen, GSK, Takeda, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, ASTRA, BMS, GSK, Integris, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen, Takeda, and Eusa Pharma; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from BMS, GSK, Sanofi, Takeda, Eusa Pharma, Janssen, ASTRA, and Amgen. NvdD reports research support from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, and BMS; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, and Adaptive. M-VM reports honoraria derived from lectures and participation in advisory boards from Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides. PMo reports honoraria for advisory boards and symposia from Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, and Abbvie; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, Sanofi, and GSK. M-AD reports participation in advisory boards for Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Janssen, Beigene, and Sanofi. MD reports grants from Janssen and BMS; consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and Janssen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS and Takeda. PR-O reports honoraria for lectures from BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, GSK, Amgen, Regeneron, and Takeda; and participation in advisory boards for BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Kite Pharma, AbbVie, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Pfizer, and GSK. JS-M reports consulting fees from Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Amgen, Sanofi, and GSK; honoraria from Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, BMS, Sanofi, and GSK; and participation in scientific advisory boards for Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Sanofi, GSK Roche, and Regeneron. KY reports consulting fees from Sanofi, and Janssen; speaker bureaus from Sanofi, Amgen, Takeda, and Pfizer; honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and Pfizer; and research funding from Sanofi, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and BMS. FG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, BMS, Takeda, GSK, Roche, and AbbVie; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, BMS, Takeda, GSK, Roche, AbbVie, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, and Adaptive. HE reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, BMS–Celgene, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, Takeda, and Novartis. RM reports consulting fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen; and participation on an advisory board for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, BMS, and Amgen. JC reports grants from Janssen; consulting fees from Janssen and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead; and a patent planned, issued, or pending: 20175032.0: anti-CD38 single-domain antibodies in disease monitoring and treatment. ME reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, BMS, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, and Sanofi; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, BMS, Takeda, and Amgen. GC reports research funding from Takeda and BMS; consulting fees from Takeda, BMS, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Amgen; and speaker bureau for Janssen, Takeda, AbbVie, and Amgen. KW reports honoraria and participation on advisory boards from AbbVie, Adaptive, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Takeda, and Sanofi; and reports research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi. AB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, and Amgen. MBe reports participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, and Oncopeptides. JB reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Takeda, and Amgen; payment for expert testimony from Janssen and Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen and Takeda; and a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, in the Serbian Myeloma Group and the Balkan Myeloma Study Group. FS reports grants or contracts from Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, GSK, and Targovax; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, BMS, Takeda, AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, SkyliteDX, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Pfizer, Daiki-Sankyo, and GSK; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, GSK, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and BMS. MC reports consulting fees from Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Sanofi, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Sanofi, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Pfizer. RH reports grants or contracts paid to institution from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, PharmaMar, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen; and participation in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Janssen, and GSK. CT reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer; payment for lectures from Janssen and BMS; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen; and participation in advisory boards for Janssen, Pfizer, and BMS. MBo reports honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; participation in an advisory board for Janssen and GSK; and research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, BMS, and Mundipharma. PS reports participation in an advisory board for and research funding from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the post-pandemic COVID-19 period, human activities have returned to normal and COVID-19 cases are usually mild. However, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) present an increased risk for breakthrough infections and severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death. The European Myeloma Network has provided an expert consensus to guide patient management in this era. Vaccination with variant-specific booster vaccines, such as the bivalent vaccine for the ancestral Wuhan strain and the Omicron BA.4/5 strains, is essential as novel strains emerge and become dominant in the community. Boosters should be administered every 6-12 months after the last vaccine shot or documented COVID-19 infection (hybrid immunity). Booster shots seem to overcome the negative effect of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies on humoral responses; however, anti-BCMA treatment remains an adverse predictive factor for humoral immune response. Evaluation of the immune response after vaccination may identify a particularly vulnerable subset of patients who may need additional boosters, prophylactic therapies and prevention measures. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab is not effective against the new dominant variants and thus is no longer recommended. Oral antivirals (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir) and remdesivir are effective against Omicron subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, BA.5, BQ.1.1 and/or XBB.1.5 and should be administered in MM patients at the time of a positive COVID-19 test or within 5 days post symptoms onset. Convalescent plasma seems to have low value in the post-pandemic era. Prevention measures during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, including mask wearing and avoiding crowded places, seem prudent to continue for MM patients., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS], 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD- vs MRD+ patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD- status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD- status vs those converting from MRD- to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD-. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single-time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD- status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD- status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

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.)

Over the past two decades, the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) has progressed significantly, with the introduction of several new drug classes that have greatly improved patient outcomes. At present, it is well known how the bone marrow (BM) microenvironment (ME) exerts an immunosuppressive action leading to an exhaustion of the immune system cells and promoting the proliferation and sustenance of tumor plasma cells. Therefore, having drugs that can reconstitute a healthy BM ME can improve results in MM patients. Recent findings clearly demonstrated that achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and sustaining MRD negativity over time play a pivotal prognostic role. However, despite the achievement of MRD negativity, patients may still relapse. The understanding of immunologic changes in the BM ME during treatment, complemented by a deeper knowledge of plasma cell genomics and biology, will be critical to develop future therapies to sustain MRD negativity over time and possibly achieve an operational cure. In this review, we focus on the components of the BM ME and their role in MM, on the prognostic significance of MRD negativity and, finally, on the relative contribution of tumor plasma cell biology and BM ME to long-term disease control.

Purpose: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) show heterogeneous outcomes, and approximately 60% of them are at intermediate-risk according to the Revised International Staging system (R-ISS), the standard-of-care risk stratification model. Moreover, chromosome 1q gain/amplification (1q+) recently proved to be a poor prognostic factor. In this study, we revised the R-ISS by analyzing the additive value of each single risk feature, including 1q+., Patients and Methods: The European Myeloma Network, within the HARMONY project, collected individual data from 10,843 patients with NDMM enrolled in 16 clinical trials. An additive scoring system on the basis of top features predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was developed and validated., Results: In the training set (N = 7,072), at a median follow-up of 75 months, ISS, del(17p), lactate dehydrogenase, t(4;14), and 1q+ had the highest impact on PFS and OS. These variables were all simultaneously present in 2,226 patients. A value was assigned to each risk feature according to their OS impact (ISS-III 1.5, ISS-II 1, del(17p) 1, high lactate dehydrogenase 1, and 1q+ 0.5 points). Patients were stratified into four risk groups according to the total additive score: low (Second Revision of the International Staging System [R2-ISS]-I, 19.2%, 0 points), low-intermediate (II, 30.8%, 0.5-1 points), intermediate-high (III, 41.2%, 1.5-2.5 points), high (IV, 8.8%, 3-5 points). Median OS was not reached versus 109.2 versus 68.5 versus 37.9 months, and median PFS was 68 versus 45.5 versus 30.2 versus 19.9 months, respectively. The score was validated in an independent validation set (N = 3,771, of whom 1,214 were with complete data to calculate R2-ISS) maintaining its prognostic value., Conclusion: The R2-ISS is a simple prognostic staging system allowing a better stratification of patients with intermediate-risk NDMM. The additive nature of this score fosters its future implementation with new prognostic variables.

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician's choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Methods: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1. Results: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Purpose: High levels of circulating tumor plasma cells (CTC-high) in patients with multiple myeloma are a marker of aggressive disease. We aimed to confirm the prognostic impact and identify a possible cutoff value of CTC-high for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), in the context of concomitant risk features and minimal residual disease (MRD) achievement., Methods: CTC were analyzed at diagnosis with two-tube single-platform flow cytometry (sensitivity 4 × 10 -5 ) in patients enrolled in the multicenter randomized FORTE clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203643). MRD was assessed by second-generation multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity 10 -5 ). We tested different cutoff values in series of multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazards regression analyses on PFS outcome and selected the value that maximized the Harrell's C-statistic. We analyzed the impact of CTC on PFS and OS in a MV analysis including baseline features and MRD negativity., Results: CTC analysis was performed in 401 patients; the median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 45-54 months). There was a modest correlation between the percentage of CTC and bone marrow plasma cells ( r = 0.38). We identified an optimal CTC cutoff of 0.07% (approximately 5 cells/µL, C-index 0.64). In MV analysis, CTC-high versus CTC-low patients had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.97, P < .001; 4-year PFS 38% v 69%) and OS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.56; P < .001; 4-year OS 68% v 92%). The CTC levels, but not the bone marrow plasma cell levels, affected the outcome. The only factor that reduced the negative impact of CTC-high was the achievement of MRD negativity (interaction P = .039)., Conclusion: In multiple myeloma, increasing levels of CTC above an optimal cutoff represent an easy-to-assess, robust, and independent high-risk factor. The achievement of MRD negativity is the most important factor that modulates their negative prognostic impact.

Purpose: Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is an aggressive subtype of multiple myeloma, which is distinguished from newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) on the basis of the presence of ≥ 20% circulating tumor cells (CTCs). A molecular marker for pPCL is currently lacking, which could help identify NDMM patients with high-risk PCL-like disease, despite not having been recognized as such clinically., Methods: A transcriptomic classifier for PCL-like disease was bioinformatically constructed and validated by leveraging information on baseline CTC levels, tumor burden, and tumor transcriptomics from 154 patients with NDMM included in the Cassiopeia or HO143 trials and 29 patients with pPCL from the EMN12/HO129 trial. Its prognostic value was assessed in an independent cohort of 2,139 patients with NDMM from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4, HOVON-87/NMSG-18, EMN02/HO95, MRC-IX, Total Therapy 2, Total Therapy 3, and MMRF CoMMpass studies., Results: High CTC levels were associated with the expression of 1,700 genes, independent of tumor burden (false discovery rate < 0.05). Of these, 54 genes were selected by leave-one-out cross-validation to construct a transcriptomic classifier representing PCL-like disease. This not only demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% to identify pPCL in the validation cohort but also classified 10% of NDMM tumors as PCL-like. PCL-like MM transcriptionally and cytogenetically resembled pPCL, but presented with significantly lower CTC levels and tumor burden. Multivariate analyses in NDMM confirmed the significant prognostic value of PCL-like status in the context of Revised International Staging System stage, age, and treatment, regarding both progression-free (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.07) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.50)., Conclusion: pPCL was identified on the basis of a specific tumor transcriptome, which was also present in patients with high-risk NDMM, despite not being clinically leukemic. Incorporating PCL-like status into current risk models in NDMM may improve prognostic accuracy.

The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Over the past decade, therapeutic options in multiple myeloma (MM) have changed dramatically. Given the unprecedented efficacy of novel agents, the role of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in MM remains under scrutiny. Rapid advances in myeloma immunotherapy including the recent approval of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy will impact the MM therapeutic landscape. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy convened an expert panel to formulate clinical practice recommendations for role, timing, and sequencing of autologous (auto-HCT), allogeneic (allo-HCT) and CAR T-cell therapy for patients with newly diagnosed (NDMM) and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements. Twenty consensus statements were generated. The panel endorsed continued use of auto-HCT consolidation for patients with NDMM as a standard-of-care option, whereas in the front line allo-HCT and CAR-T were not recommended outside the setting of clinical trial. For patients not undergoing auto-HCT upfront, the panel recommended its use in first relapse. Lenalidomide as a single agent was recommended for maintenance especially for standard risk patients. In the RRMM setting, the panel recommended the use of CAR-T in patients with 4 or more prior lines of therapy. The panel encouraged allo-HCT in RRMM setting only in the context of clinical trial. The panel found RAND-modified Delphi methodology effective in providing a formal framework for developing consensus recommendations for the timing and sequence of cellular therapies for MM., (Copyright © 2022 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite treatment advances, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) often progress through standard drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). LocoMMotion (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04035226) is the first prospective study of real-life standard of care (SOC) in triple-class exposed (received at least a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 mAb) patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Patients (N = 248; ECOG performance status of 0-1, ≥3 prior lines of therapy or double refractory to a PI and IMiD) were treated with median 4.0 (range, 1-20) cycles of SOC therapy. Overall response rate was 29.8% (95% CI: 24.2-36.0). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 4.6 (95% CI: 3.9-5.6) and 12.4 months (95% CI: 10.3-NE). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 83.5% of patients (52.8% grade 3/4). Altogether, 107 deaths occurred, due to progressive disease (n = 74), TEAEs (n = 19), and other reasons (n = 14). The 92 varied regimens utilized demonstrate a lack of clear SOC for heavily pretreated, triple-class exposed patients with RRMM in real-world practice and result in poor outcomes. This supports a need for new treatments with novel mechanisms of action., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that takes advantage of increased aminopeptidase activity inside tumor cells to rapidly release alkylating agents therein. Melflufen in combination with dexamethasone has been evaluated in multiple clinical trials in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)., Areas Covered: This profile covers the unique mechanism of action of melflufen, the preclinical results supporting its activity in cellular models of resistance to chemotherapy, its activity in animal models of MM, and the clinical pharmacokinetics of melflufen. Findings from clinical trials evaluating melflufen, including the pivotal phase II HORIZON study and the phase III OCEAN study, are discussed., Expert Opinion: Although MM treatment has improved, patients with disease refractory to multiple standard-of-care drug classes face a dismal prognosis. Melflufen demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in select populations, with an initial approval in the United States in patients with ≥ four previous lines of therapy and triple-class-refractory MM. Results from the phase III OCEAN study - currently under discussion with regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe - are more complex and have been put into context herein. Lastly, melflufen provides a proof-of-concept for the utility of the peptide-drug conjugate platform in relapsed/refractory MM.

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.)

Patients with multiple myeloma frequently present with substantial immune impairment and an increased risk for infections and infection-related mortality. The risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulting mortality is also increased, emphasising the importance of protecting patients by vaccination. Available data in patients with multiple myeloma suggest a suboptimal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response, meaning a proportion of patients are unprotected. Factors associated with poor response are uncontrolled disease, immunosuppression, concomitant therapy, more lines of therapy, and CD38 antibody-directed and B-cell maturation antigen-directed therapy. These facts suggest that monitoring the immune response to vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma might provide guidance for clinical management, such as administration of additional doses of the same or another vaccine, or even temporary treatment discontinuation, if possible. In those who do not exhibit a good response, prophylactic treatment with neutralising monoclonal antibody cocktails might be considered. In patients deficient of a SARS-CoV-2 immune response, adherence to measures for infection risk reduction is particularly recommended. This consensus was generated by members of the European Multiple Myeloma Network and some external experts. The panel members convened in virtual meetings and conducted an extensive literature research and evaluated recently published data and work presented at meetings, as well as findings from their own studies. The outcome of the discussions on establishing consensus recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma was condensed into this Review., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HL declares research funding from Amgen and Takeda, and speaker's honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, and Seattle Genetics. PS declares research funding from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda, and honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda. TF declares participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, and Abbvie, and speaker's honoraria from Janssen and Bristol Myers Squibb. JS-M declares consulting fees from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, SecuraBio, and Karyopharm. M-VM declares honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, GlaxoSmithKline, Adaptive, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sea-Gen, and Blu Bird bio. PM declares honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Sanofi, and Abbvie. MC declares honoraria from Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, and Sanofi, and participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, and Sanofi. CP declares consultancy fees from Amgen, Takeda, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi; travel support from Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb; and honoraria from Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. SZ declares research funding from Takeda and Janssen, and participation on advisory boards for Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Oncopeptides. ME declares honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda, and research funding from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Takeda. GC declares honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Amgen, Janssen, and Oncopeptides, and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda. MAD declares participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Beigene. FG declares honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline, and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, and Bluebird Bio. HE declares honoraria from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Novartis; consultancy fees from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Novartis; and research funding from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline. MD declares speaker's honoraria and research funding from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. KW declares research funding from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi, and honoraria from Amgen, Abbvie, Adaptive Biotech, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Roche Pharma, Takeda, and Sanofi. GJ declares speaker's honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, and Oncopeptides, and research funding from Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb and Takeda. LG declares participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Takeda, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen. NvdD declares research funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Cellectis, and participation on advisory boards for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. XL declares honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Abbvie, Merck, Roche, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Carsgen Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, and GlaxoSmithKline; consulting and advisory roles for Janssen-Cilag, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, Novartis, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Abbvie, Roche, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Carsgen Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline; travel fees from Accommodations; and expenses from Takeda. HG declares grants and provision of Investigational Medicinal Product Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi; research support from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Janssen, Incyte, Molecular Partners, MSD, Sanofi, Mundipharma GmbH, Takeda, and Novartis; participation on advisory boards for Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and honoraria from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi. MeB declares participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, and Oncopeptides, and speaker's honoraria from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. IN declares Advisory Boards and Honoraria: Amgen, Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb. MS declares speaker's honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. NA declares research funding from Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda. RH declares consultancy fees from and participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, PharmaMar, and Takeda; and research funding from Janssen, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda. NZ declares speaker's honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Sanofi. EK declares consultancy fees and honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, and Pfizer Sanofi. AB declares honoraria from and participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. FS declares honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, and Takeda, and membership on an entity's advisory committees for Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and Takeda. MaB declares honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, and AbbVie; participation on advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and research funding from Sanofi, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, and Mundipharma. ET declares consultancy fees and honoraria from Amgen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Genesis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, and research support from Amgen, Janssen, Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Genesis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. HA-L, MM, CD, and JC declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To address the role of consolidation treatment for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma in a controlled clinical trial., Patients and Methods: The EMN02/HOVON95 trial compared consolidation treatment with two cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) or no consolidation after induction and intensification therapy, followed by continuous lenalidomide maintenance. Primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Eight hundred seventy-eight eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive VRD consolidation (451 patients) or no consolidation (427 patients). At a median follow-up of 74.8 months, median PFS with adjustment for pretreatment was prolonged in patients randomly assigned to VRD consolidation (59.3 v 42.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96; P = .016). The PFS benefit was observed across most predefined subgroups, including revised International Staging System (ISS) stage, cytogenetics, and prior treatment. Revised ISS3 stage (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) and ampl1q (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.04) were significant adverse prognostic factors. The median duration of maintenance was 33 months (interquartile range 13-86 months). Response ≥ complete response (CR) after consolidation versus no consolidation before start of maintenance was 34% versus 18%, respectively ( P < .001). Response ≥ CR on protocol including maintenance was 59% with consolidation and 46% without ( P < .001). Minimal residual disease analysis by flow cytometry in a subgroup of 226 patients with CR or stringent complete response or very good partial response before start of maintenance demonstrated a 74% minimal residual disease-negativity rate in VRD-treated patients. Toxicity from VRD was acceptable and manageable., Conclusion: Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS and depth of response in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma as compared to maintenance alone., Competing Interests: Pieter SonneveldConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, CARsgen TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Janssen, Amgen, Skyline Diagnostics Meletios A. DimopoulosHonoraria: Amgen, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeigeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Beigene Meral BeksacConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi Meral BeksacConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi Pasteur, OncopeptidesSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Pasteur Heinz LudwigConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Seattle GeneticsSpeakers' Bureau: Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, TakedaResearch Funding: Takeda, Amgen Sonja ZweegmanConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Celgene, Sanofi, OncopeptidesResearch Funding: Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, CelgeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Celgene Elena ZamagniHonoraria: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncopeptides, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, SanofiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen Ruth WesterHonoraria: Sanofi Roman HajekConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, AbbVie, BMS, PharmaMar, Janssen-Cilag, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Takeda, AmgenResearch Funding: Novartis, BMS, Amgen, Celgene, Takeda Lucia PantaniHonoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen Francesca GayHonoraria: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncopeptides, Roche, Takeda, Janssen, Bluebird bio Stefania OlivaHonoraria: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, JanssenConsulting or Advisory Role: Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda Vincent van de VeldenResearch Funding: BD Biosciences, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis/Navigate, Agilent/DAKOPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent EuroFlow MRD antibody tubes. No financial relationship KaLung WuConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology Gerard BosEmployment: CiMaasLeadership: CiMaasStock and Other Ownership Interests: CIMaasHonoraria: CiMaas Mark-David LevinHonoraria: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Janssen Annemiek BroijlHonoraria: Amgen, Sanofi, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene Monique MinnemaConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, Alnylam, Gilead SciencesSpeakers' Bureau: Celgene/Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Anders WaageHonoraria: Janssen OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Cecilie BlimarkHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline Niels W. C. J. van de DonkConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Servier, Takeda, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen Research & Development, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectis Massimo OffidaniHonoraria: BMS, Janssen, CelgeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Giuseppe A. PalumboConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Janssen Oncology, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Bristol Myers SquibbSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Novartis Andrew SpencerHonoraria: Janssen-Cilag, BMSConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, BMSSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen-CilagResearch Funding: Janssen-Cilag Mario BoccadoroHonoraria: Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVieConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mundipharma Michele CavoHonoraria: Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive BiotechnologiesConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive BiotechnologiesSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen, CelgeneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

According to the updated International Myeloma Working Group criteria, smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder characterized by an M-component >3 g/dL, bone marrow plasma cell infiltration >10% and <60%, and absence of any myeloma-defining event. Active multiple myeloma is preceded by SMM, with a median time to progression of approximately 5 years. Cases of SMM range from the extremes of "monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance-like", in which patients never progress during their lifetimes, to "early multiple myeloma", in which transformation into symptomatic disease, based on genomic evolution, may be rapid and devastating. Such a "split personality" makes the prognosis and management of individual patients challenging, particularly with regard to the identification and possible early treatment of high-risk SMM. Outside of clinical trials, the conventional approach to SMM generally remains close observation until progression to active multiple myeloma. However, two prospective, randomized trials have recently demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in terms of time to progression, and of overall survival in one of the two studies, for some patients with higher-risk SMM treated with lenalidomide ± dexamethasone, raising the question of whether such an approach should be considered a new standard of care. In this paper, experts from the European Myeloma Network describe current biological and clinical knowledge on SMM, focusing on novel insights into its molecular pathogenesis, new prognostic scoring systems proposed to identify SMM patients at higher risk of early transformation, and updated results of completed or ongoing clinical trials. Finally, some practical recommendations for the real-life management of these patients, based on Delphi consensus methodology, are provided.

Purpose of Review: In this review, we discuss the most important aspects of the role of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM)., Recent Findings: Almost 40 years after the publication of the first study on safety and efficacy of HDM and ASCT in MM patients, and despite the introduction of several drugs and combinations with various targets on the plasma cell and the surrounding microenvironment, HDM-ASCT still stands as a standard of care for the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed MM patients. Indeed, all attempts to replace HDM-ASCT with novel-agent-based, non-transplant strategies have failed to demonstrate their efficacy, at least in terms of progression-free survival., Summary: Despite such a long history in MM, a number of open issues regarding HDM-ASCT still exist, from the choice between using transplant in first-line therapy or at relapse to the use of tandem HDM-ASCT in high-risk patients. With the introduction of more and more effective multidrug regimens and of novel immunotherapeutic approaches, the challenge between transplant and non-transplant is not over yet., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The fifth annual Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Myeloma Intergroup Workshop on Immune Profiling and Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma was conducted as one of the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting Scientific Workshops on Thursday December 3, 2020. This workshop focused on four main topics: (1) integrating minimal residual disease into clinical trial design and practice; (2) the molecular and immunobiology of disease evolution and progression in myeloma; (3) adaptation of next-generation sequencing, next-generation flow cytometry, and cytometry by time of flight techniques; and (4) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell and other cellular therapies for myeloma. In this report, we provide a summary of the workshop presentations and discuss future directions in the field., (Copyright © 2021 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. All rights reserved.)

The development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow-based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy-based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid-based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Combined therapy with carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone was evaluated in this multicenter phase 1/2 trial conducted within the European Myeloma Network (EMN09 trial)., Methods: Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included. The phase 1 portion of the study determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib with bendamustine set at 70 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8. After 8 cycles, responding patients received maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone until progression., Results: On the basis of the phase 1 results, the recommended phase 2 dose for carfilzomib was 27 mg/m 2 twice weekly in weeks 1, 2, and 3. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved a partial response or better, and 32% reached a very good partial response or better. The clinical benefit rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months, and the median overall survival was 30.4 months. The reported grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (29%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). The main nonhematologic grade ≥3 AEs were pneumonia, thromboembolic events (10%), cardiac AEs (8%), and hypertension (2%)., Conclusions: In heavily pretreated patients who have relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, combined carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone is an effective treatment option administered in the outpatient setting. Infection prophylaxis and attention to patients with cardiovascular predisposition are required., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Despite the recent introduction of new therapies for multiple myeloma (MM), it remains an incurable disease. As MM progresses, patients experience cycles of relapse and remission, with remission periods becoming increasingly shorter as the disease becomes less treatment-sensitive. The treatment of relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) remains a significant clinical challenge. Patients with RRMM are a highly heterogeneous group and choosing the most appropriate treatment requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the number of treatment options for MM is continually growing with no definitive consensus to guide treating clinicians. The emergence of second-generation proteasome inhibitors (e.g., carfilzomib and ixazomib), immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., pomalidomide) and monoclonal antibodies (e.g., isatuximab) has expanded an already complex treatment landscape. This review provides a clear summary of the available treatments for MM and discusses how to tailor treatments to individual patients' needs. Novel treatments currently under clinical development, including venetoclax, melflufen and CAR T-cell therapies, are also discussed., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population., (© 2021 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells (CAR-T) have dramatically changed the treatment landscape of B-cell malignancies, providing a potential cure for relapsed/refractory patients. Long-term responses in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non Hodgkin lymphomas have encouraged further development in myeloma. In particular, B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted CAR-T have established very promising results in heavily pre-treated patients. Moreover, CAR-T targeting other antigens (i.e., SLAMF7 and CD44v6) are currently under investigation. However, none of these current autologous therapies have been approved, and despite high overall response rates across studies, main issues such as long-term outcome, toxicities, treatment resistance, and management of complications limit as yet their widespread use. Here, we critically review the most important pre-clinical and clinical findings, recent advances in CAR-T against myeloma, as well as discoveries in the biology of a still incurable disease, that, all together, will further improve safety and efficacy in relapsed/refractory patients, urgently in need of novel treatment options.

Purpose: Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need., Experimental Design: We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data ( n = 1,218) were split into training ( n = 844) and validation sets ( n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment., Results: The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P < 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P < 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P < 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM., Conclusions: On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Minimal residual disease (MRD) by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is the most effective tool to define a deep response in multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted an MRD correlative study of the EMN02/HO95 MM phase III trial in newly diagnosed MM patients achieving a suspected complete response before maintenance and every 6 months during maintenance. Patients received high-dose melphalan (HDM) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) intensification, followed by bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd) versus no consolidation, and lenalidomide maintenance. Bone marrow (BM) samples were processed in three European laboratories, applying EuroFlow-based MFC protocols (eight colors, two tubes) with 10 -4 -10 -5 sensitivity. At enrollment in the MRD correlative study, 76% (244/321) of patients were MRD-negative. In the intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 75 months, 5-year progression-free survival was 66% in MRD-negative versus 31% in MRD-positive patients (HR 0.39; p < 0.001), 5-year overall survival was 86% versus 69%, respectively (HR 0.41; p < 0.001). MRD negativity was associated with reduced risk of progression or death in all subgroups, including ISS-III (HR 0.37) and high-risk fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) patients (HR 0.38;). In the 1-year maintenance MRD population, 42% of MRD-positive patients at pre-maintenance became MRD-negative after lenalidomide exposure. In conclusion, MRD by MFC is a strong prognostic factor. Lenalidomide maintenance further improved MRD-negativity rate.

To understand the profile of best responders (complete response or better [≥CR]) to carfilzomib, we described the characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) data, and the safety of patients who achieved ≥CR to carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR. In post hoc analyses from ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, median PFS and OS were longer for ≥CR patients versus those who achieved a very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR). In the carfilzomib arm of ASPIRE, median PFS was 50.4 months for ≥CR versus 22.1 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was 67.0 versus 44.2 months, respectively. In the carfilzomib arm of ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 34.0 for ≥CR versus 20.4 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was non-estimable. Despite the longer treatment duration, fewer patients with ≥CR versus VGPR/PR experienced treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE or ENDEAVOR. Low serum lactate dehydrogenase was the only factor associated with achieving ≥CR vs patients not achieving CR in ASPIRE in multivariate regression analyses. No association was found between cytogenetic risk status and reaching ≥CR. Carfilzomib treatment may lead to rapid and deep responses, irrespective of most patient characteristics.

Purpose of Review: Over the last decade, the development of effective treatment approaches for multiple myeloma (MM) has been associated with higher response rates and longer survival. In patients who achieve complete response, several high sensitivity techniques have been studied to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) and detect residual neoplastic cells within the bone marrow (by flow cytometry or molecular biology techniques) or outside the bone marrow (by imaging or circulating disease markers in the peripheral blood). This is of utmost importance, since residual disease can drive clinical relapse. This review focuses on the progress made in the assessment of MRD in MM., Recent Findings: The achievement of MRD negativity after therapy is considered prognostically important for MM patients, and data from clinical trials and meta-analyses have confirmed that it is strongly associated with better survival. Along with well-known techniques, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), next-generation flow (NGF), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), other methods such as mass spectrometry (MS) and circulating tumor cells are under study. Intensive treatment regimens at diagnosis can lead up to 70% of MRD negativity in MM patients, although the current proportion of curable patients is still unknown. Today, clinicians who treat MM deal with MRD assessment in routine clinical practice. Its appropriate use in therapeutic decision making may be the most fascinating and challenging issue to be addressed over the next few years.

The treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma has expanded considerably in recent years, as numerous agents with new mechanisms of action have been introduced, increasing responses even in advanced disease and prolonging survival. The wealth of novel regimens comes with the challenges of balancing toxicities and aligning a regimen with the biology of the myeloma and the nature of the relapse in conjunction with patient treatment history and personal preference. Herein, we provide an overview of treatment options for both early and late relapsing disease as well as a discussion of the role of emerging immune-based therapies.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is currently the standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) status outside the bone marrow (BM) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This study aimed to define criteria for PET complete metabolic response after therapy, jointly analyzing a subgroup of newly diagnosed transplantation-eligible patients with MM enrolled in two independent European randomized phase III trials (IFM/DFCI2009 and EMN02/HO95)., Patients and Methods: Two hundred twenty-eight patients were observed for a median of 62.9 months. By study design, PET/CT scans were performed at baseline and before starting maintenance (premaintenance [PM]). The five-point Deauville scale (DS) was applied to describe BM (BM score [BMS]) and focal lesion (FL; FL score [FS]) uptake and tested a posteriori in uni- and multivariable analyses for their impact on clinical outcomes., Results: At baseline, 78% of patients had FLs (11% extramedullary), 80% with an FS ≥ 4. All patients had BM diffuse uptake (35.5% with BMS ≥ 4). At PM, 31% of patients had visually detectable FLs (2% extramedullary), 24% and 67.7% of them with an FS of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. At PM, 98% of patients retained residual BM diffuse uptake, which was significantly lower than at baseline (mainly between BMS 2 and 3, BMS was ≥ 4 in only 8.7% of patients). By both uni- and multivariable analysis, FS and BMS < 4 were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at PM (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.6 and 0.47, respectively; PFS: HR, 0.36 and 0.24, respectively)., Conclusion: FL and BM FDG uptake lower than the liver background after therapy was an independent predictor for improved PFS and OS and can be proposed as the standardized criterion of PET complete metabolic response, confirming the value of the DS for patients with MM.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is incorporated in an increasing number of multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials as a correlative analysis, an endpoint or even as a determinant of subsequent therapy. There is substantial heterogeneity across clinical trials in how MRD is assessed and reported, creating challenges for data interpretation and for the design of subsequent studies. We convened an international panel of MM investigators to harmonize how MRD should be assessed and reported in MM clinical trials. The panel provides consensus on which MM trials should include MRD, the recommended time points for MRD assessment, and expected analytical validation for MRD assays. We subsequently outlined parameters for reporting MRD results implementing the intention-to-treat principle. The panel provides guidance regarding the incorporation of newer peripheral blood-based and imaging-based approaches to detection of residual disease. Recommendations are summarized in 13 consensus statements that should be followed by sponsors, investigators, editors, and reviewers engaged in designing, performing, and interpreting MM trials.

Vaccination is one of the most successful medical interventions that has saved the life of millions of people. Vaccination is particularly important in patients with multiple myeloma, who have an increased risk of infections due to the disease-inherent immune suppression, and because of the immune suppressive effects of therapy. Hence, all appropriate measures should be exploited, to elicit an effective immune response to common pathogens like influenza, pneumococci, varicella zoster virus, and to those bacteria and viruses (haemophilus influenzae, meningococci, and hepatitis) that frequently may pose a significant risk to patients with multiple myeloma. Patients after autologous, and specifically after allogeneic transplantation have severely reduced antibody titers, and therefore require a broader spectrum of vaccinations. Response to vaccination in myeloma often is less vigorous than in the general population, mandating either measurement of the postvaccination antibody titers and/or repeating the vaccination. Here, we compile the existing data on vaccination in multiple myeloma and provide recommendations for clinical practice.

The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19-infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Myeloma Intergroup has organized an annual workshop focused on minimal residual disease (MRD) testing and immune profiling (IP) in multiple myeloma since 2016. In 2019, the workshop took place as an American Society of Hematology (ASH) Friday Scientific Workshop titled "Immune Profiling and Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma." This workshop focused on 4 main topics: the molecular and immunologic evolution of plasma cell disorders, development of new laboratory- and imaging-based MRD assessment approaches, chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy research, and statistical and regulatory issues associated with novel clinical endpoints. In this report, we provide a summary of the workshop and discuss future directions., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Duration of first remission is important for the survival of patients with multiple myeloma., Experimental Design: From the CoMMpass study (NCT01454297), 926 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, characterized by next-generation sequencing, were analyzed to evaluate those who experienced early progressive disease (PD; time to progression, TTP ≤18 months)., Results: After a median follow-up of 39 months, early PD was detected in 191/926 (20.6%) patients, 228/926 (24.6%) patients had late PD (TTP >18 months), while 507/926 (54.8%) did not have PD at the current follow-up. Compared with patients with late PD, patients with early PD had a lower at least very good partial response rate (47% vs. 82%, P < 0.001) and more frequently acquired double refractoriness to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitors (PI; 21% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). Patients with early PD were at higher risk of death compared with patients with late PD and no PD (HR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.7-4.93; P < 0.001), showing a dismal median overall survival (32.8 months). In a multivariate logistic regression model, independent factors increasing the early PD risk were TP53 mutation (OR, 3.78, P < 0.001), high lactate dehydrogenase levels (OR, 3.15, P = 0.006), λ-chain translocation (OR, 2.25, P = 0.033), and IGLL5 mutation (OR, 2.15, P = 0.007). Carfilzomib-based induction (OR, 0.15, P = 0.014), autologous stem-cell transplantation (OR, 0.27, P < 0.001), and continuous therapy with PIs and IMiDs (OR, 0.34, P = 0.024) mitigated the risk of early PD., Conclusions: Early PD identifies a high-risk multiple myeloma population. Further research is needed to better identify baseline features predicting early PD and the optimal treatment approaches for patients at risk., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) seem to be at increased risk for more severe COVID-19 infection and associated complications due to their immunocompromised state, the older age and comorbidities. The European Myeloma Network has provided an expert consensus statement in order to guide therapeutic decisions in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient education for personal hygiene and social distancing measures, along with treatment individualization, telemedicine and continuous surveillance for early diagnosis of COVID-19 are essential. In countries or local communities where COVID-19 infection is widely spread, MM patients should have a PCR test of nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 before hospital admission, starting a new treatment line, cell apheresis or ASCT in order to avoid ward or community spread and infections. Oral agent-based regimens should be considered, especially for the elderly and frail patients with standard risk disease, whereas de-intensified regimens for dexamethasone, bortezomib, carfilzomib and daratumumab should be used based on patient risk and response. Treatment initiation should not be postponed for patients with end organ damage, myeloma emergencies and aggressive relapses. Autologous (and especially allogeneic) transplantation should be delayed and extended induction should be administered, especially in standard risk patients and those with adequate MM response to induction. Watchful waiting should be considered for standard risk relapsed patients with low tumor burden, and slow biochemical relapses. The conduction of clinical trials should continue with appropriate adaptations to the current circumstances. Patients with MM and symptomatic COVID-19 disease should interrupt anti-myeloma treatment until recovery. For patients with positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, but with no symptoms for COVID-19, a 14-day quarantine should be considered if myeloma-related events allow the delay of treatment. The need for surveillance for drug interactions due to polypharmacy is highlighted. The participation in international COVID-19 cancer registries is greatly encouraged.

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.)