Search

Background: Belantamab mafodotin had single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, a finding that supports further evaluation of the agent in combination with standard-care therapies., Methods: In this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd), as compared with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), in patients who had progression of multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response duration, and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status., Results: In total, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (243 patients) or DVd (251 patients). At a median follow-up of 28.2 months (range, 0.1 to 40.0), median progression-free survival was 36.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4 to not reached) in the BVd group and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.1 to 17.5) in the DVd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53; P<0.001). Overall survival at 18 months was 84% in the BVd group and 73% in the DVd group. An analysis of the restricted mean response duration favored BVd over DVd (P<0.001). A complete response or better plus MRD-negative status occurred in 25% of the patients in the BVd group and 10% of those in the DVd group. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 95% of the patients in the BVd group and 78% of those in the DVd group. Ocular events were more common in the BVd group than in the DVd group (79% vs. 29%); such events were managed with dose modifications, and events of worsening visual acuity mostly resolved., Conclusions: As compared with DVd therapy, BVd therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among patients who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. Most patients had grade 3 or higher adverse events. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04246047; EudraCT number, 2018-003993-29.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: At the primary analysis of CASTOR (median follow-up, 7.4 months), daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the final analysis for overall survival (OS)., Methods: CASTOR was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned to Vd (up to eight cycles) with or without daratumumab (until disease progression). After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Vd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression., Results: At a median (range) follow-up of 72.6 months (0.0-79.8), significant OS benefit was observed with D-Vd (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92; P = .0075). Median OS was 49.6 months with D-Vd versus 38.5 months with Vd. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated an OS advantage with D-Vd versus Vd for most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one or two prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and prior bortezomib treatment. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Vd versus Vd were thrombocytopenia (46.1% v 32.9%), anemia (16.0% v 16.0%), neutropenia (13.6% v 4.6%), lymphopenia (10.3% v 2.5%), and pneumonia (10.7% v 10.1%)., Conclusion: D-Vd significantly prolonged OS in patients with RRMM, with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients with one prior line of therapy. To our knowledge, our results, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the phase III POLLUX study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136134 [CASTOR]).

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) μg/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) μg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105.

Immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) are the pillars of modern multiple myeloma (MM) therapy. The prognosis of patients with MM that became refractory to these three classes (triple-class refractory [TCR]) is historically poor. Observational studies indicate an overall response rate of ~30% and overall survival inferior to 1 year with existing therapies. While no randomised trial has been completed in this setting, several agents exploring new mechanisms of action showed activity in TCR MM in single-arm trials, including anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor T cells, anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugates and exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitors. Among agents in development, anti-BCMA bispecific T-cell engagers (TCE), and non-BCMA TCEs demonstrated activity in most patients. Additionally, specific agents may exhibit unique activity in biologically defined patient subsets, as exemplified by venetoclax in t(11;14) MM. The main open questions in TCR MM are preferred sequence of existing therapies, the utility of sequential use of agents with similar mechanism of action, but different immunotherapy target and the relative efficacy of the different anti-BCMA platforms. Here, we summarise the existing literature and provide general guidance on selecting therapy for this challenging and heterogenous group of patients., (© 2022 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial, patients treated with daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) had significantly higher rates of organ and hematologic response compared with patients who received VCd alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the ANDROMEDA trial. PROs were assessed through cycle 6 using three standardized questionnaires. Treatment effect through cycle 6 was measured by a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. The magnitude of changes in PROs versus baseline was generally low, but between-group differences favored the D-VCd group. Results were generally consistent irrespective of hematologic, cardiac, or renal responses. More patients in the D-VCd group experienced meaningful improvements in PROs; median time to improvement was more rapid in the D-VCd group versus the VCd group. After cycle 6, patients in the D-VCd group received daratumumab monotherapy and their PRO assessments continued, with improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported through cycle 19. PROs of subgroups with renal and cardiac involvement were consistent with those of the intent-to-treat population. These results demonstrate that the previously reported clinical benefits of D-VCd were achieved without decrement to patients' HRQoL and provide support of D-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10-5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

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.)

In the phase III CASTOR trial, daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly extended progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the CASTOR trial. PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system questionnaire. Treatment effects through Cycle 8 were measured by a repeated measures mixed-effects model. After Cycle 8, PROs were only collected for patients in the D-Vd group who continued on daratumumab monotherapy. Compliance rates for PRO assessments were high and similar between treatment groups. Mean changes from baseline were generally similar between treatment groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS), functioning and symptoms, and did not exceed 10 points for either treatment group. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the results observed in the overall population. There was no change in patients' health-related quality of life for the first eight cycles of therapy; thereafter, patients treated with daratumumab over the long-term reported improvements in GHS and pain. These results complement the significant clinical benefits observed with D-Vd in patients with RRMM and support its use in this patient population., (© 2021 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This phase 2 study evaluated isatuximab as monotherapy or combined with dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients had RRMM refractory to an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy incorporating an IMiD and PI. Patients received isatuximab either as monotherapy (20 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 [once weekly] of cycle 1 followed by 20 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles; Isa group) or in combination with dexamethasone (40 mg/d [20 mg/d in patients aged ≥75 years] once weekly; Isa-dex group). Treated patients (N = 164) had received a median of 4 (range, 2-10) prior treatment lines. Patients received a median of 5 (1-24) and 7 (1-22) treatment cycles; at data cutoff, 13 (11.9%) of 109 and 15 (27.3%) of 55 patients remained on treatment in the Isa and Isa-dex arms, respectively. Overall response rate (primary efficacy end point) was 23.9% in the Isa arm and 43.6% in the Isa-dex arm (odds ratio, 0.405; 95% confidence interval, 0.192-0.859; P = .008). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.9 and 18.9 months for Isa, and 10.2 and 17.3 months for Isa-dex. Infusion reactions (mostly grade 1/2) and hematologic abnormalities were the most common adverse events. There was a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher infections in both groups (22.0% and 21.8%). In conclusion, addition of dexamethasone to isatuximab increased response rates and survival outcomes with no detrimental effect on safety. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01084252., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody approved for intravenous (IV) infusion for multiple myeloma (MM). We describe the Phase II PLEIADES study of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA SC) in combination with standard-of-care regimens: DARA SC plus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM); DARA SC plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) for transplant-ineligible NDMM; and DARA SC plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) for relapsed/refractory MM. In total, 199 patients were treated (D-VRd, n = 67; D-VMP, n = 67; D-Rd, n = 65). The primary endpoints were met for all cohorts: the ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate after four 21-day induction cycles for D-VRd was 71·6% [90% confidence interval (CI) 61·2-80·6%], and the overall response rates (ORRs) for D-VMP and D-Rd were 88·1% (90% CI 79·5-93·9%) and 90·8% (90% CI 82·6-95·9%). With longer median follow-up for D-VMP and D-Rd (14·3 and 14·7 months respectively), responses deepened (ORR: 89·6%, 93·8%; ≥VGPR: 77·6%, 78·5%), and minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 ) rates were 16·4% and 15·4%. Infusion-related reactions across all cohorts were infrequent (≤9·0%) and mild. The median DARA SC administration time was 5 min. DARA SC with standard-of-care regimens demonstrated comparable clinical activity to DARA IV-containing regimens, with low infusion-related reaction rates and reduced administration time., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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: The phase III COLUMBA study evaluated daratumumab (DARA) intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report patient-reported satisfaction with therapy (SWT) in COLUMBA., Methods: DARA IV or DARA SC was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks (cycles 7 +). Patients completed a modified version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) at weekly (cycles 1-2) and monthly (cycles 3 +) intervals and at the end of treatment. Results for each item and the SWT domain score were summarized using descriptive statistics. The distribution of responses for individual items was calculated for each assessment. The proportion of patients for whom SWT domain score change from first assessment met or exceeded the minimally important difference (MID) of 5.9 points was calculated at each assessment time point., Results: Two-hundred fifty-nine patients were randomized to DARA IV and 263 to DARA SC. Mean scores for SWT domain questions were high and largely positive during treatment. Responses indicating positive perceptions of therapy were given by a numerically greater proportion of patients in the DARA SC group than the DARA IV group for most questions. Changes from the first assessment in SWT domain scores met or exceeded the MID for an average of ~ 40% of patients., Conclusion: In COLUMBA, modified CTSQ results suggest patients in the DARA SC group were more satisfied with their cancer therapy than those in the DARA IV group., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03277105. Registered September 8, 2107.

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.

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.

Introduction: The phase 3 ALCYONE study demonstrated significantly longer progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) and higher overall response rates (ORR) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In Latin America, bortezomib- or thalidomide-based regimens remain standard of care (SoC) for this population. No head-to-head trials have compared D-VMP with SoC regimens used in Latin America., Methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for baseline differences between patient populations and compare outcomes for D-VMP versus SoC regimens used in Latin America. Data for the D-VMP cohort were from the D-VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial (n = 350). Data for the SoC cohort were from the retrospective, observational Hemato-Oncology Latin America (HOLA) study, which included patients with NDMM who did not receive a transplant (n = 729). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression. Exact, optimal, and nearest-neighbor PSM were applied to pick the best-performing method. Doubly robust estimation was the base case, since some baseline imbalances persisted., Results: All 350 patients from the D-VMP arm of ALCYONE were included in OS/PFS analyses and 338 in ORR analysis; 478 and 324 patients, respectively, from HOLA were included in these analyses. Naïve comparison revealed important differences in baseline characteristics (age, chronic kidney disease, hypercalcemia, and International Staging System [ISS] stage). After nearest-neighbor matching, baseline characteristics, except ISS stage, were well balanced; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for OS (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.66; P = 0.002) and PFS (hazard ratio = 0.48; 95% CI 0.35-0.67; P < 0.001). After exact matching, imbalances remained in age and ISS stage; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for ORR (odds ratio = 5.44; 95% CI 2.65-11.82; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: In transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM, D-VMP showed superior effectiveness versus bortezomib- and thalidomide-based regimens, supporting adoption of daratumumab-containing regimens in Latin America.

Background: Venetoclax is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, which induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown encouraging clinical efficacy with acceptable safety and tolerability in a phase 1 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received one to three previous therapies were enrolled from 90 hospitals in 16 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) centrally using an interactive response technology system and a block size of three to receive venetoclax (800 mg per day orally) or placebo with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously or intravenously and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). Treatment was given in 21-day cycles for the first eight cycles and 35-day cycles from the ninth cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and the number of previous therapies. Sponsors, investigators, study site personnel, and patients were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02755597., Findings: Between July 19, 2016, and Oct 31, 2017, 291 patients were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax (n=194) or placebo (n=97). With a median follow-up of 18·7 months (IQR 16·6-21·0), median progression-free survival according to independent review committee was 22·4 months (95% CI 15·3-not estimable) with venetoclax versus 11·5 months (9·6-15·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·44-0·90]; p=0·010). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients in the venetoclax group vs seven [7%] of 96 patients in the placebo group), pneumonia (30 [16%] vs nine [9%]), thrombocytopenia (28 [15%] vs 29 [30%]), anaemia (28 [15%] vs 14 [15%]), and diarrhoea (28 [15%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 93 (48%) patients in the venetoclax group and 48 (50%) patients in the placebo group, with eight (4%) treatment-emergent fatal infections reported in the venetoclax group and none reported in the placebo group. Three deaths in the venetoclax group (two from pneumonia and one from septic shock) were considered treatment-related; no deaths in the placebo group were treatment-related., Interpretation: The primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with venetoclax versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. However, increased mortality was seen in the venetoclax group, mostly because of an increased rate of infections, highlighting the importance of appropriate selection of patients for this treatment option., Funding: AbbVie and Genentech., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high cytogenetic risk have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, daratumumab plus bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-Vd) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib/dexamethasone (Vd) alone and exhibited tolerability in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM)., Methods: This subgroup analysis evaluated D-Vd versus Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk, determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or karyotype testing performed locally. High-risk patients had t(4;14), t(14;16), and/or del17p abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10 -5 sensitivity threshold) was assessed via the clonoSEQ® assay V2.0. Of the 498 patients randomized, 40 (16%) in the D-Vd group and 35 (14%) in the Vd group were categorized as high risk., Results: After a median follow-up of 40.0 months, D-Vd prolonged median PFS versus Vd in patients with standard (16.6 vs 6.6 months; HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37; P < 0.0001) and high (12.6 vs 6.2 months; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P = 0.0106) cytogenetic risk. D-Vd achieved deep responses, including higher rates of MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity versus Vd, regardless of cytogenetic risk. The safety profile was consistent with the overall population of CASTOR., Conclusion: These updated data reinforce the effectiveness and tolerability of daratumumab-based regimens for RRMM, regardless of cytogenetic risk status., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02136134 . Registered 12 May 2014.

Background: In the phase III CASTOR study in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus Vd alone. Outcomes after 40.0 months of median follow-up are discussed., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had received ≥ 1 line of treatment and were administered bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 ) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for 8 cycles with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg) until disease progression., Results: Of 498 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (D-Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), 47% had 1 prior line of treatment (1PL; D-Vd, n = 122; Vd, n = 113). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd in the ITT population (16.7 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.40; P < .0001) and the 1PL subgroup (27.0 vs. 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15-0.32; P < .0001). In lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median PFS was 7.8 versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68; P = .0002) for D-Vd (n = 60) versus Vd (n = 81). Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (10 -5 ) were greater with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: 14% vs. 2%; 1PL: 20% vs. 3%; both P < .0001). PFS2 was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61; 1PL: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51; P < .0001). No new safety concerns were observed., Conclusion: After 3 years, D-Vd maintained significant benefits in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with a consistent safety profile. D-Vd provided the greatest benefit at first relapse and increased MRD-negativity rates., (Copyright © 2019 Janssen Global Services, LLC. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intravenous daratumumab for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma involves a lengthy infusion that affects quality of life, and infusion-related reactions are common. Subcutaneous daratumumab is thought to be easier to administer and to cause fewer administration-related reactions. In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous daratumumab., Methods: In this ongoing, multicentre (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) if they had confirmed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria; received at least three previous lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, or were double refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permuted blocks to receive daratumumab subcutaneously (subcutaneous group) or intravenously (intravenous group). Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bodyweight (≤65 kg, 66-85 kg, >85 kg), previous therapy lines (≤four vs >four), and myeloma type (IgG vs non-IgG). Patients received 1800 mg of subcutaneous daratumumab co-formulated with 2000 U/mL recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 or 16 mg/kg of intravenous daratumumab once weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter (28-day cycles) until progressive disease or toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were overall response and maximum trough concentration (C trough ; cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose). The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined using a 60% retention of the lower bound (20·8%) of the 95% CI of the SIRIUS trial. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population. The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received all eight weekly daratumumab doses in cycles 1 and 2 and provided a pre-dose pharmacokinetics blood sample on day 1 of cycle 3. The safety population included all patients who received at least one daratumumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03277105., Findings: Between Oct 31, 2017, and Dec 27, 2018, 655 patients were screened, of whom 522 were recruited and randomly assigned (subcutaneous group n=263; intravenous group n=259). Three patients in the subcutaneous group and one in the intravenous group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety. At a median follow-up of 7·5 months (IQR 6·5-9·3), overall response and C trough met the predefined non-inferiority criteria. An overall response was seen in 108 (41%) of 263 patients in the subcutaneous group and 96 (37%) of 259 in the intravenous group (relative risk 1·11, 95% CI 0·89-1·37). The geometric means ratio for C trough was 107·93% (90% CI 95·74-121·67), and the maximum C trough was 593 μg/mL (SD 306) in the subcutaneous group and 522 μg/mL (226) in the intravenous group. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [14%] of 258 patients in the intravenous group), neutropenia (34 [13%] and 20 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (36 [14%] and 35 [14%]). Pneumonia was the only serious adverse event in more than 2% of patients (seven [3%] in the subcutaneous group and 11 [4%] in the intravenous group). There was one death resulting from a treatment-related adverse event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (sepsis [n=2], hepatitis B reactivation [n=1], and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1])., Interpretation: Subcutaneous daratumumab was non-inferior to intravenous daratumumab in terms of efficacy and pharmacokinetics and had an improved safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These data could contribute to the approval of the subcutaneous daratumumab formulation by regulatory bodies., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Limited information is available on multiple myeloma (MM), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) management in Latin America. The primary objective of the Hemato-Oncology Latin America (HOLA) study was to describe patient characteristics and treatment patterns of Latin American patients with MM, CLL, and NHL., Methods: This study was a multicenter, retrospective, medical chart review of patients with MM, CLL, and NHL in Latin America identified between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015. Included were adults with at least 1 year of follow-up (except in cases of death within 1 year of diagnosis) treated at 30 oncology hospitals (Argentina, 5; Brazil, 9; Chile, 1; Colombia, 5; Mexico, 6; Panama/Guatemala, 4)., Results: Of 5,140 patients, 2,967 (57.7%) had NHL, 1,518 (29.5%) MM, and 655 (12.7%) CLL. Median follow-up was 2.2 years for MM, 3.0 years for CLL, and 2.2 years for NHL, and approximately 26% died during the study observation period. Most patients had at least one comorbidity at diagnosis. The most frequent induction regimen was thalidomide-based chemotherapy for MM and chlorambucil with or without prednisone for CLL. Most patients with NHL had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 49.1%) or follicular lymphoma (FL; 19.5%). The majority of patients with DLBCL or FL received rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone., Conclusion: The HOLA study generated an unprecedented level of high-quality, real-world evidence on characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with hematologic malignancies. Regional disparities in patient characteristics may reflect differences in ethnoracial identity and level of access to care. These data provide needed real-world evidence to understand the disease landscape in Latin America and may be used to inform clinical and health policy decision making.

With the introduction of new drugs with different mechanisms of action, multiple myeloma (MM) patients' outcomes have improved. However, the efficacy seen in clinical trials is often not seen in real-world settings and data on the effectiveness of MM therapies are needed. INSIGHT MM is a prospective, global, non-interventional, observational study that is enrolling approximately 4200 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM, making it the largest study of its kind to date. The study aims to describe contemporary, real-world patterns of patient characteristics, clinical disease presentation, therapies chosen, clinical outcomes (response, treatment duration, time-to-next-therapy, progression-free and overall survival), safety, healthcare resource utilization and quality of life. One interim analysis has been conducted to date; current accrual is approximately 3094 patients. Trial registration number: NCT02761187.

This multicenter retrospective study included 101 patients (median age 62 years) with secondary plasma cell leukemia (sPCL). The median time from initial multiple myeloma diagnosis to sPCL was 31 months. Fifty-five out of 72 patients (75%) who received any therapy were treated with immunomodulators (IMiDs) and/or proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and 14/72 (19%) underwent salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The overall response rate in patients who received ASCT or PI (either alone or in combination) was higher than in those who did not (93% vs. 36% and 60% vs. 30%, respectively). The median overall survival (OS) in patients who received therapy was 4.2 months (95% CI: 1.3; 8.0) with a 1-year OS of 19%. Platelet count ≤100 × 10 9 /L at sPCL diagnosis was the only independent predictor of a poorer OS in treated patients (HR = 3.98, p = .0001). These findings suggest that patients with sPCL may benefit from salvage ASCT- and PI-based regimens.

Daratumumab, a CD38 human monoclonal antibody, demonstrated significant clinical activity in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in the primary analysis of CASTOR, a phase 3 study in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. A post hoc analysis based on treatment history and longer follow up is presented. After 19.4 (range: 0-27.7) months of median follow up, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival (median: 16.7 versus 7.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.39; P <0.0001) and improved the overall response rate (83.8% versus 63.2%; P <0.0001) compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. The progression-free survival benefit of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was most apparent in patients with 1 prior line of therapy (median: not reached versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% con fidence interval, 0.12-0.29; P <0.0001). Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was also superior to bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in subgroups based on prior treatment exposure (bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide), lenalidomide-refractory status, time since last therapy (≤12, >12, ≤6, or >6 months), or cytogenetic risk. Minimal residual disease-negative rates were >2.5-fold higher with daratumumab across subgroups. The safety profile of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone remained consistent with longer follow up. Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone demonstrated significant clinical activity across clinically relevant subgroups and provided the greatest benefit to patients treated at first relapse. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02136134 ., (Copyright© 2018 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Objective: The efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in clinical trials may differ from the oncology practice experience. The electronic VELCADE ® OBservational Study was designed to prospectively evaluate bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) in real-world medical practice., Method: Patients scheduled to receive intravenous bortezomib for MM were eligible. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes, including response, time to response, time to next therapy, treatment-free interval, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included safety and healthcare resource utilization., Results: In total, 873 patients with a median of two therapy lines prior to initiating bortezomib were included. The overall response rate (≥partial response) was 69%, including 37% complete response/near-complete response. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median time to next therapy was 9.7 months, and median treatment-free interval was 7.9 months. After 22.6 months' median follow-up, median PFS was 12.0 months and median OS was 36.1 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) were neuropathy not otherwise specified (19%), diarrhea NOS, and thrombocytopenia (each 17%); 230 (26%) patients discontinued bortezomib due to AEs. Of 689 (79%) patients without baseline peripheral neuropathy (PN), the rate of new-onset any-grade PN increased to 51% (12% grade 3/4) by cycle 8. Overall, 244 (28%) patients were hospitalized, 372 (43%) attended an outpatient visit, and 341 (39%) underwent a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure during bortezomib treatment., Conclusion: These prospective real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for RRMM and confirm high response rates and long OS for this population., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy characterized by clonal proliferation of plasma cells in the bone marrow and associated organ damage. Usually, patients with myeloma present with a single monoclonal protein in serum and/or urine constituted by one heavy chain and one light chain. In less than 5% of the patients, more than one monoclonal protein can be identified. The aim of our retrospective multicenter matched case-control study was to describe the characteristics of cases with biclonal myeloma and compare them against a control group of monoclonal myeloma patients matched by age, sex, and year of diagnosis. A total of 50 previously untreated cases with biclonal myeloma and 50 matched controls with monoclonal myeloma were included in this study. The controls were matched (1:1) for age, sex, year of diagnosis, and participating center. There were no differences in the rates of anemia (52 vs. 59%; p = 0.52), renal dysfunction (36 vs. 34%; p = 0.83), hypercalcemia (9 vs. 16%; p = 0.28), or presence of lytic lesions (23 vs. 16%; p = 0.38) between groups. Similarly, there was no difference in the rates of overall response to therapy (85 vs. 90%; p = 0.88) or survival rates of cases with biclonal myeloma and controls with monoclonal myeloma (4-year survival 72 vs. 76%; p = 0.23). Results of our study suggest that patients with biclonal myeloma have similar response and survival rates than patients with monoclonal myeloma.

Background: The phase 3 ENDEAVOR trial was a head-to-head comparison of two proteasome inhibitors in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Progression-free survival was previously reported to be significantly longer with carfilzomib administered in combination with dexamethasone than with bortezomib and dexamethasone in an interim analysis. The aim of this second interim analysis was to compare overall survival between the two treatment groups., Methods: ENDEAVOR was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Patients were recruited from 198 hospitals and outpatient clinics in 27 countries in Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and had received between one and three previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive carfilzomib and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib and dexamethasone (bortezomib group) through a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by International Staging System stage, previous lines of treatment, previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, and planned route of bortezomib delivery if assigned to the bortezomib group. Carfilzomib (20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m 2 thereafter) was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles; bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 ) was given as an intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles. Dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) was given on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 in the carfilzomib group and on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 in the bortezomib group. The primary endpoint of ENDEAVOR, progression-free survival, has been previously reported. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between treatment groups for this prospectively planned second interim analysis. Efficacy assessments were done in all randomly assigned patients (the intention-to-treat population) and the safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866, and is no longer enrolling patients., Findings: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 1096 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 929 were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group and 465 to the bortezomib group). The cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Jan 3, 2017. Median overall survival was 47·6 months (95% CI 42·5-not evaluable) in the carfilzomib group versus 40·0 months (32·6-42·3) in the bortezomib group (hazard ratio 0·791 [95% CI 0·648-0·964], one-sided p=0·010). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 377 (81%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and 324 (71%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group, and serious adverse events in 273 (59%) patients in the carfilzomib group and 182 (40%) in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (76 [16%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 46 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (67 [15%] vs 15 [3%]), pneumonia (42 [9%] vs 39 [9%]), thrombocytopenia (41 [9%] vs 43 [9%]), fatigue (31 [7%] vs 35 [8%]), dyspnoea (29 [6%] vs ten [2%]), decreased lymphocyte count (29 [6%] vs nine [2%]), diarrhoea (18 [4%] vs 39 [9%]), and peripheral neuropathy (six [1%] vs 28 [6%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (1%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group (pneumonia [n=2], interstitial lung disease [n=1], septic shock [n=1], and unknown [n=1]) and two (<1%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group (cardiac arrest [n=1] and pneumonia [n=1])., Interpretation: Carfilzomib provided a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death compared with bortezomib. To our knowledge, carfilzomib is the first and only multiple myeloma treatment that extends overall survival in the relapsed setting over the current standard of care. This study is informative for deciding which proteasome inhibitor to use for treating this disease., Funding: Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, an Amgen Inc subsidiary., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

IgM myeloma is a rare hematologic malignancy for which the clinicopathological features and patient outcomes have not been extensively studied. We carried out a multicenter retrospective study in patients with diagnosis of IgM myeloma defined by >10% marrow involvement by monoclonal plasma cells, presence of an IgM monoclonal paraproteinemia of any size, and anemia, renal dysfunction, hypercalcemia, lytic lesions and/or t(11;14) identified by FISH. A total of 134 patients from 20 centers were included in this analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 65.5 years with a male predominance (68%). Anemia, renal dysfunction, elevated calcium and skeletal lytic lesions were found in 37, 43, 19, and 70%, respectively. The median serum IgM level was 2,895 mg dL -1 with 19% of patients presenting with levels >6,000 mg dL -1 . International Staging System (ISS) stages 1, 2, and 3 were seen in 40 (33%), 54 (44%), and 29 (24%) of patients, respectively. The malignant cells expressed CD20 (58%) and cyclin D1 (67%), and t(11;14) was the most common cytogenetic finding (39%). The median overall survival (OS) was 61 months. Higher ISS score was associated with worse survival (P = 0.02). Patients with IgM myeloma present with similar characteristics and outcomes as patients with more common myeloma subtypes., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: A significant unmet need exists in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), which remains an incurable disease despite recent advances in the field. One such development was the use of deacetylase inhibitors (DACi), which exert unique antimyeloma effects through targeting of epigenetic and protein metabolism pathways. The pan-DACi panobinostat was recently approved in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for use in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. Results of a phase 3 trial showed that the panobinostat-containing regimen improved the overall response rate and progression-free survival. Panobinostat-associated adverse events included thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and peripheral neuropathy. Research into how to maintain the benefits of DACi while improving tolerability is ongoing. Areas covered: This review focuses on the efficacy and safety of panobinostat and panobinostat-based combinations for MM. Early data from clinical trials investigating the HDAC6 inhibitor ricolinostat are also discussed. Expert commentary: DACi are a unique and effective new class of agents for the treatment of MM, with panobinostat being the first to have clinically meaningful benefit for patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Optimization of dose and schedule, novel combination strategies, and introduction of selective DACi may improve the risk-benefit profile of DACi-based regimens.

Skin infiltration in multiple myeloma (skin MM) is a rare clinical problem. Only a few cases of skin involvement have been reported, primarily in single case reports. We analyzed and present the clinical outcomes, immunohistochemistry and cytogenetic features, and relevant laboratory data on 53 biopsy-proven skin MM cases. The median time from MM diagnosis to skin involvement was 2 years. There appears to be an overrepresentation of immunoglobulin class A (IgA) and light chain disease in skin MM. We found no correlation between CD56 negative MM and skin infiltration. We found that skin MM patients presented in all MM stages (i.e. ISS stages I to III), and there was no preferential cytogenetic abnormality. Patients with skin MM carry a very poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) of 8.5 months as time from skin involvement. Moreover, patients with IgA disease and plasmablastic morphology appear to have a worse OS.

Background: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion., Conclusions: Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).

The multicenter retrospective study conducted in 38 centers from 20 countries including 172 adult patients with CNS MM aimed to describe the clinical and pathological characteristics and outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) involving the central nervous system (CNS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. The median time from MM diagnosis to CNS MM diagnosis was 3 years. Thirty-eight patients (22%) were diagnosed with CNS involvement at the time of initial MM diagnosis and 134 (78%) at relapse/progression. Upon diagnosis of CNS MM, 97% patients received initial therapy for CNS disease, of which 76% received systemic therapy, 36% radiotherapy and 32% intrathecal therapy. After a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the median overall survival (OS) from the onset of CNS involvement for the entire group was 7 months. Untreated and treated patients had median OS of 2 and 8 months, respectively (P < 0.001). At least one previous line of therapy for MM before the diagnosis of CNS disease and >1 cytogenetic abnormality detected by FISH were independently associated with worse OS. The median OS for patients with 0, 1 and 2 of these risk factors were 25 months, 5.5 months and 2 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Neurological manifestations, not considered chemotherapy-related, observed at any time after initial diagnosis of MM should raise a suspicion of CNS involvement. Although prognosis is generally poor, the survival of previously untreated patients and patients with favorable cytogenetic profile might be prolonged due to systemic treatment and/or radiotherapy. Am. J. Hematol. 91:575-580, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In a phase 3 trial of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in patients (n=1776) with bone metastases and solid tumors or multiple myeloma, denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid for the primary end point of prevention of skeletal-related events. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups; however, an ad hoc overall survival analysis in the multiple myeloma subset of patients (n=180) favored zoledronic acid (hazard ratio (HR) 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-4.50; P=0.014). In the present analysis, we found imbalances between the groups with respect to baseline risk characteristics. HRs with two-sided 95% CIs were estimated using the Cox model. After adjustment in a covariate analysis, the CI crossed unity (HR 1.86; 95% CI 0.90-3.84; P=0.0954). Furthermore, we found a higher rate of early withdrawals for the reasons of lost to follow-up and withdrawal of consent in the zoledronic acid group; after accounting for these, the HR was 1.31 (95% CI 0.80-2.15; P=0.278). In conclusion, the survival results in multiple myeloma patients in this trial were confounded and will eventually be resolved by an ongoing phase 3 trial.

Background: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866., Findings: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%])., Interpretation: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option., Funding: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The introduction of agents such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib has changed the management of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous transplantation, many of whom are elderly. We sought to compare three thalidomide-based oral regimens among such patients in Latin America. We randomized patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with measurable disease to one of the following regimens: melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT); cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD); and thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD). The TD arm was closed prematurely and was analyzed only descriptively. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), whereas progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. The accrual rate was slower than expected, and the study was terminated after 82 patients had been randomized. The ORRs were 67.9 % with MPT, 89.7 % with CTD, and 68.7 % with TD (p = 0.056 for the comparison between MPT and CTD). The median PFS was 24.1 months for MPT, 25.9 months for CTD, and 21.5 months for TD. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS between MPT and CTD. In an unplanned logistic regression analysis, ORR was significantly associated with treatment with CTD (p = 0.046) and with performance status of 0 or 1 (p = 0.035). Based on the current results, no definitive recommendations can be made regarding the comparative merit of the regimens tested. Nevertheless and until the results of further studies become available, we recommend either CTD or MPT as suitable frontline regimens for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates to transplantation in settings where lenalidomide and bortezomib are not available.

Recent developments have led to remarkable improvements in the assessment and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). New technologies have become available to precisely evaluate the biology and extent of the disease, including information about cytogenetics and genetic abnormalities, extramedullary manifestations and minimal residual disease. New, more effective drugs have been introduced into clinical practice, which enable clinicians to significantly improve the outcome of patients but also pose new challenges for the prevention and management of their specific side effects. Given these various new options and challenges, it is important to identify the minimal requirements for diagnosis and treatment of patients, as access to the most sophisticated advances may vary depending on local circumstances. Here, we propose the minimal requirements and possible options for diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

Background: We aimed to assess efficacy and tolerability of vorinostat in combination with bortezomib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In our randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years) at 174 university hospitals in 31 countries worldwide. Eligible patients had to have non-refractory multiple myeloma that previously responded to treatment (one to three regimens) but were currently progressing, ECOG performance statuses of 2 or less, and no continuing toxic effects from previous treatment. We excluded patients with known resistance to bortezomib. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive 21 day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) in combination with oral vorinostat (400 mg) or matching placebo once-daily on days 1-14. We stratified patients by baseline tumour stage (International Staging System stage 1 or stage ≥2), previous bone-marrow transplantation (yes or no), and number of previous regimens (1 or ≥2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 00773747., Findings: Between Dec 24, 2008, and Sept 8, 2011, we randomly allocated 317 eligible patients to the vorinostat group (315 of whom received at least one dose) and 320 to the placebo group (all of whom received at least one dose). Median PFS was 7·63 months (95% CI 6·87-8·40) in the vorinostat group and 6·83 months (5·67-7·73) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·94; p=0·0100). 312 (99%) of 315 patients in the vorinostat group and 315 (98%) of 320 patients in the placebo group had adverse events (300 [95%] adverse events in the vorinostat group and 282 [88%] in the control group were regarded as related to treatment). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [45%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 77 [24%] patients in the placebo group), neutropenia (89 [28%] vs 80 [25%]), and anaemia (53 [17%] vs 40 [13%])., Interpretation: Although the combination of vorinostat and bortezomib prolonged PFS relative to bortezomib and placebo, the clinical relevance of the difference in PFS between the two groups is not clear. Different treatment schedules of bortezomib and vorinostat might improve tolerability and enhance activity., Funding: Merck., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study compared denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand antibody, with zoledronic acid (ZA) for delaying or preventing skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases (excluding breast and prostate) or myeloma., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 886) or intravenous ZA 4 mg (dose adjusted for renal impairment; n = 890). Daily supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression)., Results: Denosumab was noninferior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98; P = .0007). Although directionally favorable, denosumab was not statistically superior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (P = .03 unadjusted; P = .06 adjusted for multiplicity) or time to first-and-subsequent (multiple) SRE (rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; P = .14). Overall survival and disease progression were similar between groups. Hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred at similarly low rates in both groups. Acute-phase reactions after the first dose occurred more frequently with ZA, as did renal adverse events and elevations in serum creatinine based on National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grading., Conclusion: Denosumab was noninferior (trending to superiority) to ZA in preventing or delaying first on-study SRE in patients with advanced cancer metastatic to bone or myeloma. Denosumab represents a potential novel treatment option with the convenience of subcutaneous administration and no requirement for renal monitoring or dose adjustment.

In 2005, the first guidelines were published on the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). An expert panel reviewed the currently available literature as the basis for a set of revised and updated consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with MM who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Here we present recommendations on the diagnosis, treatment of newly diagnosed non-transplant-eligible patients and the management of complications occurring during induction therapy among these patients. These guidelines will aid the physician in daily clinical practice and will ensure optimal care for patients with MM.

These consensus guidelines have been compiled with input from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Their production involved several steps including: A 3-day Scientific Advisors meeting, during which each specific area was presented and discussed (May 2002). Review of key literature, especially randomized study results, but also Medline, Internet, Cochrane database searches, and prior guidelines (Br J Haematol 115: 522-540, 2001). Feedback from patients participating in the International Myeloma Foundation, patient programs. These guidelines encompass both the published literature and expert opinions. Recommendations based upon expert opinions are identified as such. The intent is for the guidelines to be international in scope, plus provide recommendations for both clinical practice and research approaches. 'Consensus' reflects general, although not necessarily unanimous, agreement. Details are discussed as appropriate. For convenience, the recommendations are divided into: 1. Diagnostic criteria. 2. Staging and prognostic factors. 3. Frontline therapy. 4. High-dose therapy and transplant. 5. Maintenance therapy. 6. Supportive care and management of specific complications. 7. Novel therapies and new technologies.

Multiple myeloma, as other neoplastic diseases, is accompanied by alterations in lipid metabolism. The metabolism of chylomicrons is unexplored in this condition, despite the importance of these lipoproteins for the energy body supply. Chylomicron metabolism in the bloodstream consists of lipolysis by lipoprotein lipase and uptake of remnants by the liver. Triglyceride-rich emulsions can mimic chylomicron metabolism in man and are a useful tool to evaluate this metabolic pathway. A double-labeled chylomicron-resembling emulsion was injected into 20 patients with multiple myeloma and 30 normolipidemic healthy subjects. The plasma kinetic curves of the emulsion 3H-triglyceride and 14C-cholesteryl ester were determined in plasma samples collected over 60 minutes. The fractional clearance rate (FCR) of triglycerides in multiple myeloma was not changed compared to controls. However, FCR of cholesteryl esters was smaller in multiple myeloma (0.025 +/- 0.003 and 0.061 +/- 0.010 min(-1), respectively). These results indicate that chylomicron lipolysis is not affected in multiple myeloma, whereas remnant removal is diminished.