Search

Objectives: Cluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) is a key target on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This multi-centre, Phase 1, single-agent study (NCT04000282) investigated SAR442085, a novel fragment crystallisable (Fc)-modified anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), with enhanced affinity towards Fc-gamma receptor on effector cells in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM., Methods: This study comprised two parts: Part-A (dose-escalation involving anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated and naïve patients) and Part-B (dose expansion). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D)., Results: Thirty-seven heavily pre-treated patients were treated in Part A. Part-B (dose-expansion) was not studied. Seven dose-limiting toxicities were reported at DL3, DL5, DL6, and DL7. RP2D was determined to be 5-7·5 mg/kg. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion-related reactions in 70·3% (26/37) patients. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was reported in 48·6% (18/37). Overall response rate was 70% in anti-CD38 mAb naïve and 4% in anti-CD38 pre-treated patients, with a median progression-free survival of 7·62 (95%CI: 2·858; not calculable) months and 2·79 (95%CI: 1·150; 4·172) months and, respectively., Conclusions: The efficacy of SAR442085 was promising in anti-CD38 mAb naïve patients but did not extend to the larger cohort of anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated patients. This observation, along with transient high-grade thrombocytopenia, could potentially limit its clinical use., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear., Methods: In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response., Results: A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Previous analyses of the IKEMA trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients with this disease who received isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone as compared with those who received carfilzomib-dexamethasone alone. Herein, we report the analysis of overall survival from the IKEMA trial., Methods: This prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 study included patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged 18 years or older, who had received one to three previous lines of treatment from 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were randomly allocated (3:2) to treatment with either isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, patients received intravenous isatuximab (10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 28-day cycle, and days 1 and 15 of subsequent 28-day cycles). In both treatment groups, intravenous carfilzomib (20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of the first cycle; and 56 mg/m 2 on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of the first cycle, and days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of subsequent cycles) and intravenous or oral dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23) were administered. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, which was reported previously. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request to discontine. The overall survival analysis reported here was planned to be conducted 3 years after the primary progression-free survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Additional analyses were conducted on the secondary endpoints of time to next treatment and second-progression-free survival. Reported p values are non-inferential due to hierarchical testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03275285)., Findings: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated: 179 (59%) to the isatuximab group and 123 (41%) to the control group. 169 (56%) patients were male, 133 (44%) were female, 214 (71%) were White, 50 (17%) were Asian, nine (3%) were Black or African American, and three (1%) were multiracial. At data cutoff for this overall survival analysis (Feb 7, 2023), 79 (44%) overall survival events in the isatuximab group and 59 (48%) in the control group had occurred (median follow-up 56·61 months [IQR 54·90-58·02]). Median overall survival (in months) was not reached (NR; 95% CI 52·17-NR) in the isatuximab group and was 50·60 months (38·93-NR) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·855 [95% CI 0·608-1·202], nominal one-sided p=0·18). Survival probability at 48 months was 59·7% (95% CI 52·0-66·7) in the isatuximab group and 52·2% (95% CI 42·7-60·8) in the control group (based on Kaplan-Meier analysis). Improvements in time to next treatment (HR 0·583 [95% CI 0·429-0·792], nominal one-sided p=0·0002) and second-progression-free survival (0·663 [0·491-0·895], nominal one-sided p=0·0035) were observed in the isatuximab group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion reactions (82 [46%] patients in the isatuximab group and four [3%] in the control group) and upper respiratory tract infections (71 [40%] and 34 [28%], respectively). Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups (24 [14%] in the isatuximab group and 22 [18%] in the control group), despite an additional 30 weeks of exposure in the isatuximab group. 12 (7%) patients in the isatuximab group and six (5%) patients in the control group had a treatment-related adverse event with a fatal outcome during study treatment., Interpretation: At the time of the current analysis, a difference in overall survival could not be detected between the treatment groups, and no new safety signals were observed. Collectively, the evidence suggests that isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone is a key treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Sanofi., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KY declares research support from BMS, Janssen, and Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and advisory roles for Janssen and Sanofi. TM declares research support from Sanofi. M-AD declares honoraria from Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. JM declares consulting for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. MC declares honoraria from BMS, Janssen, and Sanofi; and advisory roles for Janssen and Sanofi. RH declares research support from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, PharmaMar, Takeda; and advisory roles for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda. IS declares research support from and consulting for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, PharmMar, Sanofi, and Takeda. RB declares research support from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Alexion, Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen-Cilag, MorphoSys, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, Portola, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Technoclone; honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Cardinal Health, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; and advisory roles for Janssen-Cilag, Pharmaxis, and Roche. KK declares consulting for LG Chemistry; and advisory roles for Amgen, GSK, and Janssen. AO declares honoraria from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, and Sanofi. YK declares honoraria from Amgen, GSK, and Janssen. KS declares honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, ONO, Sanofi, and Takeda; consulting for Amgen, BMS, and Takeda; and research funding from BMS. FC, SM, and M-LR are employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options. PM declares advisory roles for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals., (© 2024 The Author(s). American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

We performed retrospective analysis of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients previously exposed to daratumumab treated with ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (IRd) regimen in real clinical practice. Our aim was to evaluate efficacy of IRd in these patients and select a subset of patients that would benefit from this treatment the most. In total, we analyzed 43 daratumumab-exposed RRMM patients treated in our center. Minimal response or better was achieved by 53.5% of patients from the cohort. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.56 months (95% CI: 2.56, 8.03) and median overall survival (OS) was 28.92 months (95% CI: 5.4, NR). Duration of response (DOR) was evaluable in 28 patients and reached a median of 21.3 months (95% CI: 6.85, NR). Next, we evaluated hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS. There was improved OS in patients that were not-triple refractory or worse (HR = 0.39, 95%Cl (0.14; 1.10), p = .07) and in patients, that had less than three previous lines of treatment (LOT) (HR = 0.13, 95%Cl (0.03; 0.6) p = .003). Similar to OS, there was improved PFS in patients, that were not triple-refractory or worse (HR = 0.52, 95%Cl (0.25; 1.10), p = .08). We concluded, that the best survival benefit for RRMM patients pretreated with daratumumab to IRd regimen was observed in patients that were not triple-refractory and had less than three previous lines of treatment (LOT). The DOR in these patients was 21.3 months (95% CI: 6.85, NR)., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most prevalent hematological malignancy, characterized by infiltration of the bone marrow by malignant plasma cells. Extramedullary disease (EMD) represents a more aggressive condition involving the migration of a subclone of plasma cells to paraskeletal or extraskeletal sites. Liquid biopsies could improve and speed diagnosis, as they can better capture the disease heterogeneity while lowering patients' discomfort due to minimal invasiveness. Recent studies have confirmed alterations in the proteome across various malignancies, suggesting specific changes in protein classes. In this study, we show that MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry fingerprinting of peripheral blood can differentiate between MM and primary EMD patients. We constructed a predictive model using a supervised learning method, partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and evaluated its generalization performance on a test dataset. The outcome of this analysis is a method that predicts specifically primary EMD with high sensitivity (86.4%), accuracy (78.4%), and specificity (72.4%). Given the simplicity of this approach and its minimally invasive character, this method provides rapid identification of primary EMD and could prove helpful in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse., Methods: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed., Results: A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group., Conclusions: Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-004354-21.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Melflufen, a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, rapidly enters tumor cells and metabolizes to melphalan. In previous studies, melflufen was administered via central venous catheter (CVC). However, administration by peripheral venous catheter (PVC) may be preferable., Patients and Methods: PORT was a two-period, phase 2 crossover study of CVC versus PVC melflufen administration in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Adults with ≥ 2 prior therapies refractory to/intolerant of an immunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to weekly oral dexamethasone plus melflufen (40 mg) via CVC or PVC infusion on day 1 of 28-day cycle 1. In cycle 2, patients continued dexamethasone and crossed over to the other melflufen administration route. In cycle 3, all patients received melflufen until progression; PVC or CVC routes were allowed based upon investigator decision. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during and after melflufen infusion. Primary endpoints were melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters (C max , AUC (0-t) , and AUC (0-∞) ) and frequency and severity of PVC-related local reactions., Results: The 90% CIs for adjusted geometric mean ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters following CVC versus PVC administration were within the 0.8-1.25 bioequivalence range (C max 0.946 [90% CI: 0.849, 1.053]; AUC (0-t) 0.952 [90% CI: 0.861, 1.053]; AUC (0-∞) 0.955 [90% CI: 0.863, 1.058]). In both arms, adverse events were primarily hematological and similar; no phlebitis or local infusion-related reactions occurred., Conclusion: Melflufen PVC and CVC administrations are bioequivalent based on melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters. Melflufen via PVC was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or new safety signals and may represent an alternative route of administration., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent coronavirus (20)19 disease (COVID-19)-related death. The changing epidemiological and therapeutic scenarios suggest that there has been an improvement in severity and survival of COVID-19 during the different waves of the pandemic in the general population, but this has not been investigated yet in MM patients. Here we analyzed a large cohort of 1221 patients with MM and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection observed between February 2020, and August 2022, in the EPICOVIDEHA registry from 132 centers around the world. Median follow-up was 52 days for the entire cohort and 83 days for survivors. Three-hundred and three patients died (24%) and COVID-19 was the primary reason for death of around 89% of them. Overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in vaccinated patients with both stable and active MM versus unvaccinated, while only a trend favoring vaccinated patients was observed in subjects with responsive MM. Vaccinated patients with at least 2 doses showed a better OS than those with one or no vaccine dose. Overall, according to pandemic waves, mortality rate decreased over time from 34% to 10%. In multivariable analysis, age, renal failure, active disease, hospital, and intensive care unit admission, were independently associated with a higher number of deaths, while a neutrophil count above 0.5 × 10 9 /L was found to be protective. This data suggests that MM patients remain at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection even in the vaccination era, but their clinical outcome, in terms of OS, has progressively improved throughout the different viral phases of the pandemic., (© 2023 The Authors. Hematological Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Monoclonal gammopathies are a group of blood diseases characterized by presence of abnormal immunoglobulins in peripheral blood and/or urine of patients. Multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia are monoclonal gammopathies with unclear etiology, caused by malignant transformation of bone marrow plasma cells. Mass spectrometry with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization and time-of-flight detection is commonly used for investigation of the peptidome and small proteome of blood plasma with high accuracy, robustness, and cost-effectivity. In addition, mass spectrometry coupled with advanced statistics can be used for molecular profiling, classification, and diagnosis of liquid biopsies and tissue specimens in various malignancies. Despite the fact there have been fully optimized protocols for mass spectrometry of normal blood plasma available for decades, in monoclonal gammopathy patients, the massive alterations of biophysical and biochemical parameters of peripheral blood plasma often limit the mass spectrometry measurements. In this paper, we present a new two-step extraction protocol and demonstrated the enhanced resolution and intensity (>50×) of mass spectra obtained from extracts of peripheral blood plasma from monoclonal gammopathy patients. When coupled with advanced statistics and machine learning, the mass spectra profiles enabled the direct identification, classification, and discrimination of multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia patients with high accuracy and precision. A model based on PLS-DA achieved the best performance with 71.5% accuracy (95% confidence interval, CI = 57.1-83.3%) when the 10× repeated 5-fold CV was performed. In summary, the two-step extraction protocol improved the analysis of monoclonal gammopathy peripheral blood plasma samples by mass spectrometry and provided a tool for addressing the complex molecular etiology of monoclonal gammopathies.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non-high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non-high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non-high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non-high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Early relapse (ER) following Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AHCT) confers a poor prognosis. We therefore developed a novel scoring system to predict ER. A total of 14,367 AHCT-1 patients were transplanted between 2014 and 2019, and were conditioned with Melphalan 200 mg/m 2 (Mel200) (n = 7228; 2014-2017) (training cohort); Mel200 (n = 5616; 2018-2019) or Mel140 (n = 1523; 2018-2019) (validation cohorts). PFS-12 and the Cumulative Incidence of Relapse at 12 months were 84.1% and 14.7% (training Mel200), 87.2% and 11.6% (validation Mel200), and 80.3% and 16.9% (validation Mel140), respectively. The points in the risk score were: 0, 1,2 for ISS stages I, II, and III; Disease status: 0 (CR/VGPR); 1 (PR); 2 (SD/MR); 4 (Relapse/Progression); and 1 for Karnofsky ≤ 70. The distribution of scores: 0 (24%), 1 (33.9%), 2 (29.6 %), 3 (9.5%), and ≥4 (2.7%). The score separated PFS-12, with the lowest risk group (n = 1752) having a PFS-12 of 91.7% and the highest risk group (n = 195) 57.1%. This also applied in cytogenetically high-risk patients. If the pre-score baseline risks are 15% (standard risk) and 25% (high-risk), a score of ≥4 confers calculated risks of 38% and 54%, respectively. This novel EBMT ER score, therefore, allows for the identification of five discrete prognostic groups., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The TOURMALINE-MM4 trial demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with ixazomib versus placebo as postinduction maintenance in nontransplant, newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, with a manageable and well-tolerated toxicity profile., Materials and Methods: In this subgroup analysis, efficacy and safety were assessed by age (< 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years) and frailty status (fit, intermediate-fit, and frail)., Results: In this analysis, PFS benefit with ixazomib versus placebo was seen across age subgroups, including patients aged < 65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.576; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.299-1.108; P = .095), 65-74 years (HR, 0.615; 95% CI, 0.467-0.810; P < .001), and ≥ 75 years (HR, 0.740; 95% CI, 0.537-1.019; P = .064). PFS benefit was also seen across frailty subgroups, including fit (HR, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.387-0.727; P < .001), intermediate-fit (HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.526-1.058; P = .098), and frail (HR, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.481-1.117; P = .147) patients. With ixazomib versus placebo, rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 28-44% vs. 10-36%), serious TEAEs (15-29% vs. 3-29%), and discontinuation due to TEAEs (7-19% vs. 5-11%) were higher or similar across age and frailty subgroups, and generally somewhat higher in older age groups and intermediate-fit/frail patients in both arms. Treatment with ixazomib versus placebo did not adversely affect patient-reported quality-of-life scores across age and frailty status subgroups., Conclusion: Ixazomib is a feasible and effective maintenance option for prolonging PFS across this heterogeneous patient population., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients' data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1-3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Longer-term outcomes with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) were evaluated in the randomized Phase 3 trial IKEMA (NCT03275285), in a prespecified, follow-up analysis of progression-free survival (PFS, primary study endpoint), final complete response (CR) using Hydrashift Isa immunofixation assay, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and safety. Enrolled patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (1-3 prior treatment lines). Isa 10 mg/kg was administered intravenously weekly in cycle 1 then biweekly. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intent-to-treat population (Isa-Kd: n = 179, Kd: n = 123) and safety evaluated in treated patients (Isa-Kd: n = 177, Kd: n = 122). Consistent with the primary interim analysis, the addition of Isa to Kd prolonged PFS (HR 0.58, 95.4% CI: 0.42-0.79; median PFS 35.7 [95% CI: 25.8-44.0] vs 19.2 [95% CI: 15.8-25.0] months). PFS benefit was observed with Isa-Kd across subgroups, including patients with poor prognosis. The stringent CR/CR rate was 44.1% vs 28.5% (odds-ratio: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.26-3.48), the MRD negativity rate 33.5% vs 15.4% (odds-ratio: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.55-4.99) and the MRD negativity CR rate 26.3% vs 12.2%, with Isa-Kd vs Kd. The safety profile of Isa-Kd was similar to that reported in the prior interim analysis. These findings further support Isa-Kd as a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma patients.Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Given the incurable nature of multiple myeloma (MM), efforts are made to improve the efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies via combinations with other potentially synergistic therapies. This Phase 1/2 trial (NCT03194867) was designed to determine whether cemiplimab (anti-PD-1) enhances the anti-myeloma activity of isatuximab (anti-CD38) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), to confirm the feasibility of the combination, determine its efficacy, and further evaluate its safety., Methods: Patients received isatuximab 10 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks (Isa), or isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus cemiplimab 250 mg every 2 (Isa + CemiQ2W) or every 4 weeks (Isa + CemiQ4W)., Results: Overall, 106 patients with RRMM treated with a median of 4 prior lines were included; 25.5% had high-risk cytogenetics, 63.2% were refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, 26.4% were previously exposed to daratumumab, and 84.0% were refractory to their last treatment line. There were no major changes in the safety or pharmacokinetic profile of isatuximab with the addition of cemiplimab. As assessed by investigators, four patients (11.8%) in the Isa arm, nine patients (25.0%) in the Isa + CemiQ2W arm, and eight patients (22.2%) in the Isa + CemiQ4W arm were responders. Though response rates were numerically higher in cemiplimab-containing arms, differences were not statistically significant and did not translate to improved progression-free or overall survival after a median follow-up of 9.99 months., Conclusion: Our results suggest a marginal benefit by adding cemiplimab to isatuximab, despite demonstration of target engagement, without additional observed safety issues., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Primary plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is the most aggressive monoclonal gammopathy. It was formerly characterized by ≥ 20% circulating plasma cells (CTCs) until 2021, when this threshold was decreased to ≥ 5%. We hypothesized that primary PCL is not a separate clinical entity, but rather that it represents ultra-high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) characterized by elevated CTC levels., Methods: We assessed the levels of CTCs by multiparameter flow cytometry in 395 patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible MM to establish a cutoff for CTCs that identifies the patients with ultra-high-risk PCL-like MM. We tested the cutoff on 185 transplant-eligible patients with MM and further validated on an independent cohort of 280 transplant-ineligible patients treated in the GEM-CLARIDEX trial. The largest published real-world cohort of patients with primary PCL was used for comparison of survival. Finally, we challenged the current 5% threshold for primary PCL diagnosis., Results: Newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients with MM with 2%-20% CTCs had significantly shorter progression-free survival (3.1 v 15.6 months; P < .001) and overall survival (14.6 v 33.6 months; P = .023) than patients with < 2%. The 2% cutoff proved to be applicable also in transplant-eligible patients with MM and was successfully validated on an independent cohort of patients from the GEM-CLARIDEX trial. Most importantly, patients with 2%-20% CTCs had comparable dismal outcomes with primary PCL. Moreover, after revealing a low mean difference between flow cytometric and morphologic evaluation of CTCs, we showed that patients with 2%-5% CTCs have similar outcomes as those with 5%-20% CTCs., Conclusion: Our study uncovers that ≥ 2% CTCs is a biomarker of hidden primary PCL and supports the assessment of CTCs by flow cytometry during the diagnostic workup of MM.

Background: Patients with precursors to multiple myeloma are dichotomised as having monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma on the basis of monoclonal protein concentrations or bone marrow plasma cell percentage. Current risk stratifications use laboratory measurements at diagnosis and do not incorporate time-varying biomarkers. Our goal was to develop a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smouldering multiple myeloma stratification algorithm that utilised accessible, time-varying biomarkers to model risk of progression to multiple myeloma., Methods: In this retrospective, multicohort study, we included patients who were 18 years or older with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma. We evaluated several modelling approaches for predicting disease progression to multiple myeloma using a training cohort (with patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; annotated from Nov, 13, 2019, to April, 13, 2022). We created the PANGEA models, which used data on biomarkers (monoclonal protein concentration, free light chain ratio, age, creatinine concentration, and bone marrow plasma cell percentage) and haemoglobin trajectories from medical records to predict progression from precursor disease to multiple myeloma. The models were validated in two independent validation cohorts from National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Athens, Greece; from Jan 26, 2020, to Feb 7, 2022; validation cohort 1), University College London (London, UK; from June 9, 2020, to April 10, 2022; validation cohort 1), and Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (Czech Republic, Czech Republic; Jan 5, 2004, to March 10, 2022; validation cohort 2). We compared the PANGEA models (with bone marrow [BM] data and without bone marrow [no BM] data) to current criteria (International Myeloma Working Group [IMWG] monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 20/2/20 smouldering multiple myeloma risk criteria)., Findings: We included 6441 patients, 4931 (77%) with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 1510 (23%) with smouldering multiple myeloma. 3430 (53%) of 6441 participants were female. The PANGEA model (BM) improved prediction of progression from smouldering multiple myeloma to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model, with a C-statistic increase from 0·533 (0·480-0·709) to 0·756 (0·629-0·785) at patient visit 1 to the clinic, 0·613 (0·504-0·704) to 0·720 (0·592-0·775) at visit 2, and 0·637 (0·386-0·841) to 0·756 (0·547-0·830) at visit three in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA model (no BM) improved prediction of smouldering multiple myeloma progression to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model with a C-statistic increase from 0·534 (0·501-0·672) to 0·692 (0·614-0·736) at visit 1, 0·573 (0·518-0·647) to 0·693 (0·605-0·734) at visit 2, and 0·560 (0·497-0·645) to 0·692 (0·570-0·708) at visit 3 in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA models improved prediction of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance progression to multiple myeloma compared with the IMWG rolling model at visit 1 in validation cohort 2, with C-statistics increases from 0·640 (0·518-0·718) to 0·729 (0·643-0·941) for the PANGEA model (BM) and 0·670 (0·523-0·729) to 0·879 (0·586-0·938) for the PANGEA model (no BM)., Interpretation: Use of the PANGEA models in clinical practice will allow patients with precursor disease to receive more accurate measures of their risk of progression to multiple myeloma, thus prompting for more appropriate treatment strategies., Funding: SU2C Dream Team and Cancer Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests This study was previously presented on April 12, 2022, at the 2022 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting and on Aug 25, 2022, at the International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting. AC declares grants from the International Myeloma Society for travel and conference expenses. FF is employed by Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, Merck & Co. SSF declares that their salary is partly supported by research funding from International Business Machines (IBM) and has patent applications (EP14807512·0A and US16/084 890) and a provisional patent application (62/866 261). LA declares grants from the International Myeloma Society for travel and conference expenses. JR declares honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, and Bristol Myers Squibb; travel grants from BMS, Janssen, and Amgen; and funding from a consulting or advisory role from Sanofi, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, and BMS. EK reports honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Genesis Pharma, Pfizer, and GSK; travel grants from Janssen; and is an advisory board member at Janssen and Prothena. MAD declares honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Takeda, and Janssen and is an advisory board member at Amgen, BMS, Takeda, and Janssen. CRM reports research funding from GRAIL. GG declares honoraria for lectures from Society for Neuro-oncology, Society of Tumor Oncology, and MD Anderson; honoraria as a Paul C Zamecnik Chair in Oncology; research funding from IBM and Pharmacyclics; patents, royalties, other intellectual property as Inventor on patent applications related to MSMuTect, MSMutSig, MSIDetect, POLYSOLVER, and SignatureAnalyzer-GPU; and stock and other ownership interests from Founder as a consultant and has privately-held equity in Scorpion Therapeutics. IMG declares honoraria from Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen, and Vor Biopharma; consulting or advisory roles at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, Cellectar, Sanofi, Janssen, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Oncopeptides, The Binding Site, GSK, AbbVie, Adaptive, and 10xGenomics; and a spouse who is the Chief Medical Officer at Disc Medicine and holds equity in the company. AC, FF, SSF, GG, LT, and IMG have applied for a patent for the application of the PANGEA models described in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although novel therapies improved prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, clinical outcomes in the multi-refractory population are still poor., Patients and Methods: We reviewed data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, identified and characterized triple-class exposed (3CE) relapsed/refractory MM patients, treatment patterns after 3CE, assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), explored cohorts with and without triple- and penta-refractoriness., Results: In 83 3CE patients who started subsequent therapies, the median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 8.5-19.9), PFS 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.5), and TTNT 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.8). Triple- and penta-class refractory patients had a significantly worse prognosis in all outcomes. Their life expectancy was shorter, the disease progression started earlier, and the TTNT was shorter, which increased likelihood of becoming refractory to more therapies. Time-to-event results from the first index date and all index dates analyses were very similar., Conclusion: Similar to previous studies from the US and Europe, our results show a high disease burden. Introduction of novel therapies, such as CAR-T cells, new bispecific and trispecific monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs, is expected to bring significant benefits to these patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.

Extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD) is an aggressive disease; malignant plasma cells lose their dependence in the bone marrow microenvironment and migrate into tissues. EMD is a negative prognostic factor of survival. Using flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing, we aimed to identify antigens and microRNAs (miRNAs) involved in EMD pathogenesis. Flow cytometry analysis revealed significant differences in the level of clonal plasma cells between MM and EMD patients, while the expression of CD markers was comparable between these two groups. Further, miR-26a-5p and miR-30e-5p were found to be significantly down-regulated in EMD compared to MM. Based on the expression of miR-26a-5p, we were able to distinguish these two groups of patients with high sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the involvement of deregulated miRNAs in cell cycle regulation, ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis and signaling pathways associated with infections or neurological disorders was observed using GO and KEGG pathways enrichment analysis. Subsequently, a correlation between the expression of analyzed miRNAs and the levels of CD molecules was observed. Finally, clinicopathological characteristics as well as CD antigens associated with the prognosis of MM and EMD patients were identified. Altogether, we identified several molecules possibly involved in the transformation of MM into EMD.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells are a new treatment modality in various hematological malignancies, including relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). RRMM patients have a poor prognosis, and their treatment options are limited. Currently available data from clinical trials on CAR-T cell therapy have demonstrated efficacy and manageable toxicity in RRMM. The CAR-T cells in RRMM mostly focus on already known cellular targets, such as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA). CAR-T cells focusing on other targets have been analyzed in various clinical trials as well. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), specific neurotoxicity, and hematological toxicity are the main adverse events (AE); according to the clinical trials, they are mostly mild with a low incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities. The autologous CAR-T cell therapy against BCMA (ide-cel and cilta-cel) shows the best efficacy with an overall response rate and a median progression-free survival in RRMM. Both ide-cel and cilta-cel have already been approved by the FDA. Currently, the main controversies in the routine use of CAR-T cells are high treatment costs and unknown long-term efficacy. In this review, we summarize the current overview of CAR-T cell therapies in RRMM in 2021 with various targets for CAR-T cells and their efficacy, safety, and possible limitations. Future prospective clinical trials are needed to clarify the optimal role of CAR-T cells in MM therapy.

Renal impairment (RI) is common in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and new therapies that can improve renal function are needed. The phase III IKEMA study (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03275285) investigated isatuximab (Isa) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) versus Kd in relapsed MM. This subgroup analysis examined results from patients with RI, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m². Addition of Isa prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with RI (hazard ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.66; median PFS not reached for Isa-Kd versus 13.4 months for Kd [20.8-month follow-up]). Complete renal responses occurred more frequently with Isa-Kd (52.0%) versus Kd (30.8%) and were durable in 32.0% versus 7.7% of patients, respectively. Treatment exposure was longer with Isa-Kd, with median number of started cycles and median duration of exposure of 20 versus 9 cycles and 81.0 versus 35.7 weeks for Isa-Kd versus Kd, respectively. Among patients with RI, the incidence of patients with grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the two arms (79.1% in Isa-Kd vs. 77.8% in Kd). In summary, the addition of Isa to Kd improved clinical outcomes with a manageable safety profile in patients with RI, consistent with the benefit observed in the overall IKEMA study population.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous hematological malignancy characterized by the uncontrolled clonal proliferation of bone marrow (BM) plasma cells. The poor prognosis of patients is associated with the presence of extramedullary disease (EMD). Previously, different mechanisms involved in the colonization of BM niches by MM cells and their escape during EMD have been described. Thus, we aimed to investigate the expression of selected cytokines in the BM plasma of MM patients as well as EMD patients to reveal novel molecules involved in EMD pathogenesis. Expression of 120 different cytokines was measured in BM plasma of 13 MM and 11 EMD patients using Proteome Profiler Antibody Arrays. The correlation between statistically significant cytokines and clinicopathological parameters of patients was determined using the Spearman correlation analysis. Finally, protein-protein interactions were analyzed, and GO and KEGG pathways enrichment analysis was performed. In total, 27 cytokines were found to be differently expressed between MM and EMD patients. After the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple testing, the statistical significance of two cytokines downregulated in EMD (EGF, BDNF) and six cytokines upregulated in EMD (NAP-2, ADIPOQ, CRP, MIG, BAFF, and THBS1) was maintained. Correlation analysis proved a significant association between the expression of these molecules and selected clinical-pathological features of MM/EMD patients. Protein association network analysis revealed important protein-protein interactions between THBS1/EGF, MIG/NAP-2, THBS1/NAP-2, EGF/NAP-2, and ADIPOQ/CRP. Finally, identified cytokines were proved to be significantly involved in focal adhesion, PI3K/AKT, and MAPK signaling pathways, and regulation of cell development, localization, proliferation, migration, differentiation, immune system processes, and stress response. Obtained results confirm the key function of the BM microenvironment in the pathogenesis of MM and indicate the essential role of numerous cytokines in disease progression and EMD development. However, the exact mechanisms need to be further clarified.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by malignant plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. In extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD), a subclone of these cells migrates out of the bone marrow. Out of 4 985 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 in the Czech Republic, we analyzed 234 secondary EMD patients to clarify risk factors of secondary EMD development. We found younger age [<65 years; odds ratio (OR) 4·38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·46-7·80, P < 0·0001], high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (>5 μkat/l; OR 2·07, 95% CI: 1·51-2·84, P < 0·0001), extensive osteolytic activity (OR 2·21, 95% CI: 1·54-3·15, P < 0·001), and immunoglobulin A (IgA; OR 1·53, 95% CI: 1·11-2·11, P = 0·009) or the non-secretory type of MM (OR 2·83; 95% CI: 1·32-6·04, P = 0·007) at the time of MM diagnosis to be the main risk factors for secondary EMD development. Newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with subsequent EMD had inferior median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival when compared to NDMM patients without future EMD [mPFS: 13·8 months (95% CI: 11·4-16·3) vs 18·8 months (95% CI: 17·7-19·9), P = 0·006; mOS: 26·7 months (95% CI: 18·1-35·4) vs 58·7 months (95% CI: 54·8-62·6), P < 0·001]. We found that NDMM patients with specific risk factors associated with secondary EMD development have a more aggressive disease course before secondary EMD develops., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia)., Interpretation: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Oncopeptides AB., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FHS reports institutional grant support from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria (personal) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptides AB, Schain, Skylite DX, and Takeda; advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides AB; and stock or stock options from Nordic Nanovector and Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. M-AD reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. SD reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. DC reports consulting fees from Amgen and Janssen, payment or honoraria from Amgen and Novartis, support for meetings or travel from Amgen and Janssen, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. IS reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sanofi, PharmaMar, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen-Cilag; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKine, Janssen-Cilag, PharmaMar, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. TM reports advisory board participation from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. JM reports consulting fees (personal) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and safety monitoring board participation for Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. VM reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, and The Binding Site; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. GM reports payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Krka, Novartis, Sandoz, and Takeda, and support for meetings or travel from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. LR reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. AML reports institutional grant support from AbbVie, Archigen, BeiGene, Celgene, Fibrogen, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Novartis, Onconova, Oncopeptides AB, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, and Verastem; consulting fees (personal) from Incyte; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, IQVIA, Janssen, and Servier; support for travel from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, IQVIA, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Verastem; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen and Servier outside of the submitted work. AS reports institutional grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and support for meetings or travel from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi outside of the submitted work. VM and NAB report employment at Oncopeptides AB and stock or stock options from Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. MT is an employee of Statisticon, for which Oncopeptides is a client, and owns stock options in Oncopeptides. CB reports employment at Oncopeptides AB, grants or contracts from Takeda, and stock options at Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. JH reports consulting fees from Oncopeptides AB and stock or stock options from Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. RH reports institutional grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees (personal) from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, PharmaMar, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. M-VM reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, and Sanofi outside of the submitted work. PGR reports institutional grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides AB, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Karyopharm, and Oncopeptides AB; and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. PS reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda, and payment or honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 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.

Background: In the phase 3 ALCYONE study, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. We present a subgroup analysis of ALCYONE by patient frailty status., Patients and Methods: Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit (0), intermediate (1), or frail (≥2); a nonfrail category combined fit and intermediate patients., Results: Among randomized patients (D-VMP, n = 350; VMP, n = 356), 391 (55.4%) were nonfrail (D-VMP, 187 [53.4%]; VMP, 204 [57.3%]) and 315 (44.6%) were frail (163 [46.6%]; 152 [42.7%]). After 40.1-months median follow-up, nonfrail patients had longer PFS and OS than frail patients, but benefits of D-VMP versus VMP were maintained across subgroups: PFS nonfrail (median, 45.7 vs. 19.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0001), frail (32.9 vs. 19.5 months; HR, 0.51; P < .0001); OS nonfrail (36-month rate, 83.6% vs. 74.5%), frail (71.4% vs. 59.0%). Improved greater than or equal to complete response and minimal residual disease (10 - 5 )-negativity rates were observed for D-VMP versus VMP across subgroups. The 2 most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (nonfrail: 39.2% [D-VMP] and 42.4% [VMP]; frail: 41.3% and 34.4%) and thrombocytopenia (nonfrail: 32.8% and 36.9%; frail: 36.9% and 39.1%)., Conclusion: Our findings support the clinical benefit of D-VMP in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in ALCYONE, regardless of frailty status., (Copyright © 2021 Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Infections are the primary cause of morbidity and mortality in multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts). The aim of our retrospective analysis was to evaluate incidence and course of COVID-19 infection in a cohort of 351 MM outpatients treated with novel drugs. COVID-19 disease was detected in 50/351 pts (14%); median age was 68 years. Gender, ISS stage, and last treatment lines were as follows: male 32, female 18; ISS-I 19, ISS-II 20, ISS-III 11; daratumumab-based 15, lenalidomide-based 12, bortezomib-based 17, other 6. Positive PCR test at COVID-19 diagnosis was present in all pts; anti-myeloma treatment was interrupted. Hospitalizations for COVID-19 pneumonia were necessary for 28/50 pts (56%), 18/50 pts (36%) in standard unit (SU) 10/50 pts (20%) in intensive care unit (ICU), and 9/50 pts (18%) died. The statistically significant parameters for COVID-19 hospitalization were as follows: responsive versus non-responsive disease (p = 0.027), ECOG performance status 0-2 versus ≥ 3 (p = 0.014), presence of comorbidities (0-1 versus ≥ 2, p = 0.043). The statistically significant factors for COVID-19 death were as follows: ECOG 0-2 versus ≥ 3 (p = 0.001), presence of comorbidities (0-1 versus ≥ 2, p = 0.007), serious course of COVID-19 disease with ICU hospitalization (SU versus ICU, p = 0.001). None of the other studied risk factors was associated with poor outcome (age, gender, ISS stage, immunoparesis, type of anti-myeloma treatment). Full recovery from COVID-19 infection was observed in 41/50 pts (82%) in median of 32 days. The course of COVID-19 disease in MM pts was mostly moderate or serious with 56% of hospitalizations and 18% of deaths., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible., Patients and Methods: We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%)., Results: The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P = .275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: The double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We report the final analyses for overall survival (OS)., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to ixazomib-Rd (n = 360) or placebo-Rd (n = 362), stratified by number of prior therapies (1 v 2 or 3), previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure (yes v no), and International Staging System disease stage (I or II v III). OS (intent-to-treat population) was a key secondary end point., Results: With a median follow-up of 85 months, median OS with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd was 53.6 versus 51.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.939; P = .495). Lower hazard ratios, indicating larger magnitude of OS benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, were seen in predefined subgroups: refractory to any (0.794) or last (0.742) treatment line; age > 65-75 years (0.757); International Staging System stage III (0.779); 2/3 prior therapies (0.845); high-risk cytogenetics (0.870); and high-risk cytogenetics and/or 1q21 amplification (0.862). Following ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, 71.7% versus 69.9% of patients received ≥ 1 anticancer therapy, of whom 24.7% versus 33.9% received daratumumab and 71.8% versus 76.9% received PIs (next-line therapy: 47.5% v 55.8%). Rates of new primary malignancies were similar with ixazomib-Rd (10.3%) and placebo-Rd (11.9%). There were no new or additional safety concerns., Conclusion: Median OS values in both arms were the longest reported in phase III studies of Rd-based triplets in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at the time of this analysis; progression-free survival benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit on intent-to-treat analysis. OS benefit was greater in subgroups with adverse prognostic factors. OS interpretation was confounded by imbalances in subsequent therapies received, especially PIs and daratumumab., Competing Interests: Paul G. RichardsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Secura BioResearch Funding: Celgene, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncopeptides Shaji K. KumarConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, AbbVie, Merck, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Oncopeptides, Kite (a Gilead company), Genecentrix, Molecular Partners, Bluebird Bio, CellectarResearch Funding: Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Kite (a Gilead company), MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, TeneoBio, CARsgen Therapeutics Tamas MassziConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda Norbert GrzaskoHonoraria: Molteni Farmaceutici, Celgene, Amgen Nizar J. BahlisHonoraria: Celgene, Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda, Pfizer, Karyopharm TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Janssen, Celgene Markus HanssonConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi Irwindeep SandhuStock and Other Ownership Interests: illumiSonicsHonoraria: Janssen, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, BeiGeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, BeiGene Sharon R. JacksonHonoraria: AbbVie NZConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie NZSpeakers' Bureau: AbbVie NZTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche NZ Anne-Marie StoppaConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Janssen, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Laurent GarderetConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Takeda, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, SanofiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen Cyrille TouzeauHonoraria: AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: AbbVie 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, Celgene Mohamed DarifEmployment: TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda Richard LabotkaEmployment: Takeda Deborah BergEmployment: TakedaStock and Other Ownership Interests: TakedaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Takeda Philippe MoreauHonoraria: Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, AbbVieNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved in combination with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and carfilzomib-dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. This phase 3, open-label study compared the efficacy of isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma., Methods: This was a prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study done at 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged at least 18 years who had received one to three previous lines of therapy and had measurable serum or urine M-protein were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). Patients in the isatuximab group received isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. Both groups received the approved schedule of intravenous carfilzomib and oral or intravenous dexamethasone. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population according to assigned treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose according to treatment received. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285., Findings: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients with a median of two previous lines of therapy were enrolled. 179 were randomly assigned to the isatuximab group and 123 to the control group. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the isatuximab group compared with 19·15 months (95% CI 15·77-not reached) in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0·53 (99% CI 0·32-0·89; one-sided p=0·0007). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of grade 3 or worse occurred in 136 (77%) of 177 patients in the isatuximab group versus 82 (67%) of 122 in the control group, serious TEAEs occurred in 105 (59%) versus 70 (57%) patients, and TEAEs led to discontinuation in 15 (8%) versus 17 (14%) patients. Fatal TEAEs during study treatment occurred in six (3%) versus four (3%) patients., Interpretation: The addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival and depth of response in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, representing a new standard of care for this patient population., Funding: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; and a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda. M-AD reports consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. JM reports honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, BMS, Janssen, and Amgen; and a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda. KY reports a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda; speaker's bureau for Amgen and Takeda; and research funding from Amgen and Sanofi. MC reports speaker's bureau for Amgen, Janssen, and Sanofi. TF reports an advisory role for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and speaker's bureau for Takeda. RH reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Pharma Mar, Novartis, and Takeda; and grants from Novartis and Takeda. IS reports a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Takeda; and speakers' bureau for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Takeda. TM reports research funding from Amgen and Sanofi. M-LR, GA, and SM are employed by Sanofi and may hold shares or stock options in the company. RB reports research funding from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Alexion, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Jansen-Cilag, MorphoSys, Pfizer, Portola, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Technoclone; and consulting or advisory roles for Jansen-Cilag and Roche. KK reports research funding from BMS and Janssen; and honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, and Takeda. AO reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen. KS reports honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, ONO, Sanofi, and Takeda; and consulting or advisory roles for AbbVie, BMS, and Celgene. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: In the phase III ALCYONE trial, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) significantly improved overall response rate and progression-free status compared with VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALCYONE., Methods: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire were administered at baseline, every 3 months (year 1) and every 6 months (until progression). Treatment effects were assessed using a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model., Results: Compliance with PRO assessments was comparable at baseline (> 90%) and throughout study (> 76%) for both treatment groups. Improvements from baseline were observed in both groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (GHS), most functional scales, symptom scales and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS). Between-group differences were significant for GHS (p = 0.0240) and VAS (p = 0.0160) at month 3. Improvements in pain were clinically meaningful in both groups at all assessment time points. Cognitive function declined in both groups, but the magnitude of the decline was not clinically meaningful., Conclusions: Patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM demonstrated early and continuous improvements in health-related quality of life, including improvements in functioning and symptoms, following treatment with D-VMP or VMP., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02195479 , registered September 21, 2014.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible myeloma patients, prolonged induction does not necessarily improve the depth of response., Method: We analyzed 1222 ASCT patients who were classified based on (a) the interval between induction and stem cell collection, (b) the type of induction regimen: BID (Bortezomib, IMiDs, and Dexamethasone), Bortezomib-based, or CTD (Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide, and Dexamethasone), and (c) the time to best response (Early ie, best response within 4 or 5 months, depending on the regimen vs Late; Good ie, VGPR or better vs Poor)., Results: The length of induction treatment required to achieve a Good response did not affect PFS (P = .65) or OS (P = .61) post-ASCT. The three types of regimen resulted in similar outcomes: median PFS 31, 27.7 and 30.8 months (P = .31), and median OS 81.7, 92.7, and 77.4 months, respectively (P = .83). On multivariate analysis, neither the type nor the duration of the induction regimen affected OS and PFS, except for Early Good Responders who had a better PFS compared to Early Poor Responders (HR = 1.21, P-value = .02). However, achieving a Good response at induction was associated with a better response (≥VGPR) post-transplant., Conclusion: The kinetics of response did not affect outcomes., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Despite the high efficacy of current induction regimens, most multiple myeloma (MM) patients relapse over time. The link between changes in the immune system and the prognosis of the disease is still not entirely clear. Therefore, we analyzed whether the pattern of bone marrow (BM) lymphocytes during routine BM examination after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is related to disease prognosis or MRD negative complete remission. From 2009 to 2018, 98 MM patients underwent routine BM testing after the first ASCT. Using multi-parametric flow cytometry, twelve BM lymphocyte subtypes were analyzed. In 60% of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), MRD by flow cytometric analysis (sensitivity threshold 10-6) was evaluated. We found an association of relative proportion of BM lymphocyte subtypes with treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Higher relative proportion of memory B cells was associated with inferior median PFS [HR 1.089 (95% CI: 1.023-1.160), p=0.008] and median OS [HR 1.170 (95% CI: 1.074-1.274), p<0.001]. In non-responding patients (minimal response and worse), higher proportion of memory B cells was found when compared to patients achieving CR [3.8% (range 0.5-35.0) vs. 1.0% (range 0.1-12.5); p=0.001]. No significant association of BM lymphocyte subtypes proportion with MRD negative CR was found. Our results show that changes in BM lymphocyte subsets including memory B cells may have prognostic value in MM patients after ASCT.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) experience several relapses, and become refractory to successive therapies. In the ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338), isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with RRMM. This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM assessed the treatment benefit of isatuximab by prior lines of therapy and refractory status. A total of 307 patients were randomized to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, then every other week. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. PFS was assessed by prior lines and refractory status. Overall, 102 (66 %) patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone and 101 (66 %) patients receiving pomalidomide-dexamethasone had received 2-3 prior lines; 52 (34 %) and 52 (34 %) had received >3 prior lines, respectively. Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who received 2-3 prior lines of therapy (12.3 vs. 7.8 months) and >3 prior lines of therapy (9.4 vs. 4.3 months). Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who were lenalidomide-refractory (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), lenalidomide-refractory at last line (11.6 vs. 5.7 months), refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), and double-refractory (11.2 vs. 4.8 months). Overall response rate (ORR) in patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone was 59.0 % versus 31.4 % in lenalidomide-refractory; 60.2 % versus 32.2 % in PI-refractory; and 58.6 % versus 29.9 % in double-refractory patients. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved PFS and ORR regardless of prior lines of therapy or refractory status, consistent with the benefit in the overall population., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)