Search

In the ELOQUENT-3 trial, the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EloPd) proved to have a superior clinical benefit over pomalidomide and dexamethasone with a manageable toxicity profile, leading to its approval for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. We report here a real-world experience of 200 cases of RRMM treated with EloPd in 35 Italian centers outside of clinical trials. In our dataset, the median number of prior lines of therapy was two, with 51% of cases undergoing autologous stem cell transplant and 73% having been exposed to daratumumab. After a median follow-up of 9 months, 126 patients had stopped EloPd, most of them (88.9%) because of disease progression. The overall response rate was 55.4%, a finding in line with the pivotal trial results. Regarding adverse events, the toxicity profile in our cohort was similar to that in the ELOQUENT-3 trial, with no significant differences between younger (<70 years) and older patients. The median progression-free survival was 7 months, which was shorter than that observed in ELOQUENT-3, probably because of the different clinical characteristics of the two cohorts. Interestingly, International Staging System stage III disease was associated with worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio=2.55). Finally, the median overall survival of our series was shorter than that observed in the ELOQUENT-3 trial (17.5 vs. 29.8 months). In conclusion, our real-world study confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for patients with RRMM who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In recent years, the immunoderivative (IMiD) agents have been extensively used for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). IMiDs and their newer derivatives CRBN E3 ligase modulator bind the E3 ligase substrate recognition adapter protein cereblon (CRBN), which has been recognized as one of the IMiDs' direct target proteins, and it is essential for the therapeutic effect of these agents.High expression of CRBN was associated with improved clinical response in patients with MM treated with IMiDs, further confirming that the expression of IMiDs' direct target protein CRBN is required for the anti-MM activity. CRBN's central role as a target of IMiDs suggests potential utility as a predictive biomarker of response or resistance to IMiDs therapy. Additionally, the presence of alternatively spliced variants of CRBN in MM cells, especially those lacking the drug-binding domain for IMiDs, raise questions concerning their potential biological function, making difficult the transcript measurement, which leads to inaccurate overestimation of full-length CRBN transcripts. In sight of this, in the present study, we evaluated the CRBN expression, both full-length and spliced isoforms, by using real-time assay data from 87 patients and RNA sequencing data from 50 patients (n = 137 newly diagnosed MM patients), aiming at defining CRBN's role as a predictive biomarker for response to IMiDs-based induction therapy. We found that the expression level of the spliced isoform tends to be higher in not-responding patients, confirming that the presence of a more CRBN spliced transcript predicts for lack of IMiDs response., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Recent innovative strategies have dramatically redefined the therapeutic landscape for treating multiple myeloma patients. In particular, the development and application of immunotherapy and high-dose therapy have demonstrated high response rates and have prolonged remission duration. Over the past decade, new morphologic or hybrid imaging techniques have gradually replaced conventional skeletal surveys. PET/CT using 18 F-FDG is a powerful imaging tool for the workup at diagnosis and for therapeutic evaluation allowing medullary and extramedullary assessment. The independent negative prognostic value for progression-free and overall survival derived from baseline PET-derived parameters such as the presence of extramedullary disease or paramedullary disease, as well as the number of focal bone lesions and SUV max , has been reported in several large prospective studies. During therapeutic evaluation, 18 F-FDG PET/CT is considered the reference imaging technique because it can be performed much earlier than MRI, which lacks specificity. Persistence of significant abnormal 18 F-FDG uptake after therapy is an independent negative prognostic factor, and 18 F-FDG PET/CT and medullary flow cytometry are complementary tools for detecting minimal residual disease before maintenance therapy. The definition of a PET metabolic complete response has recently been standardized and the interpretation criteria harmonized. The development of advanced PET analysis and radiomics using machine learning, as well as hybrid imaging with PET/MRI, offers new perspectives for multiple myeloma imaging. Most recently, innovative radiopharmaceuticals such as C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4-targeted small molecules and anti-CD38 radiolabeled antibodies have shown promising results for tumor phenotype imaging and as potential theranostics., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Overall outcomes for multiple myeloma have improved due to the availability of new therapies, but patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma harbouring certain factors continue to pose a therapeutic challenge. These challenging features include high-risk cytogenetics, renal impairment, patient characteristics such as age and frailty, and extramedullary disease. Prior refractory status and number of prior lines add further complexity to the treatment of these patients. While newer regimens are available and have suggested efficacy in these patient populations through subgroup analyses, differences in trial definitions and cut-offs make meaningful comparisons difficult. This review aims to examine the available clinical trial data for patients with high-risk cytogenetics, renal impairment, age and frailty and extramedullary disease., Competing Interests: M‐SR: honoraria – BMS, Janssen; advisory role – Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda; consultant – Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda; research support – BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi. EZ: honoraria – Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; advisory role – Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. SM: advisory role – AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Celgene/BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptide, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; research support – AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Celgene/BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptide, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. PR‐O:  honoraria – Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda; advisory role – Abbvie, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda; consultant – Celgene‐BMS, GSK, Pfizer. FS: honoraria – Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Daiichi‐Sankyo, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda; advisory role – Abbvie, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda; research support – Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Targovax. AB: honoraria – Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda; advisory role – Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda., (© 2023 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Outcomes of multiple myeloma (MM) patients who are refractory to daratumumab are dismal and no standard of treatment exists for this patients' population. Here, we investigate the role of pomalidomide combinations in daratumumab-refractory MM patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of myeloma patients treated at four referral centers (three in Germany and one in Italy). Review chart identified 30 patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma, who progressed during treatment with daratumumab and were treated with pomalidomide-based combinations in the subsequent lines of therapy., Results: Responses improved from 37% with daratumumab to 53% with pomalidomide. Of seven patients with extramedullary MM (EMM), four achieved a clinical stabilization with pomalidomide, including one patient with a long-lasting complete response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6 and 12 months, respectively. Pomalidomide combinations were well tolerated, no patient discontinued treatment due to adverse events., Conclusion: These data show that pomalidomide-based combinations can be an effective and safe salvage regimen for daratumumab-refractory patients, including those with EMM., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Human adipose-derived stem cells (hASCs) are commonly harvested in minimally invasive contexts with few ethical concerns, and exhibit self-renewal, multi-lineage differentiation, and trophic signaling that make them attractive candidates for cell therapy approaches. The identification of natural molecules that can modulate their biological properties is a challenge for many researchers. Oxytocin (OXT) is a neurohypophyseal hormone that plays a pivotal role in the regulation of mammalian behavior, and is involved in health and well-being processes. Here, we investigated the role of OXT on hASC proliferation, migratory ability, senescence, and autophagy after a treatment of 72 h; OXT did not affect hASC proliferation and migratory ability. Moreover, we observed an increase in SA-β-galactosidase activity, probably related to the promotion of the autophagic process. In addition, the effects of OXT were evaluated on the hASC differentiation ability; OXT promoted osteogenic differentiation in a dose-dependent manner, as demonstrated by Alizarin red staining and gene/protein expression analysis, while it did not affect or reduce adipogenic differentiation. We also observed an increase in the expression of autophagy marker genes at the beginning of the osteogenic process in OXT-treated hASCs, leading us to hypothesize that OXT could promote osteogenesis in hASCs by modulating the autophagic process.

Background: Limited data are available on the concordance between multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in a large trial for multiple myeloma (MM) patients., Methods: MRD was explored in the FORTE trial for transplant-eligible MM patients randomised to three carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation treatments and carfilzomib-lenalidomide (KR) vs R maintenance. MRD was assessed by 8-colour 2nd-generation flow cytometry in patients with ≥very good partial response before maintenance. NGS was performed in case of suspected complete response (CR) in a correlative subanalysis. Biological/prognostic concordance between MFC and NGS, conversion to MRD negativity during maintenance, and 1-year/2-year sustained MRD negativity were explored., Findings: Between September 28, 2015 and December 22, 2021, 2020 samples were available for MFC and 728 for the simultaneous MFC/NGS correlation in the "suspected CR population". Median follow-up was 62 months. Biological agreement was 87% at the 10 -5 and 83% at the 10 -6 cut-offs. A remarkable prognostic concordance was observed: hazard ratios in MFC-MRD and NGS-MRD-negative vs -positive patients were 0.29 and 0.27 for progression-free survival (PFS) and 0.35 and 0.31 for overall survival, respectively (p < 0.05). During maintenance, 4-year PFS was 91% and 97% in 1-year sustained MFC-MRD-negative and NGS-MRD-negative patients (10 -5 ), respectively, and 99% and 97% in 2-year sustained MFC-MRD-negative and NGS-MRD-negative patients, regardless of treatment received. The conversion rate from pre-maintenance MRD positivity to negativity during maintenance was significantly higher with KR vs R both by MFC (46% vs 30%, p = 0.046) and NGS (56% vs 30%, p = 0.046)., Interpretation: The significant biological/clinical concordance between MFC and NGS at the same sensitivity suggests their possible use in the evaluation of one of the currently strongest predictors of outcome., Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation., Competing Interests: SO has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. EG has received speaker honoraria from Werfen. LP has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Janssen; has received consultancy fees from Janssen. MD has received honoraria for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb. APJ is a full-time employee of and has received stock or stock options from Adaptive Biotechnologies. FP has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline. ML has received honoraria from Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Grifols; has received support for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Gilead Sciences. RM has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and Amgen; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen; has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi. IRK is a full-time employee of and has received stock or stock options from Adaptive Biotechnologies. AB has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, and GlaxoSmithKline. MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; has served on the speakers’ bureaus for Janssen, Celgene, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria from and/or served on scientific boards for AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. EZ has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Takeda. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. The other authors declare no competing financial interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the current standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) outside the bone marrow (BM) in multiple myeloma (MM), recently standardised applying the Deauville scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) and defining the complete metabolic response (CMR) as uptake below the liver background (DS <4)., Methods: In this analysis, we aimed at confirming the role of CMR, and complementarity with BM multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) at 10 -5 , in an independent cohort of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM patients previously enrolled in the phase II randomised FORTE trial. 109 of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial between February 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, who had paired PET/CT (performed at baseline [B] and preceding maintenance therapy [PM]) and MFC evaluation, were included in this analysis., Findings: At B, 93% of patients had focal lesions within the bones (FS ≥4 in 89%) and 99% increased BM uptake (BMS ≥4 in 61%). At PM, CMR was achieved in 63% of patients, which was a strong predictor for prolonged PFS in univariate analysis at landmark time PM (HR 0.40, P  = 0.0065) and in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.31, P  = 0.0023). Regarding OS, a trend in favour of CMR was present in univariate (HR 0.44, P  = 0.094), and Cox multivariate model (HR 0.17, P  = 0.0037). Patients achieving both PET/CT CMR and MFC negativity at PM showed significantly extended PFS in univariate (HR 0.45, P  = 0.020) and multivariate analysis (HR 0.41, P  = 0.015)., Interpretation: We herein confirm the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define CMR and its prognostic relevance and complementarity with MFC at the BM level., Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Italian Ministry of Health (RC-2022-2773423)., Competing Interests: EZ receives honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda. SO has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. MD has received honoraria for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AB has served on the advisory board for Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline. MGa has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline. RZ has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. BG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. AV received honoraria from Novartis, Advanced Accelerator Applications and GE Healthcare. FP receives honoraria and travel accommodation support from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and has served on the advisory boards for Celgene BMS, Janssen, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline. PT has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; has served on the data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. KM has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. PM has received honoraria from and/or served on scientific boards for AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; has served on the speakers’ bureaus for Janssen, Celgene, and Sanofi. CN has been PET revisor for Keosys-Sanofi. The other authors declare no competing financial interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Long-term kinetics of antibody (Ab) and cell-mediated immune (CMI) response to full anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine schedule and booster doses in Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients remain unclear. We prospectively evaluated Ab and CMI response to mRNA vaccines in 103 SARS-CoV-2-naïve MM patients (median age 66, 1 median prior line of therapy) and 63 health-workers. Anti-S-RBD IgG (Elecsys ® assay) were measured before vaccination and after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), 9 (T9) and 12 (T12) months from second dose (D2) and 1 month after the introduction of the booster dose (T1D3). CMI response (IGRA test) was evaluated at T3 and T12. Fully vaccinated MM patients displayed high seropositivity rate (88.2%), but low CMI response (36.2%). At T6 the median serological titer was halved (p=0.0391) in MM patients and 35% reduced (p=0.0026) in controls. D3 (94 patients) increased the seroconversion rate to 99% in MM patients and the median IgG titer in both groups (up to 2500 U/mL), maintained at T12. 47% of MM patients displayed a positive CMI at T12 and double-negativity for humoral and CMI (9.6% at T3) decreased to 1%. Anti-S-RBD IgG level ≥346 U/mL showed 20-times higher probability of positive CMI response (OR 20.6, p<0.0001). Hematological response ≥CR and ongoing lenalidomide maintenance enhanced response to vaccination, hindered by proteasome inhibitors/anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In conclusion, MM elicited excellent humoral, but insufficient cellular responses to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Third dose improved immunogenicity renewal, even when undetectable after D2. Hematological response and ongoing treatment at vaccination were the main predictive factors of vaccine immunogenicity, emphasizing the role of vaccine response assessment to identify patients requiring salvage approaches., Competing Interests: KM has received Honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi and Janssen. EZ has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda. LP has received Honoraria from Janssen and Amgen. SR receives Honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen. IR has received Honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. PT has received Honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and Oncopeptides. MC has served in a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Menarini Stemline, Sanofi, and Karyopharm Therapeutics, and has received honoraria from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Menarini Stemline, Sanofi, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Mancuso, Zamagni, Solli, Gabrielli, Leone, Pantani, Rocchi, Rizzello, Tacchetti, Ghibellini, Favero, Ursi, Talarico, Barbato, Kanapari, Bigi, Puppi, Terragna, Borsi, Martello, Poletti, Scatà, Nepoti, Ruffini, Lazzarotto and Cavo.)

Given the paucity of high-certainty evidence, and differences in opinion on the use of nuclear medicine for hematological malignancies, we embarked on a consensus process involving key experts in this area. We aimed to assess consensus within a panel of experts on issues related to patient eligibility, imaging techniques, staging and response assessment, follow-up, and treatment decision-making, and to provide interim guidance by our expert consensus. We used a three-stage consensus process. First, we systematically reviewed and appraised the quality of existing evidence. Second, we generated a list of 153 statements based on the literature review to be agreed or disagreed with, with an additional statement added after the first round. Third, the 154 statements were scored by a panel of 26 experts purposively sampled from authors of published research on haematological tumours on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) Likert scale in a two-round electronic Delphi review. The RAND and University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used for analysis. Between one and 14 systematic reviews were identified on each topic. All were rated as low to moderate quality. After two rounds of voting, there was consensus on 139 (90%) of 154 of the statements. There was consensus on most statements concerning the use of PET in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. In multiple myeloma, more studies are required to define the optimal sequence for treatment assessment. Furthermore, nuclear medicine physicians and haematologists are awaiting consistent literature to introduce volumetric parameters, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and radiomics into routine practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests IB has received research grants from Dosisoft, GE Healthcare, and Siemens Healthineers, and is a member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Artificial Intelligence Task Force. BC has received research support from GWT and Technical University of Dresden, and won a 2021 Gilead Oncology Award to support his research; has received consulting fees from and is on the data safety monitoring board for Roche, BMS, Regeneron, and ADC; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, BMS, and Astra Zeneca; has received support for travel from Gilead; has submitted patents for molecular subclassification of DLBCL; and declares that he is a speaker of the Aggressive Lymphoma working group and is a steering board member of the German Lymphoma Alliance. UD has received institutional funding from Celgene and has served as a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Amgen and Avencell Europe. EL has received grants from AIRC and the Italian Ministry of Health, royalties from Springer, and honoraria for lectures at the European Society of Molecular Imaging, Therapy and Molecular Imaging, and Therapy congresses. MN has received a research grant from Takeda. PR-O has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen, Regeneron, and Sanofi, and has served as a member of the data safety monitoring board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. EZ has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda. PLZ has received honoraria from and has participated on advisory boards or data safety monitoring boards for AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eusapharma, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. KH reports personal fees from Adacap, Ktis Oncology, Amgen, Bayer, Curium, Endocyte, Ipsen, GE Healthcare, Novartis, Pharma15, Siemens Healthineers, SIRTEX, Theragnostics, and ymabs; personal fees and other from Sofie Biosciences; grants and personal fees from BTG; and non-financial support from ABX outside the submitted work. JK has received consulting fees from Telix and has served as a member of the data safety monitoring board for Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

In combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), Carfilzomib has been approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) on ASPIRE trial. Efficacy and safety of the triplet are still the object of investigation by many groups to confirm ASPIRE results in the setting of RRMM treated in real-life who don't meet trial restrictive inclusion criteria. Therefore, we report a retrospective multicenter analysis of 600 RRMM patients treated with KRd between December 2015 and December 2018. The median age was 64 years (range 33-85), and the median number of previous therapies was two (range 1-11). After a median of 11 KRd cycles, the overall response rate was 79.9%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 22 months, and the 2-year probability of PFS was 47.6%. Creatinine clearance<30 ml/min, >1 line of previous therapy, and high-risk FISH were all associated with a poor prognosis in multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (OS) was 34.8 months; the 2-year probability of OS was 63.5%. At multivariate analysis, creatinine clearance<30 ml/min, >1 line of previous therapy, and high-risk FISH were significantly associated with poor prognosis. After a median follow-up of 16 months (range 1-50), 259 withdrew from therapy. The main discontinuation reason was progressive disease (81.8%). Seventy-four patients (12.3%) discontinued therapy for toxicity. The most frequent side effects were hematological (anemia 49.3%, neutropenia 42.7%, thrombocytopenia 42.5%) and cardiovascular (hypertension 14.5%, heart failure 2.5%, arrhythmias 3.6%). Our study confirms the safety and efficacy of KRd in the real-life setting of RRMM patients and encourages its use in clinical practice., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines recommend using electrophoresis and immunofixation to define response and progressive disease (PD) in immunoglobulin (Ig) secretory multiple myeloma (Ig-MM), whereas the role of serum-free light chain (sFLC) is controversial. We retrospectively analyzed the value of adding sFLC assays in the definition of response and PD according to IMWG criteria in 339 Ig-MM patients treated with a first-line novel agent-based therapy (median follow-up 54 months). sFLC PD was defined according to conventional criteria plus increased sFLC levels, or sFLC escape (sFLCe); progression/sFLCe-free survival (ePFS) was the time from the start of treatment to the date of first PD or sFLCe, or death; overall survival after PD/sFLCe (OS after Pe) was the time from first PD or sFLCe to the date of death. 148 (44%) patients achieved a complete response and 198 (60%) a normal sFLC ratio (sFLCR). sFLCR normalization was an independent prognostic factor for extended PFS (HR = 0.46, p = 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.47, p = 0.006) by multivariable analysis. 175 (52%) patients experienced PD according to the IMWG criteria, whereas 180 (53%) experienced PD or sFLCe. Overall, a sFLCe was observed in 31 (9%) patients. Median PFS and ePFS were both equal to 36 (95% CI = 32-42, and 32-40, respectively) months. sFLC PD adversely affected the OS after Pe compared to PD with increasing monoclonal Ig only (HR = 0.52, p = 0.012). Our results support the inclusion of the sFLC assay for defining response and PD in Ig-MM., (© 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

DNA microarrays and RNA-based sequencing approaches are considered important discovery tools in clinical medicine. However, cross-platform reproducibility studies undertaken so far have highlighted that microarrays are not able to accurately measure gene expression, particularly when they are expressed at low levels. Here, we consider the employment of a digital PCR assay (ddPCR) to validate a gene signature previously identified by gene expression profile. This signature included ten Hedgehog (HH) pathways' genes able to stratify multiple myeloma (MM) patients according to their self-renewal status. Results show that the designed assay is able to validate gene expression data, both in a retrospective as well as in a prospective cohort. In addition, the plasma cells' differentiation status determined by ddPCR was further confirmed by other techniques, such as flow cytometry, allowing the identification of patients with immature plasma cells' phenotype (i.e., expressing CD19+/CD81+ markers) upregulating HH genes, as compared to others, whose plasma cells lose the expression of these markers and were more differentiated. To our knowledge, this is the first technical report of gene expression data validation by ddPCR instead of classical qPCR. This approach permitted the identification of a Maturation Index through the integration of molecular and phenotypic data, able to possibly define upfront the differentiation status of MM patients that would be clinically relevant in the future.

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

Introduction: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is commonly assessed in bone marrow (BM) aspirate. However, sample quality can impair the MRD measurement, leading to underestimated residual cells and to false negative results. To define a reliable and reproducible method for the assessment of BM hemodilution, several flow cytometry (FC) strategies for hemodilution evaluation have been compared., Methods: For each BM sample, cells populations with a well-known distribution in BM and peripheral blood - e.g., mast cells (MC), immature (IG) and mature granulocytes (N) - have been studied by FC and quantified alongside the BM differential count., Results: The frequencies of cells' populations were correlated to the IG/N ratio, highlighting a mild correlation with MCs and erythroblasts (R=0.25 and R=0.38 respectively, with p-value=0.0006 and 0.0000052), whereas no significant correlation was found with B or T-cells. The mild correlation between IG/N, erythroblasts and MCs supported the combined use of these parameters to evaluate BM hemodilution, hence the optimization of the ALLgorithMM . Once validated, the ALLgorithMM was employed to evaluate the dilution status of BM samples in the context of MRD assessment. Overall, we found that 32% of FC and 52% of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) analyses were MRD negative in samples resulted hemodiluted (HD) or at least mildly hemodiluted (mHD)., Conclusions: The high frequency of MRD-negative results in both HD and mHD samples implies the presence of possible false negative MRD measurements, impairing the correct assessment of patients' response to therapy and highlighs the importance to evaluate BM hemodilution., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Vigliotta, Armuzzi, Barone, Solli, Pistis, Borsi, Taurisano, Mazzocchetti, Martello, Poletti, Sartor, Rizzello, Pantani, Tacchetti, Papayannidis, Mancuso, Rocchi, Zamagni, Curti, Arpinati, Cavo and Terragna.)

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

The present study aimed to develop two survival risk scores (RS) for overall survival (OS, SRS KRd/EloRd ) and progression-free survival (PFS, PRS KRd/EloRd ) in 919 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who received carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd)/elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloRd). The median OS was 35.4 months, with no significant difference between the KRd arm versus the EloRd arm. In the multivariate analysis, advanced ISS (HR = 1.31; P = 0.025), interval diagnosis-therapy (HR = 1.46; P = 0.001), number of previous lines of therapies (HR = 1.96; P < 0.0001), older age (HR = 1.72; P < 0.0001), and prior lenalidomide exposure (HR = 1.30; P = 0.026) remained independently associated with death. The median PFS was 20.3 months, with no difference between the two strategies. The multivariate model identified a significant progression/death risk increase for ISS III (HR = 1.37; P = 0.002), >3 previous lines of therapies (HR = 1.67; P < 0.0001), older age (HR = 1.64; P < 0.0001), and prior lenalidomide exposure (HR = 1.35; P = 0.003). Three risk SRS KRd/EloRd categories were generated: low-risk (134 cases, 16.5%), intermediate-risk (467 cases, 57.3%), and high-risk categories (213 cases, 26.2%). The 1- and 2-year OS probability rates were 92.3% and 83.8% for the low-risk (HR = 1, reference category), 81.1% and 60.6% (HR = 2.73; P < 0.0001) for the intermediate-risk, and 65.5% and 42.5% (HR = 4.91; P < 0.0001) for the high-risk groups, respectively. Notably, unlike the low-risk group, which did not cross the median timeline, the OS median values were 36.6 and 18.6 months for the intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively. Similarly, three PRS KRd/EloRd risk categories were engendered. Based on such grouping, 338 (41.5%) cases were allocated in the low-, 248 (30.5%) in the intermediate-, and 228 (28.0%) in the high-risk groups. The 1- and 2-year PFS probability rates were 71.4% and 54.5% for the low-risk (HR = 1, reference category), 68.9% and 43.7% (HR = 1.95; P < 0.0001) for the intermediate-risk, and 48.0% and 27.1% (HR = 3.73; P < 0.0001) for the high-risk groups, respectively. The PFS median values were 29.0, 21.0, and 11.7 months for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cases. This analysis showed 2.7- and 4.9-fold increased risk of death for the intermediate- and high-risk cases treated with KRd/EloRd as salvage therapy. The combined progression/death risks of the two categories were increased 1.3- and 2.2-fold compared to the low-risk group. In conclusion, SRS KRd/EloRd and PRS KRd/EloRd may represent accessible and globally applicable models in daily clinical practice and ultimately represent a prognostic tool for RRMM patients who received KRd or EloRd., Competing Interests: PT received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen; LP received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen; EZ has received a speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen; MC has received a speaker honorarium from Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline and he is a member of committee of these Company; CC and FDR received honoraria from Amgen. CC, and FDR received honoraria from Celgene. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Morabito, Zamagni, Conticello, Pavone, Palmieri, Bringhen, Galli, Mangiacavalli, Derudas, Rossi, Ria, Catalano, Tacchetti, Mele, Vincelli, Martino, Vigna, Bruzzese, Mendicino, Botta, Mele, Pantani, Rocchi, Garibaldi, Cascavilla, Ballanti, Tripepi, Frigeri, Falcone, Cangialosi, Reddiconto, Farina, Barone, Rizzello, Iaccino, Mimmi, Curci, Gamberi, Musto, De Stefano, Musso, Petrucci, Offidani, Di Raimondo, Boccadoro, Cavo, Neri and Gentile.)

Human cancer arises from a population of cells that have acquired a wide range of genetic alterations, most of which are targets of therapeutic treatments or are used as prognostic factors for patient's risk stratification. Among these, copy number alterations (CNAs) are quite frequent. Currently, several molecular biology technologies, such as microarrays, NGS and single-cell approaches are used to define the genomic profile of tumor samples. Output data need to be analyzed with bioinformatic approaches and particularly by employing computational algorithms. Molecular biology tools estimate the baseline region by comparing either the mean probe signals, or the number of reads to the reference genome. However, when tumors display complex karyotypes, this type of approach could fail the baseline region estimation and consequently cause errors in the CNAs call. To overcome this issue, we designed an R-package, BoBafit , able to check and, eventually, to adjust the baseline region, according to both the tumor-specific alterations' context and the sample-specific clustered genomic lesions. Several databases have been chosen to set up and validate the designed package, thus demonstrating the potential of BoBafit to adjust copy number (CN) data from different tumors and analysis techniques. Relevantly, the analysis highlighted that up to 25% of samples need a baseline region adjustment and a redefinition of CNAs calls, thus causing a change in the prognostic risk classification of the patients. We support the implementation of BoBafit within CN analysis bioinformatics pipelines to ensure a correct patient's stratification in risk categories, regardless of the tumor type., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology.)

Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) is a recognized clinical entity. Literature regarding treatment and its outcomes in MGRS is sparse due to the rarity and misdiagnosis of MGRS. We retrospectively analyzed 280 adults with an MGRS diagnosis from 2003 to 2020 across 19 clinical centers from 12 countries. All cases required renal biopsy for the pathological diagnosis of MGRS. Amyloidosis-related to MGRS (MGRS-A) was present in 180 patients; nonamyloidosis MGRS (MGRS-NA), including a broad spectrum of renal pathologies, was diagnosed in 100 patients. The median overall survival in the studied cohort was 121.0 months (95% CI: 105.0-121.0). Patients with MGRS-A had a shorter overall survival than patients with MGRS-NA (HR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.25-0.69; p = 0.0007). Both hematologic and renal responses were associated with longer survival. Achievement of ≥VGPR was generally predictive of a renal response (OR = 8.03 95%CI: 4.04-115.96; p < 0.0001), one-fourth of patients with ≥VGPR were renal nonresponders. In MGRS-A, factors associated with poor prognosis included elevated levels of creatinine, beta-2-microglobulin, and hemodialysis at diagnosis. In MGRS-NA, only age >65 years was associated with increased risk of death. Treatments provided similar hematologic response rates in both types of MGRS. Autologous stem cell transplantation led to better response than other treatments. This multicenter and international effort is currently the largest report on MGRS., (© 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Renal impairment in Multiple Myeloma (MM) represents one of the most important factors that influences patient survival. In fact, before the introduction of modern chemotherapy, less than 25% of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and MM who required dialysis recovered sufficient renal function to become independent from dialysis, with a median overall survival of less than 1 year. There are many other factors involved in determining patient survival. In this study we aimed to investigate the role of double filter-based extracorporeal treatment for removal of serum free light chains (sFLC) in acute myeloma kidney (AKI for MM) and to evaluate patient overall survival. All patients received Bortezomib-based chemotherapy and extracorporeal treatment for sFLC removal. For each session 2 dialyzers of the same kind were used. The dialytic dose was not related to the degree of renal function but to the removal of sFLC. The factors that have been found to be significantly associated with lower mortality were reduction of sFLC at day 12 and day 30, >50% reduction of sFLC at day 30, number of sessions and independence from dialysis. Among baseline characteristics, albumin level was statistically associated with the patients’ outcome. Our analysis highlights the importance of the early treatment for removal of sFLC in AKI for MM. These results indicate that the early removal of sFLC can improve patient’s outcome.

Survival of multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly improved over the past decade; however, a composed group of patients (15% to 20%), named high-risk (HR) MM, still experiences reduced survival. Both tumor biology and suboptimal/absent responses to therapy may underlie HR definition and a clear uniform identification of risk factors is crucial for proper management of these patients. In biologic HRMM, MRD attaining and sustaining negativity, inside and outside bone marrow, should be the primary goal and therapy should be adapted in patients with frailty to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life. MM treatment has traditionally been tailored to age and more recently frailty or comorbidities, but very rarely to the biology of the disease, mainly because of the lack of a clear benefit derived from a specific drug/combination, inhomogeneity in HR definition, and lack of data coming from prospective, properly designed clinical trials. Some attempts have been successfully made in this direction. In this review, we discuss the current definitions of HR and the need for a consensus, the results of available trials in HR patients, and the way through risk-adapted treatment strategies. For this purpose, we propose several clinical cases of difficult-to-treat patients throughout different treatment phases., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Extramedullary involvement (or extramedullary disease, EMD) represents an aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM), characterized by the ability of a clone and/or subclone to thrive and grow independent of the bone marrow microenvironment. Several different definitions of EMD have been used in the published literature. We advocate that true EMD is restricted to soft-tissue plasmacytomas that arise due to hematogenous spread and have no contact with bony structures. Typical sites of EMD vary according to the phase of MM. At diagnosis, EMD is typically found in skin and soft tissues; at relapse, typical sites involved include liver, kidneys, lymph nodes, central nervous system (CNS), breast, pleura, and pericardium. The reported incidence of EMD varies considerably, and differences in diagnostic approach between studies are likely to contribute to this variability. In patients with newly diagnosed MM, the reported incidence ranges from 0.5% to 4.8%, while in relapsed/refractory MM the reported incidence is 3.4 to 14%. Available data demonstrate that the prognosis is poor, and considerably worse than for MM without soft-tissue plasmacytomas. Among patients with plasmacytomas, those with EMD have poorer outcomes than those with paraskeletal involvement. CNS involvement is rare, but prognosis is even more dismal than for EMD in other locations, particularly if there is leptomeningeal involvement. Available data on treatment outcomes for EMD are derived almost entirely from retrospective studies. Some agents and combinations have shown a degree of efficacy but, as would be expected, this is less than in MM patients with no extramedullary involvement. The paucity of prospective studies makes it difficult to justify strong recommendations for any treatment approach. Prospective data from patients with clearly defined EMD are important for the optimal evaluation of treatment outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab is the backbone of most anti-multiple myeloma (MM) regimens. To mitigate the risk of infusion-related reactions (IRRs), intravenous daratumumab administration requires 7 hours for the first infusion and 3.5-4 hours thereafter, thus making daratumumab-containing regimens burdensome for patients and health care resources. Preliminary data suggest that a rapid (90-minute) infusion of daratumumab is safe and does not increase IRRs. The rapid schedule was adopted by our centers since 2019., Methods: We conducted an observational multi-center, real-life study to assess the safety of rapid daratumumab infusion protocol from the third administration in relapsed MM patients receiving daratumumab alone or in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone or bortezomib-dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the safety of the rapid infusion protocol, particularly in terms of IRRs., Results: A total of 134 MM patients were enrolled. IRRs occurred in 7 (5%) patients and were mostly mild (6/7 of grade 1-2), with only 1 patient experiencing a grade 3 IRR. Due to the IRRs, 5 (3.7%) patients discontinued the rapid infusions and resumed daratumumab at the standard infusion rate, while 1 patient permanently discontinued daratumumab. In 4/7 patients (57%), IRRs occurred while resuming rapid daratumumab infusions after a temporary interruption (2-4 months). No other adverse event was considered related to the rapid infusion protocol., Conclusions: Our findings confirmed the safety of rapid daratumumab infusions starting from the third administration. In case of prolonged daratumumab interruption, it is advisable to resume infusions at the standard rate (3.5 hours) before switching to the rapid infusion., Competing Interests: Author SR has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Author GB has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and Amgen. Author EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. Author SB has received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Oncopeptides, Janssen, and Sanofi; has served on the advisory boards for Takeda, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Oncopeptides; has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, and Sanofi. Author RZ has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, ​GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and Takeda. Author MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Roche; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Roche, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. Author RM has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Sanofi, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has received consultancy fees from Janssen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Bonello, Rocchi, Barilà, Sandrone, Talarico, Zamagni, Scaldaferri, Vedovato, Bertiond, Pavan, Bringhen, Cattel, Zambello, Cavo and Mina.)

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

Aberrations on TP53, either as deletions of chromosome 17p (del17p) or mutations, are associated with poor outcome in multiple myeloma (MM), but conventional detection methods currently in use underestimate their incidence, hindering an optimal risk assessment and prognostication of MM patients. We have investigated the altered status of TP53 gene by SNPs array and sequencing techniques in a homogenous cohort of 143 newly diagnosed MM patients, evaluated both at diagnosis and at first relapse: single-hit on TP53 gene, either deletion or mutation, detected both at clonal and sub-clonal level, had a minor effect on outcomes. Conversely, the coexistence of both TP53 deletion and mutation, which defined the so-called double-hit patients, was associated with the worst clinical outcome (PFS: HR 3.34 [95% CI: 1.37-8.12] p = 0.008; OS: HR 3.47 [95% CI: 1.18-10.24] p = 0.02). Moreover, the analysis of longitudinal samples pointed out that TP53 allelic status might increase during the disease course. Notably, the acquisition of TP53 alterations at relapse dramatically worsened the clinical course of patients. Overall, our analyses showed these techniques to be highly sensitive to identify TP53 aberrations at sub-clonal level, emphasizing the poor prognosis associated with double-hit MM patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Availability of new classes of novel agents has led to a radical switch in treatment paradigms for newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (NDTIMM) patients, providing an opportunity to significantly enhance the depth of response and extend survival outcomes., Areas Covered: Treatment regimens including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and/or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), have achieved recent regulatory approval for NDTIMM, while novel combinations and newer agents are currently being explored. This review discusses the current landscape and possible treatment development of NDTIMM., Expert Opinion: Bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd), daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (DaraVMP) and daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (DaraRd) represent new standard of care (SOC) treatments for NDTIMM patients, based on phase III trials showing their superior efficacy as compared with previous SOCs. The possibility of improving results by incorporating second generation PIs or using quadruple regimens has also been explored and different trials are still ongoing. Newer agents and innovative immunotherapies targeting B-cell maturation antigen have the potential to change the therapeutic landscape in coming years. Personalized approaches based on frailty-adapted, risk-based and minimal residual disease driven paradigms are under investigation.

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

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

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

We aimed to compare real-world outcomes, resource use, and costs for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with continuous first-line (1 L) lenalidomide or fixed bortezomib in Europe. We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational chart review of transplant-ineligible NDMM patients across 7 countries. Of 453 eligible patients, 220 received 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens; 105 (47.7%) received second-line (2 L) treatment, of which 50 (47.6%) received 2 L bortezomib. 233 patients received 1 L bortezomib-based regimens; 142 (60.9%) had 2 L treatment, of which 104 (73.2%) received 2 L lenalidomide. Patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens had better progression-free survival than patients receiving 1 L bortezomib-based regimens ( p  = .002) and a longer time to 2 L or third-line treatment (both p  < .05). Total treatment-associated monthly costs for patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens ( n  = 171, €2,268.55) were significantly greater than for 1 L bortezomib-based regimens ( n  = 188, €1,724.77) ( p  < .001) over the follow-up period (median, 38.7 months).

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

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

Subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib-based regimens represent the standard induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Published data are based principally on intravenous (IV) administration: this retrospective observational study aimed to define patients' outcomes upon SC bortezomib administration, before and after ASCT. Of 131 enrolled patients, 86% received bortezomib-dexamethasone plus thalidomide (VTD), 5% plus cyclophosphamide (VCD), and 9% alone (VD), for a median of 4 cycles induction therapy, followed by single (52%) or double (48%) ASCT. 48 patients received consolidation with the same induction regimen. 35% had at least one adverse event, mainly gastrointestinal disorders and peripheral neuropathy (PN). ORR was 93.1%, 97.7% and 100%, after induction, ASCT(s) and consolidation, respectively. Median PFS and PFS2 were 55.8 months and 72 months, respectively, (median follow-up 45.3 months), while median OS was unreached. Concluding, SC bortezomib has similar efficacy with reduced PN than IV administration.

Purpose: Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is included in the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) imaging guidelines for the work-up at diagnosis and the follow-up of multiple myeloma (MM) notably because it is a reliable tool as a predictor of prognosis. Nevertheless, none of the published studies focusing on the prognostic value of PET-derived features at baseline consider tumor heterogeneity, which could be of high importance in MM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of baseline PET-derived features in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed (TEND) MM patients enrolled in two prospective independent European randomized phase III trials using an innovative statistical random survival forest (RSF) approach., Methods: Imaging ancillary studies of IFM/DFCI2009 and EMN02/HO95 trials formed part of the present analysis (IMAJEM and EMN02/HO95, respectively). Among all patients initially enrolled in these studies, those with a positive baseline FDG-PET/CT imaging and focal bone lesions (FLs) and/or extramedullary disease (EMD) were included in the present analysis. A total of 17 image features (visual and quantitative, reflecting whole imaging characteristics) and 5 clinical/histopathological parameters were collected. The statistical analysis was conducted using two RSF approaches (train/validation + test and additional nested cross-validation) to predict progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: One hundred thirty-nine patients were considered for this study. The final model based on the first RSF (train/validation + test) approach selected 3 features (treatment arm, hemoglobin, and SUV max Bone Marrow (BM)) among the 22 involved initially, and two risk groups of patients (good and poor prognosis) could be defined with a mean hazard ratio of 4.3 ± 1.5 and a mean log-rank p value of 0.01 ± 0.01. The additional RSF (nested cross-validation) analysis highlighted the robustness of the proposed model across different splits of the dataset. Indeed, the first features selected using the train/validation + test approach remained the first ones over the folds with the nested approach., Conclusion: We proposed a new prognosis model for TEND MM patients at diagnosis based on two RSF approaches., Trial Registration: IMAJEM: NCT01309334 and EMN02/HO95: NCT01134484.

In this Policy Review, the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group updates its clinical practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma-related bone disease. After assessing the available literature and grading recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) method, experts from the working group recommend zoledronic acid as the preferred bone-targeted agent for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, with or without multiple myeloma-related bone disease. Once patients achieve a very good partial response or better, after receiving monthly zoledronic acid for at least 12 months, the treating physician can consider decreasing the frequency of or discontinuing zoledronic acid treatment. Denosumab can also be considered for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Denosumab might prolong progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who have multiple myeloma-related bone disease and who are eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Denosumab discontinuation is challenging due to the rebound effect. The Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group also found cement augmentation to be effective for painful vertebral compression fractures. Radiotherapy is recommended for uncontrolled pain, impeding or symptomatic spinal cord compression, or pathological fractures. Surgery should be used for the prevention and restoration of long-bone pathological fractures, vertebral column instability, and spinal cord compression with bone fragments within the spinal route., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) has been approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We conducted a retrospective analysis of 197 RRMM patients (pts) between January 2016 and March 2018 in six Italian hematologic centers, with the aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of KRd in real-life. At KRd initiation 27% carried high risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) [del17p and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16)], median number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (1-8), nearly all pts (96%) received prior bortezomib (18% refractory) while 45% were exposed to lenalidomide (R; 22% refractory). At the median of 12.5 months, 52% of the pts had discontinued treatment, mainly (66%) for progression. Main grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21%), infections (11%), and hypertension (6%). Overall, the response rate was 88%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.8 months and 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 80.6%. By subgroup analysis, extended PFS and OS were observed for pts who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (HR = 0.42, p < 0.001 and HR = 0.35, p = 0.001, respectively), not refractory to prior R (HR = 0.37, p < 0.001, and HR = 0.47, p = 0.024), without HRCA (HR = 0.33, p = 0.005 and HR = 0.26, p = 0.016) and achieving ≥ very good partial response (VGPR; HR = 0.17, p < 0.001 and HR = 0.18, p < 0.001). In conclusion, KRd demonstrated to be effective in RRMM pts treated in real-world setting, without new safety concerns. Better survival outcomes emerged for pts with ≤2 prior lines of therapy, achieving at least a VGPR, and without HRCA., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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

The recent introduction of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), with several cellular targets, such as CD-38 (daratumumab and isatuximab) and SLAM F7 (elotuzumab), differently combined with other classes of agents, has significantly extended the outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in different phases of the disease. Initially used in advanced/refractory patients, different MoAbs combination have been introduced in the treatment of newly diagnosed transplant eligible patients (NDTEMM), showing a significant improvement in the depth of the response and in survival outcomes, without a significant price in terms of toxicity. In smoldering MM, MoAbs have been applied, either alone or in combination with other drugs, with the goal of delaying the progression to active MM and restoring the immune system. In this review, we will focus on the main results achieved so far and on the main on-going trials using MoAbs in SMM and NDTEMM.

Background: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial, which compared bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) combination therapy with thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before and consolidation therapy after double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, showed the superiority of the triplet regimen over the doublet in terms of increased complete response rate and improved progression-free survival. We report the results from the final analysis of the study., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18-65 years with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher were enrolled at 73 centres in Italy. Patients were randomised (1:1) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily orally for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (total 320 mg per cycle; 40 mg on days 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 in the VTD regimen, and 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12 in the TD regimen), either alone (TD group) or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; VTD group). After double autologous HSCT, patients received two 35-day cycles of either the VTD or TD regimen, according to random assignment, as consolidation therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response and near complete response after induction (already reported). In this updated analysis we assessed long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (secondary endpoints of the study) with an extended 10-year median follow-up, and analysed the variables influencing survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01134484., Findings: Between May 10, 2006, and April 30, 2008, 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (241 patients) or TD (239 patients). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment. 236 (99 [42%] women) in the VTD group and 238 (102 [43%] women) in the TD group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The data cutoff date for this analysis was May 31, 2018. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124·1 months (IQR 117·2-131·7). The 10-year progression-free survival estimate for patients in the VTD group was 34% (95% CI 28-41) compared with 17% (13-23) for the TD group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·50-0·77]; p<0·0001). 60% (95% CI 54-67) of patients in the VTD group were alive at 10 years versus 46% (40-54) of patients in the TD group (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·90]; p=0·0068). VTD was an independent predictor of improved progression-free survival (HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·48-0·76]; p<0·0001) and overall survival (HR 0·68 [0·50-0·91]; p=0·010). The incidence of second primary malignancies per 100 person-years was 0·87 (95% CI 0·49-1·44) in the VTD group compared with 1·41 (0·88-2·13) in the TD group., Interpretation: Incorporation of VTD into double autologous HSCT resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in long-term progression-free survival and overall survival, confirming that a regimen including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug is the gold standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who are fit for high-dose chemotherapy., Funding: Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology, University of Bologna, and BolognAIL., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) recently introduced the evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD) within the multiple myeloma (MM) response criteria, and MRD negativity assessed inside and outside the bone marrow is currently considered the most powerful predictor of favorable long-term outcomes. However, MRD evaluation has thus far relied on flow-cytometry or molecular-based methods, despite the limitations associated with the patchy infiltration of bone marrow (BM) plasma cells and the presence of extra-medullary (EMD). On the contrary, imaging-based sensitive response assessment through the use of functional rather than morphological whole-body (WB) imaging techniques, such as positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), likely is a promising strategy to overcome these limitations in evaluating response to therapy and in the assessment of the MRD status in MM patients. However, despite the significant advances in the development and availability of novel functional imaging techniques for MRD evaluation, a worldwide standardization of imaging criteria for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is yet to be determined and will be object of future investigations.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor state of multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, MM was redefined to include biomarkers predicting a high risk of progression from SMM, thus necessitating a redefinition of SMM and its risk stratification. We assembled a large cohort of SMM patients meeting the revised IMWG criteria to develop a new risk stratification system. We included 1996 patients, and using stepwise selection and multivariable analysis, we identified three independent factors predicting progression risk at 2 years: serum M-protein >2 g/dL (HR: 2.1), involved to uninvolved free light-chain ratio >20 (HR: 2.7), and marrow plasma cell infiltration >20% (HR: 2.4). This translates into 3 categories with increasing 2-year progression risk: 6% for low risk (38%; no risk factors, HR: 1); 18% for intermediate risk (33%; 1 factor; HR: 3.0), and 44% for high risk (29%; 2-3 factors). Addition of cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q, and/or del13q) allowed separation into 4 groups (low risk with 0, low intermediate risk with 1, intermediate risk with 2, and high risk with ≥3 risk factors) with 6, 23, 46, and 63% risk of progression in 2 years, respectively. The 2/20/20 risk stratification model can be easily implemented to identify high-risk SMM for clinical research and routine practice and will be widely applicable.

Purpose: Oral melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) were considered a standard of care in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. In the past decade, bortezomib has been increasingly used in combination with alkylating agents and dexamethasone. We prospectively compared the efficacy and safety of MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex)., Methods: This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients were stratified according to cardiac stage. Patients with advanced cardiac stage (stage IIIb) amyloidosis were not eligible. The primary end point was hematologic response rate at 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01277016., Results: A total of 109 patients, 53 in the BMDex and 56 in the MDex group, received ≥ 1 dose of therapy (from January 2011 to February 2016). Hematologic response rate at 3 months was higher in the BMDex arm (79% v 52%; P = .002). Higher rates of very good partial or complete response rates (64% v 39%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.71) and improved overall survival, with a 2-fold decrease in mortality rate (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.90), were observed in the BMDex arm. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (the most common being cytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and heart failure) were more common in the BMDex arm, occurring in 20% versus 10% of cycles performed., Conclusion: BMDex improved hematologic response rate and overall survival. To our knowledge, this is the first time a controlled study has demonstrated a survival advantage in AL amyloidosis. BMDex should be considered a new standard of care for AL amyloidosis.