Search

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

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

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

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

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

In 2016, the European Hematology Association (EHA) published the EHA Roadmap for European Hematology Research1 iming to highlight achievements in the diagnostics and treatment of blood disorders and to better inform European policy makers and other stakeholders about the urgent clinical and scientific needs and priorities in the field of hematology. Each section was coordinated by 1 to 2 section editors who were leading international experts in the field. In the 5 years that have followed, advances in the field of hematology have been plentiful. As such, EHA is pleased to present an updated Research Roadmap, now including 11 sections, each of which will be published separately. The updated EHA Research Roadmap identifies the most urgent priorities in hematology research and clinical science, therefore supporting a more informed, focused, and ideally a more funded future for European hematology research. The 11 EHA Research Roadmap sections include Normal Hematopoiesis; Malignant Lymphoid Diseases; Malignant Myeloid Diseases; Anemias and Related Diseases; Platelet Disorders; Blood Coagulation and Hemostatic Disorders; Transfusion Medicine; Infections in Hematology; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; CAR-T and Other Cellbased Immune Therapies; and Gene Therapy.

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

PURPOSEPatients 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 METHODSThe 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.RESULTSIn 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.CONCLUSIONThe 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 pro