Search

Purpose: To study the influence of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) policy and its Medicaid expansion on insurance status and survival in patients with HIV with aggressive lymphoma., Methods: We used the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based national registry, to identify adults age 18-64 years with HIV-associated aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (HIV-a-B-NHLs), diagnosed during 2007 to 2016. Survival analysis was performed on a subset of patients with HIV-a-B-NHL for whom location data were available who resided in Medicaid expansion-adopted and nonadopted states. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-difference model, the difference in adjusted 2-year survival rates obtained with a flexible parametric Weibull model was compared for states that adopted the Medicaid expansion of ACA against those that did not adopt the expansion., Results: We identified 8,231 patients with HIV-a-B-NHL and 50,650 non-HIV patients with a-B-NHL. We found that a lower proportion of individuals were uninsured at diagnosis in the expansion states compared with nonexpansion states. We also found that the ACA policy adoption led to a reduction in the proportion of uninsured individuals with HIV-a-B-NHL in expansion states of 34.9%, compared with 15.9% in non-expansion-adopted states. There was a statistically significant improvement in the 2-year survival rate among patients with HIV-a-B-NHL in the expansion compared with nonexpansion states with the adoption of ACA (7.17% v 1.58%, P = .02)., Conclusion: Using a novel quasi-experimental model, we found that the ACA policy corresponded with a greater survival improvement in patients with HIV-a-B-NHL within Medicaid expansion-adopted states compared with nonexpansion states. We believe that this evidence should be taken into consideration in future policy making.

No randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab and lenalidomide (D-R) maintenance therapy versus standard-of-care lenalidomide (R) alone post-transplant. Here, we report the primary results of the phase 3 AURIGA study evaluating D-R versus R maintenance in NDMM patients who were in ≥very good partial response, minimal residual disease (MRD; threshold 10-5) positive, and anti-CD38 naïve post-transplant. Patients were randomized 1:1 to D-R or R maintenance for up to 36 cycles. Two hundred patients were randomized (D-R, n=99; R, n=101). The primary endpoint, MRD-negative (10-5) conversion rate by 12 months from start of maintenance, was significantly higher for D-R versus R (50.5% vs 18.8%; odds ratio [OR], 4.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.37-8.57; P<0.0001). MRD-negative (10-6) conversion rate was similarly higher with D-R (23.2% vs 5.0%; OR, 5.97; 95% CI, 2.15-16.58; P=0.0002). At 32.3 months' median follow-up, D-R achieved a higher overall MRD-negative (10-5) conversion rate (D-R, 60.6% vs R, 27.7%; OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.26-7.52; P<0.0001) and ≥complete response rate (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.08-3.69; P=0.0255) versus R alone. Progression-free survival (PFS) favored D-R versus R (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97); estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% for D-R and 66.4% for R. Incidences of grade 3/4 cytopenias (54.2% vs 46.9%) and infections (18.8% vs 13.3%) were slightly higher with D-R versus R. In conclusion, D-R maintenance achieved a higher MRD-negative conversion rate and improved PFS post-transplant versus R alone, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov: #NCT03901963., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Hematology.)

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown promise in patients with late-line refractory multiple myeloma, with response rates ranging from 73 to 98%. To date, three products have been approved: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada (ide-cel only), and Brazil ANVISA (cilta-cel only); and equecabtagene autoleucel (eque-cel), which was approved by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration. CAR T-cell therapy is different from previous anti-myeloma therapeutics with unique toxic effects that require distinct mitigation strategies. Thus, a panel of experts from the International Myeloma Working Group was assembled to provide guidance for clinical use of CAR T-cell therapy in myeloma. This consensus opinion is from experts in the field of haematopoietic cell transplantation, cell therapy, and multiple myeloma therapeutics., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests YL received consultancy fees from Janssen, Sanofi, NexImmune, Caribou, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, Regeneron, and Genentech; research fees from Janssen and BMS; serves on advisory boards for Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, Regeneron, and Genentech; serves on scientific advisory boards for NexImmune and Caribou; and serves on the data safety monitor board for Pfizer. LQ received consultancy fees from Beigene, Xi'an, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca; and is on the speaker board for Beigene, Xi'an, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche. SU receives consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, EdoPharma, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Seagen, Secura Bio, SkylineDx, and Takeda; and received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Array Biopharma, BMS, EdoPharma, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Moderna, Pharmacyclics, Seagen, Sanofi, SkylineDx, Takeda, and TeneoBio. CWJ received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, GSK, and Janssen; and research funding from Novartis, Janssen, and BMS Celgene. LC received research grants from Amgen, Janssen, BMS, Genentech, Caribou, and AbbVie; and honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. BD received advisory board and consulting fees from Janssen and COTA; research fees from GSK and Amgen; honoraria from the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation and Plexus Communications; and is an independent reviewer for BMS. HE has an advisory role for and received consulting fees from BMS Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, and Sanofi; and received research funding from BMS Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, and Sanofi. CFdL received institutional grants from BMS, Janssen, and Amgen; honoraria from Amgen, Jassen, BMS, GSK, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, BMS, GSK, and Amgen; is on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Janssen, BMS, Amgen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and received funding from the Spanish Institute of Health, the Asociación Española Contra el Cancer (AECC), the “La Caixa” Foundation, and AGAUR. RH received grants from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, Takeda, AbbVie, PharmaMar, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and GSK; and honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, PharmaMar, and Takeda. PJH serves on advisory boards (honoraria not accepted) for Antengene, Gilead, iTeos Therapeutics, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. EK received honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, GSK, and Prothena; and research support to the institution from GSK, Janssen, and Pfizer. JM-L received consultancy fees from Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis, Menarini, Incity, Roche, Gilead, Pfizer, and Karyopharm; and research funding from BMS, Janssen, Incity, Amgen, and Pfizer. M-VM received honoraria for serving on advisory boards and received fees for lectures from Janssen, BMS Celgene, Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Regeneron. JM received consultancy fees from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and research funding from BMS Clinical Trial. PM serves on advisory boards and received honoraria from Janssen and BMS Celgene. CN received consultancy fees from Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, GSK, Pfizer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and DKSH; and research funding from Janssen and Amgen. AN serves on advisory boards and received honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BMS, Cellectar Biosciences, GSK, Janssen, K36 therapeutics, ONK therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; received research grants from Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Arch Oncology, BMS, Cellectis, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Takeda; and received grants for investigator initiated studies from Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Merck, and Takeda. FS received consultancy fees from AbbVie, GSK, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and BMS; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Takeda, AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, SkyliteDX, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Pfizer, Daiki-Sankyo, and GSK; and research grants from Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, GSK, and Targovax. SS received research grants from Magenta Therapeutics, BMS, Allogene, Jansse, Novartis, AbbVie, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Kite, and Regeneron; and consultancy fees from Magenta Therapeutics, BMS, Janssen, AbbVie, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Kite, and Regeneron. NWCJvdD received research grants from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, and BMS; and serves on advisory boards for Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Adaptive, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Servier (all paid to institution). KW received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS Celgene, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Takeda; honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Astra Zeneca, BMS Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Stemline, Takeda, and Menarini; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, BMS Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and Menarini. SZ serves on advisory boards for Janssen, BMS, Takeda, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, and Amgen (no personal fees). PRO received honoraria for consulting or advisory board from BMS Celgene, Janssen, Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi, H3Biomedicine; travel grants from Pfizer; serves on steering committees for BMS Celgene, Regeneron, and Janssen; and is on the speakers bureau for Janssen, BMS Celgene, GSK, Sanofi, and AbbVie. LDA received consulting fees and serves on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Beigene, Cellectar, Sanofi, and Prothena. SK received consultancy fees from Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive, KITE, and MedImmune AstraZeneca; and research grants from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive, KITE, MedImmune AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. TM received research funding from Sanofi. All other authors declare no competing interests. IMWG are listed in the appendix (pp 9–21)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) has shown impressive efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This study aimed to investigate the impact of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) on the survival outcomes of RRMM patients treated with standard of care (SOC) ide-cel. Data were collected retrospectively from 11 institutions in the U.S. Impact of ALC parameters including pre-apheresis (pre-A), pre-lymphodepletion (pre-LD), absolute and percent difference from pre-A to pre-LD on clinical outcomes after ide-cel were examined using survival analysis. A new ALC profile was created based on univariate analysis that comprises 3 groups: normal (≥1 × 10 9 /L) pre-LD ALC (LD N ), low (<1 × 10 9 /L) pre-LD ALC (LD L ) + percent reduction <37.5 (%R L ), and LD L ALC + percent reduction ≥37.5 (%R H ). A total of 214 SOC ide-cel recipients were included in this analysis. The median patient age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57 to 69 years), median number of prior therapies was 6 (IQR, 5 to 9), and median duration of follow-up was 5.4 months (IQR, 2.1 to 8.3 months). Most patients had both low pre-A ALC (75.3%) and pre-LD ALC (77.2%), and the reduction from pre-A to pre-LD (median, .65 to .55 × 10 9 /L) was statistically significant. Univariate analysis showed that the LD L + %R H group had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to the LD L + %R L and LD N ALC groups (6-month PFS: 40% versus 67.6% and 60.9%; 6-month OS: 69.5% versus 87% and 94.3%). In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, performance status, cytogenetic risk, use of bridging therapy, and extramedullary disease, PFS did not maintain its statistical significance; however, OS remained significantly worse for LD L + %R H group compared to the LD N ALC group (hazard ratio [HR], 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 17), but the difference between the LD L + %R H versus %R L groups was not statistically significant (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, .8 to 4.0). Our findings indicate that low pre-LD ALC with high %R from pre-A to pre-LD was associated with inferior survival outcomes, particularly OS, in patients who received SOC ide-cel., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 ) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Current treatment guidelines of myeloma cast nephropathy (MCN) recommend the institution of plasma cell-directed therapy and consideration of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), with the goal of rapid reduction of the serum free light chain (sFLC). However, the role of TPE continues to remain a subject of debate. The goal of this retrospective bi-institutional study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of TPE in combination with systemic therapy. Eighty patients were included in this analysis, of whom 72.5% had ≥50% drop in their initial involved sFLC. At 3 months from TPE initiation, the overall hematologic response rate (ORR) was 67.5% with a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate of 40%. At 6 months, ORR was 57.5%, with ≥VGPR rate of 49%. The renal response rate at 3 and 6 months was 47.5% and 43.75%, respectively; the overall renal response rate was 48.75%. On multivariable analysis, every one unit increase in baseline creatinine (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, p = 0.006), and achievement of ≥VGPR (OR 21.7 p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with renal response. Also, a ≥50% drop in sFLC was favorably associated with renal response (OR 3.39, p = 0.09). With a median follow-up of 36.4 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 11 months. On multivariable analysis, achievement of renal response (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3, p < 0.0001) and newly diagnosed disease (NDMM; HR 0.43, p = 0.0055) were associated with improved OS. Among NDMM patients, those treated with daratumumab-based regimens had a trend for better OS (p = 0.15), compared to other regimens, but the difference was not significant. At the end of follow-up, an estimated 40.4% of patients who were on dialysis were able to become dialysis independent. In conclusion, our study highlights the poor survival of patients with MCN. Achievement of early renal response is crucial for prolonged OS, with daratumumab-based therapies showing promise., (© 2024 The Author(s). Hematological Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM., (© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Due in part to racial disparities and underrepresentation in clinical studies, optimal therapies for Black patients with multiple myeloma remain undefined. This final analysis of GRIFFIN by race showed that the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) provides clinical benefit among both Black and White transplant-eligible newly diagnosed patients compared with RVd alone. However, Black patients were more likely to discontinue ≥1 drug due to treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, these findings suggest a benefit of D-RVd front-line therapy among Black and White patients and underscore the importance of equitable treatment access for all patients., (© 2024 Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) are novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), and both have recently gained approval by the US Food Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)., Summary: These therapies offer unprecedented responses in RRMM but present new challenges including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), non-ICANS neurotoxicity, cytopenias, infections, and hypogammaglobulinemia., Key Messages: In the evolving CAR-T landscape, a primary objective is to develop innovative strategies for managing associated toxicities. Through meticulous exploration of underlying mechanisms and tailored interventions, we aim to enhance safety and enable broader outpatient utilization. Refinement of protocols, biomarker identification, and robust monitoring are imperative for sustained efficacy. This comprehensive approach guarantees the continuous advancement and optimization of CAR-T therapy., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

While response rates and survival outcomes have been very promising for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a proportion of patients do not respond or relapse early after this B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Understanding the characteristics of these patients is important for patient selection and development of novel strategies to improve outcomes. We evaluated factors associated with early progression (progression or death due to myeloma ≤3 months after CAR T-cell infusion) in patients treated with standard of care ide-cel at 11 US academic centers. Among 211 patients that received ide-cel, 43 patients had a progressive event ≤3 months of infusion. Patients with a history of extramedullary disease, prior BCMA targeted therapy, elevated ferritin at lymphodepletion, use of bridging therapy, Hispanic ethnicity, plasma cell leukemia and t(4;14) were more likely to progress ≤3 months of infusion (P<0.05). Of these risk factors for early progression identified in univariate analyses, history of extramedullary disease, prior BCMA targeted therapy, elevated ferritin at lymphodepletion, plasma cell leukemia, and t(4;14) were associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) in multivariable analysis. Presence of three or more of these factors had a significant negative impact on PFS (P<0.001; median PFS for ≥3 factors, 3.2 months vs. 0 factors, 14.1 months). This study helps identify patients at high risk of early progression after CAR T-cell therapy who may benefit from specific interventions pre and post CAR T-cell therpy to improve outcomes.

Background: Advances in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment have shifted the therapeutic landscape. Understanding patients' perspectives can assist physicians in helping patients make informed decisions. This study aimed to understand the patient decision-making process and gain insights into patient perspectives on B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapies for MM., Methods: An 18-question survey was completed by patients with MM enrolled in HealthTree® Cure Hub, an online portal helping patients with plasma cell dyscrasias navigate their disease., Results: From October 28, 2022, to January 12, 2023, 325 patients with MM participated in the survey. The mean age (standard deviation) of the respondents was 66 (8) years; 54% were female and 90% were White. Among 218 patients with complete clinical records in the database, the median (min, max) lines of therapy (LOT) was 2 (1,16). Among 61 (28%) patients who had received ≥4 LOTs, 55 (90%) were triple-class exposed. Of the 290 patients who responded to the question about openness to new therapies, 76 (26%) were open to trying a new therapy immediately and 125 (43%) wanted more information on safety and efficacy. Most respondents reported likely or very likely to try a BCMA CAR T-cell therapy (60%) or a bispecific antibody (74%) and some needed more information to decide (16% for CAR T-cell therapy and 13% for bispecific antibody). The most requested information included efficacy, side effects (SEs), eligibility, and administration process for both CAR T-cell and bispecific therapies. When 2 therapies with the same efficacy and duration of response were offered, 69% of respondents would prefer the therapy with a lower risk of severe SEs but requires continuous dosing with no treatment-free interval, and 31% preferred a therapy given once followed by a treatment-free interval but with a potentially higher risk of severe SEs. To receive an effective therapy, the top acceptable trade-offs included frequent monitoring of SEs and initiating a new therapy in a hospital setting, and the least acceptable compromise was caregiver burden., Conclusions: This study found a high level of openness in patients with MM to try BCMA-targeted therapies. Information on efficacy, safety, availability, and eligibility may assist patients on decision-making., Competing Interests: JH received research grant support from Janssen to perform the study and receives research funding from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Pfizer, Janssen, and Takeda. DL, BW, NK, SP, SH are all employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and may hold stocks of Johnson & Johnson. DS was consultant/advisory for GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, Abbvie, Bristol Myer Squibb, Pfizer, Bioline, Arcellx, AstraZeneca; research for Gilead, Pfizer, Janssen, Bioline, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Amgen, Cantex, Arcellx, Roche; steering committee for Janssen (AURIGA); data safety and monitoring for Karyopharm; and independent review committee for Parexel. JB’s institute, Sarah Cannon Research Institute and Tennessee Oncology, receives research funds in his name from Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bluebird bio, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, CARsgen, Cartesian Therapeutics, Celgene, Cellectis, Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics, Curis, EMD Sorono, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, K36 Therapeutics. Karyopharm, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; as well as, is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bluebird bio, BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Janssen, K36 Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda. LA has had consulting/advisory board activity with Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Beigene, Cellectar, Sanofi, and Prothena. The authors declare that this study received funding from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. The funder had collaborative involvement in the following steps and earned authorship: study design, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, and the decision to submit it for publication; and not involved in the following steps: data collection and analysis. 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., (© 2024 Hydren, Lin, Sweeney, Wu, Kim, Patel, Sborov, Berdeja, Anderson, Huo, Hurtado Martínez and Ahlstrom.)

In the MASTER study (NCT03224507), daratumumab+carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) demonstrated promising efficacy in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In GRIFFIN (NCT02874742), daratumumab+lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved outcomes for transplant-eligible NDMM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs; del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], or gain/amp[1q21]). Among 123 D-KRd patients, 43.1%, 37.4%, and 19.5% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Among 120 D-RVd patients, 55.8%, 28.3%, and 10.8% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Rates of complete response or better (best on study) for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs were 90.6%, 89.1%, and 70.8% for D-KRd, and 90.9%, 78.8%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. At median follow-up (MASTER, 31.1 months; GRIFFIN, 49.6 months for randomized patients/59.5 months for safety run-in patients), MRD-negativity rates as assessed by next-generation sequencing (10 -5 ) were 80.0%, 86.4%, and 83.3% for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs for D-KRd, and 76.1%, 55.9%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. PFS was similar between studies and superior for 0 or 1 versus ≥2 HRCAs: 36-month PFS rates for D-KRd were 89.9%, 86.2%, and 52.4%, and 96.7%, 90.5%, and 53.5% for D-RVd. These data support the use of daratumumab-containing regimens for transplant-eligible NDMM with HCRAs; however, additional strategies are needed for ultra-high-risk disease (≥2 HRCAs). Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Involving diverse populations in early-phase (phase I and II) cancer clinical trials is critical to informed therapeutic development. However, given the growing costs and complexities of early-phase trials, trial activation and enrollment barriers may be greatest for these studies at healthcare facilities that provide care to the most diverse patient groups, including those in historically underserved communities (e.g., safety-net healthcare systems). To promote diverse and equitable access to early-phase cancer clinical trials, we are implementing a novel program for the transfer of care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials. We will then perform a mixed-methods study to determine perceptions and impact of the program. Specifically, we will screen, recruit, and enroll diverse patients from an urban, integrated safety-net healthcare system to open and active early-phase clinical trials being conducted in a university-based cancer center. To evaluate this novel program, we will: (1) determine program impact and efficiency; and (2) determine stakeholder experience with and perceptions of the program. To achieve these goals, we will conduct preliminary cost analyses of the program. We will also conduct surveys and interviews with patients and caregivers to elucidate program impact, challenges, and areas for improvement. We hypothesize that broadening access to early-phase cancer trials conducted at experienced centers may improve equity and diversity. In turn, such efforts may enhance the efficiency and generalizability of cancer clinical research., 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., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) commonly include bortezomib, which has typically been administered twice weekly despite studies demonstrating comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy (PN) with once-weekly bortezomib. We aimed to analyze the real-world prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly versus twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in newly diagnosed MM. We analyzed 2497 US patients aged 18-70 years treated with commercial first-line bortezomib using nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived data, including 910 (36.4%) patients who received twice-weekly and 1522 (63.2%) who received once-weekly bortezomib. Once-weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 57.7% in 2017 to 73.1% in 2022. Multivariate analysis identified worsened performance status and more recent year of diagnosis with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Real-world progression-free survival (median 37.2 months with once-weekly versus 39.6 months with twice-weekly, p = 0.906) and overall survival (medians not reached in either cohort, p = 0.800) were comparable. PN rates were higher in patients receiving twice-weekly bortezomib (34.7% versus 18.5%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, once-weekly bortezomib is clearly associated with similar efficacy and fewer toxicities compared to twice-weekly bortezomib. Our findings support once-weekly bortezomib as a standard-of-care regimen for newly diagnosed patients with MM., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Teclistamab is a B cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed bispecific antibody approved for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) on the basis of the phase I/II MajesTEC-1 trial. Here we report clinical outcomes with standard-of-care teclistamab in a real-world RRMM population. A total of 106 patients from 5 academic centers who received teclistamab from August 2022 to August 2023 were included in this retrospective analysis, 83% of whom would have been considered ineligible for the MajesTEC-1 trial. All patients were triple-class exposed, 64% were penta-class refractory, and 53% had received prior BCMA-directed therapy. Cytokine release syndrome was observed in 64% of patients, and only 1 event was grade ≥3, whereas immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome was observed in 14% of patients (3 events were grade 3 or 4). One-third (31%) of patients experienced at least 1 infection, with nearly half of these infections graded as severe (grade ≥3). The overall response rate (ORR) was 66%, and the complete or better response rate was 29%. The ORR was 47% for patients with extramedullary disease (EMD), 59% for patients with prior BCMA-directed therapy exposure, and 68% for patients with penta-refractory disease. At a median follow-up of 3.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.4 months to not reached), while median overall survival was not reached. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, EMD, and age ≤70 years had inferior PFS on multivariable analysis. Our study demonstrates reasonable safety and good efficacy of teclistamab in patients with RRMM treated in a real-world setting., (Copyright © 2023 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration approval for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The clinical outcomes of standard of care (SOC) ide-cel in racially and ethnically diverse populations have been understudied. This study pooled data from 207 patients with RRMM (28% patients of racial and ethnic minority groups) treated with SOC ide-cel across 11 institutions to examine racial and ethnic differences in the incidence of toxicities and adverse events, response to ide-cel, and survival. This study included 22 (11%) Hispanic, 36 (17%) non-Hispanic Black, and 149 (72%) non-Hispanic White patients with RRMM. Compared with Hispanic and non-Hispanic White patients, non-Hispanic Black patients had higher median levels of C-reactive protein (1.0, 0.8, and 3.5 mg/dL, respectively; P = .02) and baseline ferritin (362.0 vs 307.0 vs 680.5, respectively; P = .08) and were more likely to develop cytokine release syndrome (77%, 85%, and 97%, respectively; P = .04). Although best overall response rate was lower among Hispanic patients (59%) than among non-Hispanic Black (86%) and White patients (86%; P = .01), there were no racial and ethnic differences in progression-free or overall survival. We provide, to our knowledge, the first and largest investigation of clinical outcomes of SOC ide-cel by race and ethnicity. Despite differences in safety and response to ide-cel, our findings encourage the use of ide-cel in all patients with RRMM. These findings should be confirmed in larger samples of diverse patients with RRMM, with longer follow-up time., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

The treatment of Waldenström macroglobulinemia/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (WM/LPL) has evolved to include several new options. The NCCN Guidelines for WM/LPL provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding diagnosis, treatment, assessment of response to treatment, and follow-up of both newly diagnosed and previously treated WM/LPL.

The treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved to include several new options. These include new combinations with second generation proteasome inhibitors (PI); second generation immunomodulators, monoclonal antibodies, CAR T cells, bispecific antibodies, selinexor, venetoclax, and many others. Most patients with MM undergo several cycles of remissions and relapse, and therefore need multiple lines of combination therapies. Selecting treatment options for relapsed/refractory MM requires consideration of resistance status to specific classes, and patient-specific factors such as age and other comorbidities should be considered. The NCCN Guidelines for MM provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding workup, treatment, and follow-up of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM. This manuscript outlines the recommendations from NCCN Guidelines for MM specific to relapsed/refractory disease.

Background: Addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) in the GRIFFIN study improved the stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the findings of the predefined final analysis., Methods: GRIFFIN was an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 35 research centres in the USA. Patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with measurable disease by M protein or free light chain, were aged 18-70 years, had an ECOG performance score of 0-2, and were eligible for autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four D-RVd or RVd induction cycles, autologous HSCT, two D-RVd or RVd consolidation cycles, and lenalidomide with or without daratumumab maintenance therapy for 2 years. Patients received 21-day cycles of oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-14), subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), oral dexamethasone (40 mg weekly) with or without intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-4; day 1, cycles 5-6). Maintenance therapy (28-day cycles) was oral lenalidomide (10 mg on days 1-21) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg intravenously every 4 or 8 weeks, or 1800 mg subcutaneously monthly). Patients could continue lenalidomide maintenance after study treatment completion. The primary endpoint was stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in the response-evaluable population, and has already been reported. Here we report updated stringent complete response rates and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival and overall survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02874742) and ended on April 8, 2022., Findings: Between Dec 20, 2016, and April 10, 2018, 104 patients were randomly assigned to the D-RVd group and 103 were randomly assigned to the RVd group; most patients were White (85 [82%] in the D-RVd group and 76 [74%] in the RVd group) and male (58 [56%] in the D-RVd group and 60 [58%] in the RVd group). At a median follow-up of 49·6 months (IQR 47·4-52·1), D-RVd improved rates of stringent complete response (67 [67%] of 100] vs 47 [48%] of 98]; odds ratio 2·18 [95% CI 1·22-3·89], p=0·0079), and 4-year progression-free survival was 87·2% (95% CI 77·9-92·8) for D-RVd versus 70·0% (95% CI 55·9-80·3) for RVd, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·45 (95% CI 0·21-0·95, p=0·032) for risk of disease progression or death with D-RVd. Median overall survival was not reached for either group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·31-2·56], p=0·84). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-RVd versus RVd groups were neutropenia (46 [46%] of 99 vs 23 [23%] of 102), lymphopenia (23 [23%] vs 23 [23%]), leukopenia (17 [17%] vs eight [8%]), thrombocytopenia (16 [16%] vs nine [9%]), pneumonia (12 [12%] vs 14 [14%]), and hypophosphataemia (ten [10%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 46 (46%) of 99 patients in the D-RVd group and in 53 (52%) of 102 patients in the RVd group. One patient in each treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event that resulted in death (bronchopneumonia in the D-RVd group; cause unknown in the RVd group); neither was related to study treatment. No new safety concerns occurred with maintenance therapy., Interpretation: Addition of daratumumab to RVd improved the depth of response and progression-free survival in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. These results justify further evaluation in phase 3 studies., Funding: Janssen Oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PMV served as a consultant for, served on an advisory board for, and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Secura Bio. DWS served as a consultant or in an advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer. JLK served as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, and Tecnopharma; received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fortis Therapeutics, Heidelberg Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Sutro Biopharma, and Takeda; received honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, and Tecnopharma; and served on an advisory board for Incyte and TG Therapeutics. BR received honoraria from Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, and PharmaEssentia. CR served as a consultant and on a speakers bureau for Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. ACh served as a consultant or in an advisory role for Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Seattle Genetics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Genzyme, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Antengene, GlaxoSmithKline, Secura Bio, Shattuck Labs, Genentech, AbbVie, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; and received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Pharmacyclics. RS served as a consultant or in an advisory role for Sanofi/Aventis, Janssen Oncology, and Oncopeptides; and received research funding from Sanofi. LJC served as a consultant or in an advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Sanofi; served on a speakers bureau for Amgen and Sanofi; received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Sanofi; and received research funding from Amgen and Janssen. LDA served as a consultant or in an advisory role for and received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Oncopeptides, Karyopharm Therapeutics, AbbVie, BeiGene, Cellectar, and Sanofi. NS served as a consultant for Amgen, CareDx, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Indapta Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi; and received research funding from bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Nektar, Poseida, Precision BioSciences, Sutro Biopharma, and TeneoBio. NB received honoraria from OncLive; and served as a consultant or in an advisory role and on a speakers bureau for Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, and Oncopeptides. YAE received research funding, received honoraria, and served on a speakers bureau for Janssen, Takeda, Oncopeptides, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb. SAH served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Oncopeptides, GlaxoSmithKline, Secura Bio, and Sanofi; and received research funding from Oncopeptides. CC received honoraria from Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen. AJ served as a consultant or in an advisory role for and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Sanofi. TMW served as a consultant for Janssen, Carevive, and Sanofi. RZO holds stock and other ownership interests in Asylia Therapeutics; received honoraria from and served as a consultant or in an advisory role for AbbVie, Biotheryx, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Meridian Therapeutics, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; received research funding from Asylia Therapeutics, Biotheryx, and Heidelberg Pharma; and holds patents, royalties, or other intellectual property for Asylia Therapeutics. KHS served on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen; received research funding from AbbVie and Karyopharm Therapeutics; served on a speakers bureau for Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi Genzyme; served as a consultant for Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme; and received honoraria from Karyopharm Therapeutics. AJC served as a consultant for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, AbbVie, Sanofi, Cellectar, GlaxoSmithKline, and Secura Bio; and received research funding from Janssen, AbbVie, Sanofi, Harpoon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and Nektar. SD is the Executive Officer for Alliance Foundation Trials for Clinical Trials. HP, ACo, and SP are employees of and hold stock and other ownership in Janssen. TSL is an employee of Janssen. SZU served as a consultant or in an advisory role for Celgene, Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Therapeutics, AbbVie, SkylineDx, Merck, Oncopeptides, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; served on a speakers bureau for Takeda, Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene; and received research funding from Celgene and Array BioPharma. PGR received research funding from Oncopeptides, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Karyopharm Therapeutics; and served on an advisory committee for Oncopeptides, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Janssen, Sanofi, Secura Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and Protocol Intelligence. JL and NN declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The role of measurable residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells is uncertain. We analyzed MRD kinetics during the first year after idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) infusion in 125 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients enrolled in KarMMa. At month 1 after ide-cel, there were no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) between patients in less than complete response (CR) versus those in CR; only MRD status was predictive of significantly different PFS at this landmark. In patients with undetectable MRD at 3 months and beyond, PFS was longer in those achieving CR versus

Most patients with multiple myeloma experience disease relapse after treatment with a B-cell maturation antigen-targeted therapy (BCMA-TT), and data describing outcomes for patients treated with sequential BCMA-TT are limited. We analyzed clinical outcomes for patients infused with standard-of-care idecabtagene vicleucel, an anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, at 11 US medical centers. A total of 50 patients with prior BCMA-TT exposure (38 antibody-drug conjugate, 7 bispecific, 5 CAR T) and 153 patients with no prior BCMA-TT were infused with ide-cel, with a median follow-up duration of 4.5 and 6.0 months, respectively. Safety outcomes between cohorts were comparable. The prior BCMA-TT cohort had a lower overall response rate (74% versus 88%; p = 0.021), median duration of response (7.4 versus 9.6 months; p = 0.03), and median progression-free survival (3.2 months versus 9.0 months; p = 0.0002) compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-TT. All five patients who received a prior anti-BCMA CAR T responded to ide-cel, and survival outcomes were best for this subgroup. In conclusion, treatment with ide-cel yielded meaningful clinical responses in real-world patients exposed to a prior BCMA-TT, though response rates and durability were suboptimal compared to those not treated with a prior BCMA-TT., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

SARS-CoV-2 infection often results in a more severe COVID-19 disease course in multiple myeloma (MM) patients compared to immunocompetent individuals. The aim of this report is to summarize the clinical features of the MM patients with COVID-19 and the impact of MM treatment on outcomes to guide risk stratification and ensure the appropriate management of the patients. Serological responses in MM patients post-infection or -vaccination are also reviewed to better understand the strategy of prevention. Along with reports from the literature, we presented findings from a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 infection in MM patients in our institution. Study population includes 34 MM patients with a median age of 61 (range: 35-82 years) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 March 2020-15 August 2021. We examined the effect of chemotherapy, the benefit of neutralizing monoclonal antibody (Bamlanivimab) and the impact of anti-CD38 antibody (daratumumab) on the hospitalization and mortality of the patients, as well as the efficacy of native antibody production. Our results showed that MM patients have increased hospitalization and mortality rates from COVID-19 compared with that of general population, especially those on active chemotherapy. Advanced age, high-risk myeloma, renal disease, and suboptimal disease control are independent predictors of adverse outcomes. The use of daratumumab does not increase the disease severity/hospitalization or the post-infection/vaccination seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2. The neutralizing antibody decreases overall mortality. Evidence from the current study and previous publications suggest that testing of neutralizing antibody post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in MM patients may be needed in reducing COVID-19 risk.

The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P < .001 and HR 5.01, P < .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P < .001 and HR 8.13, P < .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post-auto-HSCT., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies are at increased risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. We evaluated the serological IgG response following two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with hematologic malignancies., Methods: Patients treated at UT Southwestern Medical Center with a diagnosis of a myeloid or lymphoid neoplasm were included. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination response was defined as a positive quantifiable spike IgG antibody titer., Results: Sixty patients were included in the study and 60% were diagnosed with a myeloid neoplasm. The majority (85%) of the patients with a myeloid malignancy and 50% of the patients with a lymphoid malignancy mounted a serological response after receiving two doses of the vaccine., Conclusion: Vaccination should be offered irrespective of ongoing treatment or active disease. Findings require validation in a larger cohort of patients., (Copyright © Hoff et al. This article is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International).)

For eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), standard of care includes induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Daratumumab as monotherapy and in combination treatment is approved across multiple lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), and lenalidomide is an effective and commonly used agent for induction and maintenance therapy in MM. However, there is concern that lenalidomide and daratumumab given as induction therapy might impair mobilization of stem cells for ASCT. Therefore, we assessed stem cell mobilization in patients following frontline induction therapy in the MASTER and GRIFFIN phase 2 clinical studies by examining stem cell mobilization yields, apheresis attempts, and engraftment outcomes for patients from each study. Adult transplantation-eligible patients with NDMM received induction therapy consisting of daratumumab plus carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) for four 28-day cycles in the single-arm MASTER trial or lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) with or without daratumumab (D) for four 21-day cycles in the randomized GRIFFIN trial, followed by stem cell mobilization and ASCT in both studies. Institutional practice differed regarding plerixafor use for stem cell mobilization; the strategies were upfront (ie, planned plerixafor use) or rescue (ie, plerixafor use only after mobilization parameters indicated failure with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] alone). Descriptive analyses were used to summarize patient characteristics, stem cell mobilization yields, and engraftment outcomes. In MASTER, 116 D-KRd recipients underwent stem cell mobilization and collection at a median of 24 days after completing induction therapy. In GRIFFIN, 175 patients (D-RVd, n = 95; RVd, n = 80) underwent mobilization at a median of 27 days after completing D-RVd induction therapy and 24 days after completing RVd induction therapy. Among those who underwent mobilization and collection, 7% (8 of 116) of D-KRd recipients, 2% (2 of 95) of D-RVd recipients, and 6% (5 of 80) of RVd recipients did not meet the center-specific minimally required CD34 +  cell yield in the first mobilization attempt; however, nearly all collected sufficient stem cells for ASCT on remobilization. Among patients who underwent mobilization, plerixafor use, either upfront or as a rescue strategy, was higher in patients receiving D-KRd (97%; 112 of 116) and D-RVd (72%; 68 of 95) compared with those receiving RVd (55%; 44 of 80). The median total CD34 +  cell collection was 6.0 × 10 6 /kg (range, 2.2 to 13.9 × 10 6 /kg) after D-KRd induction, 8.3 × 10 6 /kg (range, 2.6 to 33.0 × 10 6 /kg) after D-RVd induction, and 9.4 × 10 6 /kg (range, 4.1 to 28.7 × 10 6 /kg) after RVd induction; the median days for collection were 2, 2, and 1, respectively. Among patients who underwent mobilization, 98% (114 of 116) of D-KRd patients, 99% (94 of 95) of D-RVd patients, and 98% (78 of 80) of RVd patients underwent ASCT using median CD34 +  cell doses of 3.2 × 10 6 /kg, 4.2 × 10 6 /kg, and 4.8 × 10 6 /kg, respectively. The median time to neutrophil recovery was 12 days in all 3 treatment groups across the 2 trials. Because both trials used different criteria to define platelet recovery, data on platelet engraftment using the same criteria are not available. Four cycles of daratumumab- and lenalidomide-based quadruplet induction therapy had a minimal impact on stem cell mobilization and allowed predictable stem cell harvesting and engraftment in all patients who underwent ASCT. Upfront plerixafor strategy may be considered, but many patients were successfully collected with the use of G-CSF alone or rescue plerixafor., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement SC received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Omeros, and Sanofi and institutional research funding from Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Ionis, Novartis, Syndax, and GlaxoSmithKline, and is co-chair of the SWOG S1803 clinical trial. NLW received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and holds stock in Gilead. LJC served as a consultant and received honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, Pfizer, and Sanofi; received research funding from Amgen, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and served on speakers bureaus for Amgen and Sanofi. JLK served as a consultant for Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, Incyte, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, and Tecnopharma; received research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, Amgen, Fortis Therapeutics, Heidelberg Pharma, Novartis, Sutro Biopharma, and Takeda; received honoraria from Tecnopharma, AbbVie, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, and Tecnopharma; and held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Incyte and TG Therapeutics. DWS served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Sanofi; and served as a consultant and held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Janssen and AbbVie. BR received honoraria from Incyte, Takeda, and PharmaEssentia; served as a consultant for PharmaEssentia; and served on a speakers bureau for Bristol Myers Squibb. CR served as a consultant and on speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, and Karyopharm; and received honoraria and served as a consultant for Oncopeptides. AC served as a consultant and held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Janssen Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Amgen, Karyopharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Oncopeptides, GlaxoSmithKline, Secura Bio, Shattuck Labs, Genentech, AbbVie, and Antengene; served as a consultant for Takeda, Novartis, and Millennium/Takeda; held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committee for Seattle Genetics; and received research funding from Janssen Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Millennium/Takeda. RS held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Sanofi Genzyme and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and received research funding from Sanofi Genzyme. LDA served as a consultant, received honoraria, held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committee, and received research funding from Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, BeiGene, Prothena, and Amgen. SB received grants from Amyloid Foundation and honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnology. BD served as a consultant for Janssen, Sanofi, Genentech, and AbbVie; received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Karyopharm, and Janssen; and served on an advisory board for Janssen, Natera, Arcellx Takeda, Amgen, and Sanofi. NS served as a consultant for Amgen, CareDx, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Indapta Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi; and received research funding from bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Nektar, Poseida, Precision BioSciences, Sutro Biopharma, and TeneoBio. NB held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Sanofi and Janssen; and served on a speakers bureau for Sanofi and Amgen. SAH served as a consultant for BMS/Celgene, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, and Takeda and received research funding from Oncopeptides. CC received honoraria and research funding from Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, and Bristol Myers Squibb; served as a consultant for Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen; and received research funding from Celgene and Poseida. AJ held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Sanofi, Karyopharm, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gracell, and Celgene. TMW served as a consultant for Janssen, Carevive, Seattle Genetics, and Sanofi. TS served as a consultant for Sanofi and Janssen. RZO served as a consultant and received honoraria from Amgen, BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen, Karyopharm, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; received research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma; holds individual stocks in a privately held company and patents and royalties for Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.; and held membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committees for Amgen, BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Celg, (Copyright © 2022 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Primary systemic light chain amyloidosis (SLCA) is characterized by production of light chains that get converted to amyloid fibrils with an affinity for visceral organs and causing organ dysfunction. The therapy for SLCA is directed to recovering the function of the affected organs by targeting the abnormal plasma cell clone and slowing deposition of amyloid fibrils. The NCCN Guidelines for SLCA provide recommendations for workup, diagnosis, and treatment of primary as well as previously treated SLCA.

Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) ± daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy ± D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, ≥162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal., (© 2022 Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy is a revolutionary personalized therapy that has significantly impacted the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies refractory to other therapies. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a major side effect of CAR T therapy that can occur in 70-90% of patients, with roughly 40% of patients at grade 2 or higher. CRS can cause an intense inflammatory state leading to cardiovascular complications, including troponin elevation, arrhythmias, hemodynamic instability, and depressed left ventricular systolic function. There are currently no standardized guidelines for the management of cardiovascular complications due to CAR T therapy, but systematic practice patterns are emerging. In this review, we contextualize the history and indications of CAR T cell therapy, side effects related to this treatment, strategies to optimize the cardiovascular health prior to CAR T and the management of cardiovascular complications related to CRS. We analyze the existing data and discuss potential future approaches., Competing Interests: Author FA has provided consultancy to: Genentech, Astrazeneca, Abbvie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead sciences, Kite pharma, Celgene, Karyopharm, MEI Pharma, Verastem, Incyte, Beigene, Johnson and Johnson, Dava Oncology, BMS, Merck, Cardinal Health, ADCT therapeutics, and Epizyme. 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 Rao, Stewart, Eljalby, Ramakrishnan, Anderson, Awan, Chandra, Vallabhaneni, Zhang and Zaha.)

Importance: Treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with a quadruplet regimen consisting of a monoclonal antibody, proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory imide, and corticosteroid has been associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with triplet regimens. The optimal quadruplet combination, and whether this obviates the need for frontline autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), remains unknown. We evaluated elotuzumab and weekly carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Elo-KRd) without ASCT in NDMM., Objective: To investigate the efficacy of Elo-KRd using a measurable residual disease (MRD)-adapted design in NDMM regardless of ASCT eligibility., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study enrolled patients between July 2017 and February 2021. Median follow-up was 29 months., Interventions: Twelve to 24 cycles of Elo-KRd; consecutive MRD-negative results at 10-6 by next-generation sequencing (NGS) after cycles 8 (C8) and 12 determined the duration of Elo-KRd. This was followed by Elo-Rd (no carfilzomib) maintenance therapy until disease progression., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity (10-5) after C8 Elo-KRd. Secondary end points included safety, rate of response, MRD status, PFS, and overall survival (OS). As an exploratory analysis, MRD was assessed using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (MS) on peripheral blood samples., Results: Forty-six patients were enrolled (median age 62 years, 11 [24%] aged >70 years). Overall, 32 (70%) were White, 6 (13%) were Black, 3 (6%) were more than 1 race, and 5 (11%) were of unknown race. Thirty-three (72%) were men and 13 (28%) were women. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were present in 22 (48%) patients. The rate of sCR and/or MRD-negativity after C8 was 26 of 45 (58%), meeting the predefined statistical threshold for efficacy. Responses deepened over time, with the MRD-negativity (10-5) rate increasing to 70% and MS-negativity rate increasing to 65%; concordance between MRD by NGS and MS increased over time. The most common (>10%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively). There was 1 grade 5 myocardial infarction. The estimated 3-year PFS was 72% overall and 92% for patients with MRD-negativity (10-5) at C8., Conclusions and Relevance: An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without ASCT showed a high rate of sCR and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses. This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided deescalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02969837.

Background: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65)., Conclusions: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Bortezomib-based triplet regimens-specifically bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD)-are the 2 most common induction regimens used in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), with conflicting data on comparative efficacy and outcomes in this population. We compared long-term outcomes of patients with NDMM receiving VRD induction and those receiving VCD induction prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients registered with the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry were included if they had undergone ASCT for MM within 6 months of diagnosis between January 2013 and December 2018, received VRD or VCD induction, and achieved a pretransplantation partial or better response. Of 1135 patients, 914 received VRD and 221 received VCD. The patients receiving VCD were more likely to have renal impairment and International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease and less likely to receive full-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) conditioning (69% versus 80%; P < .001). Very good partial response rates pretransplantation, post-transplantation, and at best response were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Maintenance use was more common after VRD induction (88% versus 76%; P < .001), with lenalidomide the most common agent (80% versus 63%). Patients in the VRD group had a higher rate of renal recovery (74% versus 43%; P < .001), possibly due to a rapid reduction of light chains in the VRD group or improvement in renal function with VCD, which allowed a switch over to VRD, as patients who switched were classified in the VRD group. Patients receiving VRD had better survival on univariate analysis, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) from transplantation of 44.6 months versus 34.1 months (P = .004) and median 5-year overall survival (OS) of 79% versus 60% (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant survival difference, with a hazard ratio for VCD versus VRD induction of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.55; P = .10) for PFS and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.92, P = .12) for OS. Maintenance use was independently associated with superior PFS and OS, along with ISS stage, cytogenetics, and pretransplantation response (PFS only). In patients with MM undergoing upfront ASCT after VRD or VCD induction, no independent survival difference was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. © 2021 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.S. has served as a consultant for Janssen and has received research funding from Janssen, Magenta Therapeutics, and Allogene. A.D. has served as a consultant for Janssen; has received research funding from Takeda, Sanofi, and TeneoBio; and has served on advisory boards for Imbrium, Pfizer, and Akcea. S.K. reports receipt of grants and other remuneration from BMS/Celgene, Takeda, AbbVie, Roche and Janssen; grants from Medimmune, Tenebio, and Carsgen; and personal fees from Oncopeptides. S.U. reports receipt of grants and personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Takeda, SkylineDX, and Merck; grants from BMS and Pharmacyclics; and personal fees from AbbVie and MundiPharma. N.S. reports receipt of grants from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, bluebird bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, and Nektar and personal fees from GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite Pharma, and Karyopharm. B. Dhakal reports receipt of personal fees from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, GSK, and Sanofi. B. Dholaria reports receipt of institutional research support from Takeda, Janssen, Angiocrine, Pfizer, and Celgene. L.D.A. reports receipt of personal fees from Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Oncopeptides, Karyopharm, and Janssen. S.G. reports receipt of personal fees and other from Celgene, personal fees and other from Janssen, personal fees and other remuneration from BMS, Sanofi, Actinium, Amgen, Pfizer, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Omeros. S.H. reports recipt of er remuneration from Pfizer, Novartis, Therakos, Janessen, and MSD outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a novel chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), has recently gained approval by the US FDA for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after multicenter trials have demonstrated unprecedented results in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients. As the first CAR T-cell product approved for myeloma, ide-cel is poised to become a practice-changing treatment option. This first-in-class therapeutic offers hope for more durable remissions, as well as better quality of life, following a single infusion in a group of patients that previously had little hope. This paper reviews the ide-cel product in terms of design, pharmacology, efficacy and toxicity as described in studies reported to date.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) by age, renal function, and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse., Methods: OPTIMISMM was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized study (NCT01734928; N = 559). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Overall, 226 patients had received one prior line of therapy. PVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in patients aged ≤65 years (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 months; P = .0258) and >65 years (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 months; P = .0369). Median PFS in patients with renal impairment (RI; creatinine clearance <60 mL/min) was 15.1 months with PVd vs 9.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34-1.34]). In patients without RI, median PFS was 22.0 vs 13.1 months (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.76]). In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 14.7 vs 9.9 months (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.13-1.17]). PVd significantly improved overall response rate vs Vd in all subgroups. The safety profile of PVd was consistent with previous reports., Conclusions: These findings confirmed the benefits of PVd at first relapse, including in patients with poor prognostic factors., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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