Search

Introduction Two phase 3 studies demonstrated superior efficacy of intravenous daratumumab (DARA IV) plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (ALCYONE) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd; MAIA) versus standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In these studies, patients could switch from DARA IV to subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) while receiving daratumumab monotherapy in ALCYONE (as of Cycle 11) or daratumumab plus Rd in MAIA. The phase 3 COLUMBA study demonstrated noninferiority of DARA SC to DARA IV. DARA SC reduced administration time, allowing patients to spend less time in healthcare settings, a relevant practical consideration for patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic/settings of limited healthcare resources. Methods DARA SC 1800 mg was administered every 4 weeks, per approved dosing schedules. We evaluated safety and patient-reported experience (ALCYONE only) among patients who switched from DARA IV to DARA SC. Results Fifty-seven patients in ALCYONE and 135 in MAIA switched to DARA SC. Three (2.2%; MAIA) patients reported injection-site reactions, all of which were mild. No infusion-related reactions occurred with DARA SC. In ALCYONE, >80% of patients preferred DARA SC over DARA IV. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 5.3% of patients in ALCYONE and 25.9% in MAIA; one (0.7%; MAIA) patient experienced a TEAE with an outcome of death. Conclusion For transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, DARA SC (monotherapy/with Rd) was safe and preferred over DARA IV. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479/NCT02252172.

The primary analysis of the ICARIA-MM study showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report a prespecified updated overall survival analysis at 24 months after the primary analysis.In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 102 hospitals in 24 countries across Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Patients were excluded if they had anti-CD38 refractory disease or previously received pomalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive response technology with permuted blocked randomisation (block size of four) and stratified by number of previous treatment lines (2-3 vs3) and aged (75 vs ≥75 years), to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, intravenous isatuximab 10 mg/kg was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 4-week cycle, and then on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle, and weekly oral or intravenous dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged ≥75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Here' we report a prespecified second interim analysis of overall survival (time from randomisation to any-cause death), a key secondary endpoint, in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who provided informed consent and allocated a randomisation number) at 24 months after the primary analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose or part dose of study treatment. The prespecified stopping boundary for the overall survival analysis was when the derived p value was equal to or less than 0·0181. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02990338, and is active, but not recruiting.Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, 387 patients were screened and 307 randomly assigned to either the isatuximab (n=154) or control group (n=153). Median follow-up at data cutoff (Oct 1, 2020) was 35·3 months (IQR 33·5-37·4). Median overall survival was 24·6 months (95% CI 20·3-31·3) in the isatuximab group and 17·7 months (14·4-26·2) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·57-1·01]; one-sided log-rank p=0·028, not crossing prespecified stopping boundary). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events in the isatuximab group versus the control group were neutropenia (76 [50%] of 152 patients vs 52 [35%] of 149 patients), pneumonia (35 [23%] vs 31 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [13%] vs 18 [12%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 111 (73%) patients in the isatuximab group and 90 (60%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the isatuximab group (one due to sepsis and one due to cerebellar infarction) and two (1%) occurred in the control group (one due to pneumonia and one due to urinary tract infection).Addition of isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone resulted in a 6·9-month difference in median overall survival compared with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and is a new standard of care for lenalidomide-refractory and proteasome inhibitor-refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Final overall survival analysis follow-up is ongoing.Sanofi.

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0–2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60–72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61–72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2–5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4–22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1–23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1–25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0–25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1–31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8–23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85–1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). Interpretation Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Oncopeptides AB

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients’ data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients.

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

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

Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS]: 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD- vs MRD+ patients, HR 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD- status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD- status vs those converting from MRD- to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median 18.8 vs 11.6 months, HR 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median 16.8 vs 10.6 months, HR 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD-. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single timepoint MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD- status as a relevant endpoint during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD- status.

Objectives This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible. Patients and methods We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%) and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%). Results The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 months, (p=0.275), respectively and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 months (p=0.004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients. Conclusion Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients; especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice.

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has changed substantially during the past two decades. The incorporation of novel agents into therapeutic strategies has resulted in prolonged overall survival of MM patients with approximately 15% of them being considered operationally cured.

Background We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. Methods A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient’s characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. Results In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1–3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51–0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. Conclusions Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Summary Background Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication. Methods PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02654990 . Findings Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8–24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8–72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8–75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4–61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related. Interpretation The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio.

The Phase 3 ICARIA-MM (NCT02990338) and IKEMA (NCT03275285) studies demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) plus pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d; Isa-Pd) or carfilzomib (K) and d (Isa-Kd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus Pd or Kd in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. In this post hoc analysis of patients with soft-tissue plasmacytomas, we evaluated Isa-Pd/Isa-Kd efficacy using central radiology and central laboratory assessments. Given the low incidence of soft-tissue plasmacytomas (7.8 %, ICARIA-MM; 6.3 %, IKEMA), efficacy data were pooled across the two studies. PFS (HR, 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.21-1.08), overall response rate (50.0 % vs 17.7 %), and very good partial response or better rate (26.9 % vs 11.8 %) were improved with Isa-Pd/Isa-Kd versus Pd/Kd, with consistent improvements within individual studies. Patients with soft-tissue plasmacytomas who received Isa-Pd/Isa-Kd had similar median PFS compared with those without soft-tissue plasmacytomas and received Pd/Kd. Safety is reported individually per study. Longer median treatment duration and more Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in the Isa versus control arms in ICARIA-MM (36.9 vs 8.4 weeks; 85.7 % vs 70.0 %) and IKEMA (41.9 vs 29.9 weeks; 100.0 % vs 57.1 %); however, Isa did not increase the percentage of patients with fatal events or drug discontinuation. Isa-Pd or Isa-Kd is a potential new treatment option and partially overcomes the poor prognosis associated with soft-tissue plasmacytomas in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein that functions both as a receptor and an ectoenzyme, playing key roles in the regulation of calcium signaling and migration of immune cells to tumor microenvironments. High expression on multiple myeloma (MM) cells and limited expression on normal cells makes CD38 an ideal target for the treatment of MM patients. Two monoclonal antibodies directed at CD38, isatuximab and daratumumab, are available for use in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM); daratumumab is also approved in newly diagnosed MM and light-chain amyloidosis. Clinical experience has shown that anti-CD38 antibody therapy is transforming treatment of MM owing to its anti-myeloma efficacy and manageable safety profile. Isatuximab and daratumumab possess similarities and differences in their mechanisms of action, likely imparted by their binding to distinct, non-overlapping epitopes on the CD38 molecule. In this review, we present the mechanistic properties of these two antibodies and outline available evidence on their abilities to induce adaptive immune responses and modulate the bone marrow niche in MM. Further, we discuss differences in regulatory labeling between these two agents and analyze recent key clinical trial results, including evidence in patients with underlying renal impairment and other poor prognostic factors. Finally, we describe the limited existing evidence for the use of isatuximab or daratumumab after disease progression on prior anti-CD38 mono- or combination therapy, highlighting the need for additional clinical evaluations to define optimal anti-CD38 antibody therapy selection and sequencing in RRMM.

8026 Background: A prespecified interim efficacy analysis of the Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) plus carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (d) (Isa-Kd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Kd in patients (pts) with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (HR 0.531; 99% CI, 0.318–0.889; P=0.0007), with a clinically meaningful increase in minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) (29.6% vs 13.0%) and complete response (CR) (39.7% vs 27.6%) rates, and a manageable safety profile. This subgroup analysis of IKEMA examined efficacy and safety in pts aged

The ICARIA-MM study was sponsored by Sanofi. The authors thank, Helgi van de Velde, Valérie Boutet, Shujia Dai, Deborah DiNoto, Graziella Engelvin, Olivier Fedeli, Sébastien Hugla, Dominique Mouret, Béatrice Pradeilles, and Alain Roccon, all employees of Sanofi, for their contribution to the study, technology, and comments on the manuscript. The authors thank the participating patients and their families, and the study centers and investigators, for their contributions to the study. The medical writing support was provided by John Clarke, PhD and Stephanie Brillhart, PhD of Elevate Medical Affairs, contracted by Sanofi Genzyme for publication support services.

Objectives Isatuximab (Isa) is an approved IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets a specific epitope of CD38 and kills multiple myeloma (MM) cells via multiple mechanisms. The Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that Isa plus carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (d) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Kd in patients (pts) with relapsed MM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.531; 99% CI, 0.32–0.89; p = 0.0007), leading to the approval of Isa-Kd in the US for adults with MM with 1–3 prior lines and in the EU for those with ≥1 prior therapy. The presence of soft-tissue plasmacytomas is associated with poor prognosis, and newer therapies are urgently needed. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Isa-Kd vs Kd in pts with relapsed MM and pre-existing soft-tissue plasmacytomas. Material and methods Pts (n = 302) were randomized (3:2) to Isa-Kd (n = 179) or Kd (n = 123). Isa (10 mg/kg IV) was given weekly for 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. K (20 mg/m2 days 1–2, then 56 mg/m2) was given twice-weekly 3 of 4 weeks, and d (20 mg) twice-weekly. The independent review committee assessed response based on central radiology review and central lab M-protein using the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results At study entry, 19 (6.3%) pts had soft-tissue plasmacytomas: 12/179 (6.7%) had Isa-Kd and 7/123 (5.7%) had Kd. Overall median (range) duration of exposure in these pts was 41.9 (2–87) weeks for Isa-Kd vs 29.9 (4–83) for Kd, with 41.7% pts still on treatment at cycle 20 in Isa-Kd vs 14.3% pts in Kd. Baseline characteristics in the plasmacytomas subgroup were similar to those in the overall IKEMA intent-to-treat (ITT) population with the exception of ISS stages II (42.1% vs 31.1%) and III (31.6% vs 15.2%), and renal function impairment (38.9% vs 22.1%) which were more prevalent in the plasmacytomas subgroup vs ITT. PFS was improved with Isa-Kd vs Kd: HR, 0.574; 95% CI, 0.125–2.640. Median PFS was 18.76 (95% CI, 4.435–not calculable [NC]) months with Isa-Kd vs NC (0.986–NC) months with Kd. Overall response rate (50.0% vs 28.6%), very good partial response or better (33.3% vs 14.3%), and complete response (25.0% vs 0%, all with minimal residual disease negativity) rates were also improved with Isa-Kd vs Kd. Grade ≥3 TEAE occurred in 12 (100%) pts with Isa-Kd vs 4 (57.1%) with Kd. Grade 5 TEAEs during study treatment occurred in 2 (16.7%) vs 1 (14.3%) pt; serious TEAEs in 9 (75.0%) vs 4 (57.1%); TEAEs leading to discontinuations were 0 (0%) vs 1 (14.3%). Grade 5 events were pneumonia (1 [8.3%], Isa-Kd) and progressive disease (1 [8.3%], Isa-Kd; 1 [14.3%], Kd). Conclusions In pts with relapsed MM and soft-tissue plasmacytomas, Isa-Kd improved PFS and depth of response compared with Kd alone, with a manageable safety profile, consistent with the benefit observed in the IKEMA study overall population. Isa-Kd is a new treatment option for pts with relapsed MM and soft-tissue plasmacytomas. Funding Sanofi.

INTRODUCTION Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease with a median overall survival of approximately 5 years. Gain or amplification of 1q21 (1q21+) occurs in around 40% of patients with MM and generally portends a poor prognosis. Patients with MM who harbor 1q21+ are at increased risk of drug resistance, disease progression, and death. New pharmacotherapies with novel modes of action are required to overcome the negative prognostic impact of 1q21+. Areas covered: This review discusses the detection, biology, prognosis, and therapeutic targeting of 1q21+ in newly diagnosed and relapsed MM. Patients with MM and 1q21+ tend to present with higher tumor burden, greater end-organ damage, and more co-occurring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities than patients without 1q21+. The chromosomal rearrangements associated with 1q21+ result in dysregulation of genes involved in oncogenesis. Identification and characterization of the 1q21+ molecular targets are needed to inform on prognosis and treatment strategy. Clinical trial data are emerging that addition of isatuximab to combination therapies may improve outcomes in patients with 1q21+ MM. Expert opinion: In the next 5 years, the results of ongoing research and trials are likely to focus on the therapeutic impact and treatment decisions associated with 1q21+ in MM.

Introduction: The BOSTON study is a Phase 3 trial comparing the novel triplet regimen of once weekly oral selinexor with once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) versus standard twice weekly Vd in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior therapies. The SVd regimen conferred a 47% increase in median progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next therapy (TTNT), higher overall response rates (ORR) and deeper responses compared to Vd. Furthermore, this is the first trial of a bortezomib-based triplet therapy (i.e., SVd) that showed lower rates of overall and Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) compared with doublet Vd while conferring a longer PFS, and the regimen requires ~35% fewer clinic visits than standard twice weekly Vd. This abstract reports analyses of the patient reported outcomes (PROs) in BOSTON to evaluate patterns in therapy-induced PN symptoms, pain and function. Methods: PROs were assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires. The QLQ-CIPN20 assesses patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations related to chemotherapy induced PN (CIPN) and has 3 subscales: sensory, motor, and autonomic. The QLQ-C30 includes several functional and symptom scales and focuses on physical functioning, role functioning, and pain subscales as pre-specified domains of interest. Mixed effects repeated measures models were fit to the longitudinal data to estimate differences over time. Meaningful change thresholds derived using anchor- and distribution-based methods or estimated from the literature were used to identify patients who had experienced a meaningful worsening of symptoms or deterioration in functioning. Time to definitive deterioration was defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of meaningful deterioration that was not followed by subsequent improvement. Cox proportional hazard models compared the hazard rates between arms adjusted for baseline questionnaire score, randomization stratification factors (prior PI therapy, number of prior anti-MM regimens, R-ISS stage at MM) and prior bortezomib exposure. Results: A total of 402 patients were enrolled in the trial; 388 completed a baseline QLQ-CIPN20 assessment and are included in these analyses. Based on the mixed model repeated measures analysis (Table 1), a benefit was demonstrated for SVd in change from baseline to Day 106 for sensory (-5.3 points difference, p=0.0006) and pain (-6.6, p=0.007) scores. Patients in the SVd arm had a greater increase in autonomic symptom scores (+5.0, p=0.022). The number of patients with definitive deterioration in QLQ-CIPN20 sensory symptoms was greater in the Vd arm (86 patients, 45.7%) compared to 52 (27.7%) patients in the SVd arm (Table 2). The median time to deterioration was 20.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.4, not estimable [NE]) in the SVd arm compared to 12.5 months (95% CI: 7.8, 19.9) in the Vd arm. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing time to deterioration in sensory scores between SVd and Vd arms was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.75; p = 0.0004). Worsening of motor symptoms also trended in favor of SVd with a HR = 0.72 (p=0.052). Roughly half of the patients in each treatment arm experienced worsening autonomic symptoms (54.6% and 48.4%, SVd and Vd respectively) with no significant difference between arms (HR=1.14, p=0.37). While not statistically significant, fewer SVd patients had definitive deteriorations in pain and physical function compared to Vd patients, with similar or extended time to deterioration (Table 2). Conclusions: In the setting of a significant increase in PFS and TTNT, patients with MM after at least one prior therapy who received weekly SVd reported lower sensory symptom and pain scores but higher autonomic symptom scores. Further, patients treated with twice weekly Vd experienced a more rapid rate of sensory symptom worsening and a trend to more rapid worsening of motor symptoms, compared to patients treated with SVd. The improved pain scores in patients treated with SVd may be related to superior disease control. The reduction in PN-related pain and sensory symptoms observed with SVd in the setting of increased PFS and TTNT supports a potentially improved patient experience and decreased health care burden and long term morbidity. Disclosures Leleu: Janssen: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Beaumont:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Yu:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hudgens:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Auner:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delimpasi:Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; GENESIS: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Moreau:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Levy:Karyopharm,Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Ma:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Tang:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Current Employment. Leong:AbbVie: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Introduction Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral, potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, leading to cancer cell apoptosis. Selinexor has demonstrated antimyeloma activity in triple class refractory multiple myeloma (MM) [Chari et al. NEJM 2019]. Selinexor synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in PI-sensitive and -resistant cell lines and produces high response rates in patients with PI refractory and non-refractory MM (Bahlis et al. Blood 2018). In the phase 3 BOSTON study, the combination of once weekly (QW) selinexor, QW bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) in patients who had received 1-3 prior therapies led to a significantly longer (47%) median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.93 vs 9.46 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (P=0.0075) compared to standard twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). In addition, SVd regimen produced higher response rates and deeper responses (ORR: 76.4% vs 62.3% and ≥CR 16.9% vs 10.2%) compared with Vd. The benefit with SVd was observed across all efficacy endpoints and was associated with lower incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy. Here we analyzed the effect of prior PI therapy (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib) on the efficacy and safety of SVd compared with Vd. Methods BOSTON is an open-label, randomized phase 3 study in patients with MM comparing SVd (QW oral selinexor 100 mg, QW subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, and BIW oral dexamethasone 20 mg), versus Vd (BIW bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 and QIW dexamethasone 20 mg). Patients previously treated with a PI must have had at least a partial response (PR) to the PI and 6 months since the last PI regimen. The study primary end point was PFS. Here we report subgroup analysis of treatment outcomes based on prior PI treatment. Results Subgroups consisted of PI naïve patients (n=95; 24%) and patients with prior PI treatment (n=307; 76%). Both the subgroups and study arms were comparable for baseline patient demographic and disease characteristics. However, those with prior PI treatment more frequently had a previous stem cell transplant (38% vs 24%) or 3 lines of prior anti MM therapy (21% vs 13%). Median PFS was improved with SVd compared with Vd in both the PI naïve group (PFS not reached (NR) vs 9.7 months; HR 0.2585 [95% CI, 0.1116-0.5988]; P=0.0003) and in the PI treated group (11.7 vs 9.4 months; HR 0.7839 [95% CI, 0.5791-1.0612]; P=0.06). Other efficacy endpoints are shown in the table. Peripheral neuropathy ≥grade 2 (a secondary study endpoint) was less frequent in the SVd compared with the Vd arm (PI naïve: 25.5%, Vd 43.8%, P=0.0302; PI treated: SVd 19.6%, Vd 31.4%, P=0.0092). Adverse events of ≥grade 3 occurred in 71% of patients in the PI naïve group (SVd 77%, Vd 65%) and 74% of patients in the PI treated group (SVd 88%, Vd 60%). Thrombocytopenia was more frequent in patients in the SVd arms (PI naïve: SVd 32%, Vd 13%; PI treated: SVd 42%, Vd 19%) as was anemia (PI naïve: SVd 15%, Vd 6%; PI treated: SVd 16%, Vd 12%), and fatigue (PI naïve: SVd 15%, Vd 2%; PI treated: SVd 13%, Vd 1%). Conclusions The once-weekly SVd combination was associated with significant clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy as compared with standard twice-weekly Vd in patients with MM and 1-3 prior therapies, regardless of prior therapy with a PI. However, the benefits of SVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients who had never been treated with a PI (PFS HR 0.26), suggesting that selinexor could be an optimal partner for combining with weekly bortezomib as the first PI-containing MM regimen. Figure 1 Disclosures Mateos: Roche: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gavriatopoulou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Auner:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Leleu:AbbVie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Hajek:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kryachok:Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, Acerta, AvbbVie, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Ro: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Moreau:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Levy:Karyopharm,Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Anderson:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Arazy:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Introduction Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral, potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, leading to cancer cell apoptosis. Selinexor has demonstrated antimyeloma activity in triple class refractory multiple myeloma (MM) [Chari et al. NEJM 2019]. Selinexor synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in PI-sensitive and -resistant cell lines and produces high response rates in patients with PI refractory and non-refractory MM. (Bahlis et al. Blood 2018). In the phase 3 BOSTON study, the combination of once weekly (QW) selinexor, QW bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) in patients who had received 1-3 prior therapies led to a significantly (47%) longer median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.93 versus 9.46 months (HR 0.70; P=0.0075) compared to standard twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). In addition, SVd regimen produced higher response rates and deeper responses (ORR: 76.4% vs 62.3% and ≥CR 16.9% vs 10.2%) compared with Vd. The benefit with SVd was observed across all efficacy endpoints and was associated with lower incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy. Here we present subgroup analyses according to number of prior lines of therapy and prior treatment with lenalidomide (LEN). Methods BOSTON is an open-label, randomized phase 3 study in patients with MM comparing SVd (QW selinexor 100 mg, QW subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, and 20 mg twice weekly [BIW] dexamethasone), versus Vd (1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib BIW and dexamethasone 20 mg 4 x weekly [QIW]). Patients previously treated with a PI must have had at least a partial response (PR) to the PI and 6 months since the last PI regimen. The study primary end point was PFS. Results Of the 402 patients in the BOSTON study, 198 (49%) had 1 prior line versus 204 (51%) with 2-3 prior lines. In addition, 154 (38%) comprised the LEN treated subgroup, versus 248 (62%) in the LEN naïve subgroup. Of note, 41% patients received prior thalidomide, which is consistent with most of the BOSTON study patients being treated in the EU. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms across subgroups. A very good partial response (VGPR) or better to most recent prior line anti-MM therapy was more frequent in patients with 1 prior line of therapy (63% vs 41%) versus those with 2-3 prior lines of therapy. Patients with prior LEN therapy were more likely to have had 2-3 prior therapies (72.1%) compared with LEN naive patients (37.5%). As shown in the table, SVd was associated with longer PFS compared with Vd in all subgroups. Overall response rates (ORR) and times-to-next-treatment (TTNT) were statistically greater with SVd compared with Vd in all subgroups. Rates of very good partial response or better (VGPR) were statistically greater for SVd vs Vd in the LEN-naïve group and 1 prior treatment group. Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (a key secondary endpoint prespecified in the study) occurred less frequently across all SVd subgroups compared with Vd: LEN treated (21% SVd, 37% Vd, P=0.0166); LEN-naïve (21% SVd, 33% Vd, P=0.0252), 1 prior line (21% SVd, 33% Vd, P=0.0501); 2-3 prior lines (21% SVd, 36% Vd, P=0.0107). Adverse events of ≥grade 3 were more commonly reported in the SVd treatment arm than in the Vd arm, LEN treated (83% SVd, 57% Vd), LEN-naïve (76% SVd, 55% Vd), 1 prior line (77% SVd, 56% Vd), 2-3 prior lines (81% SVd, 56% Vd), and were mostly managed with dose modification and/or supportive treatment. Pneumonia occurred at comparable rates between treatment arms. There were no differences between subgroups in grade 3 adverse events. Conclusions In the BOSTON study, once-weekly SVd significantly improved PFS, ORR, TTNT and reduced rates of ≥grade 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of number of prior treatments or whether patients were previously treated with LEN. Adverse events were managed with dose modification and treatment-related discontinuation rates did not differ between the 2 regimens for any subgroup. The PFS of 16.6 months with SVd after 1 prior therapy, and the HR of 0.63 in patients with prior LEN treatment support the use of once-weekly SVd for the second line treatment of MM following a LEN-containing regimen. Table Disclosures Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Jagannath:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kryachok:Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, Acerta, AvbbVie, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Ro: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy. Gavriatopoulou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Auner:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leleu:BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Levy:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baylor University Med Center: Current Employment; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Anderson:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Arazy:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs >75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients >75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

ObjectiveTo predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies.MethodsA partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources.ResultsThe base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively.ConclusionsCombining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

Objective: The treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains challenging. The outcomes in highly pretreated populations are unsatisfactory and there is urgent need for novel and safe therapeutic approaches. Recently, daratumumab has been approved for RRMM with promising results even in monotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of single agent daratumumab outside a clinical trial. Patients and Methods: 14 patients with RRMM and significant pretreatment (median 4.5 previous lines) entered a specific healthcare program and received treatment with single agent daratumumab. They were followed for therapeutic response based on IMWG criteria, and incidence of adverse events. The data were collected using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies. Results: The overall response rate was 38.5%. 23.1% of patients reached very good partial response, 15.4% reached partial remission, 15.4% had minimal response, 38.5% had stable disease and 7.7% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 4.6 months and median overall survival was not achieved. The toxicities were mostly mild, only infectious complications and hematological toxicity reached grade III. Conclusion: We conclude that daratumumab has significant activity in highly pretreated RRMM even as a single agent, with an acceptable toxicity profile and survival impact.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignancy with varying survival outcomes and drivers of disease progression. Existing MM staging tools were developed using data from newly diagnosed patients. As patient characteristics and disease-related factors change between diagnosis and the initiation of second-line (2L) treatment, an unmet need exists for a tool that can evaluate risk of death at first relapse. We have developed a risk stratification algorithm (RSA) using data from patients with MM who were at 2L. Hazard ratios for independent predictors of overall survival (OS) were derived from a Cox models, and individual patient scores were calculated for total risk. K-adaptive partitioning for survival was used to stratify patients into groups based on their scores. Relative risk doubled with ascending risk group; median OSs for patients in group 1 (lowest risk)-4 (highest risk) were 61·6, 29·6, 14·2 and 5·9 months, respectively. Differences in OS between risk groups were significant. Similar stratification was observed when the RSA was applied to an external validation data set. In conclusion, we have developed a validated RSA that can quantify total risk, frailty risk and disease aggressiveness risk, and stratify patients with MM at 2L into groups with profoundly different survival expectations. ispartof: BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY vol:187 issue:4 pages:447-458 ispartof: location:England status: published