Search

Renal impairment (RI) is a relatively common complication of multiple myeloma, which increases in frequency as disease becomes more advanced and recovery of renal function becomes less likely as patients progress through lines of therapy. Clinical trials in the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) setting have not uniformly included patients with RI or robustly reported their outcomes. Here, we review existing data among patients with RI and RRMM across drug classes (including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and exportin-1 inhibitor) to provide an improved understanding of available treatment options for this important population. We highlight data from pivotal clinical trials, including data relating to renal response (as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group) and discuss real-world experiences in patients with RI, where applicable. Despite substantial advances in RRMM treatment, the presence of RI remains associated with reduced overall survival. Consistent inclusion of patients with RI, and uniform reporting of their outcomes, should be encouraged in future prospective trials of treatments for RRMM. © The Author(s), 2022.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown improved progression-free and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: ELOQUENT-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 185 hospitals, oncology practices, and research centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic myeloma and not candidates for high-dose therapy plus HSCT, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone using an interactive voice response system, stratified by the International Staging System (ISS; stage I-II vs III), age (

The randomized, phase 3 ICARIA-MM study investigated isatuximab (Isa) with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) versus Pd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥2 prior lines. This prespecified subgroup analysis examined efficacy in patients with renal impairment (RI; estimated glomerular filtration rate

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, also known as veno-occlusive disease (SOS/VOD), is a potentially life-threatening complication that can develop after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). While SOS/VOD may resolve within a few weeks in the majority of patients with mild-to-moderate disease, the most severe forms result in multiorgan dysfunction and are associated with a high mortality rate (>80%). Therefore, careful surveillance may allow early detection of SOS/VOD, particularly as the licensed available drug is proven to be effective and reduce mortality. The aim of this work is to propose an international consensus guideline for the treatment and prevention of SOS/VOD in adult patients, on behalf of an international expert group, This work was made possible thanks to the support of the Association for Training, Education, Research, in Hematology, Immunology and Transplantation (ATHERIT), which received an unrestricted educational grant from JAZZ pharmaceuticals

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562. © 2021, The Author(s).

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

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. © 2021 Elsevier 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.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (

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

Background: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2–3 vs >3) and age (

Introduction: The overall survival of patients with multiple myeloma has improved with the advent of novel agents; however, multiple myeloma remains incurable. Combinations of standard-of-care agents such as immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are increasingly used in earlier lines of therapy. Patients with disease that is refractory to multiple novel agents represent a population with high unmet medical need and for whom therapies with new mechanisms of action could be beneficial. Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) has demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the mechanism of action of melflufen, a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly delivers alkylating agents into tumor cells. It reviews key Phase I and II clinical trial data for melflufen in combination with dexamethasone as well as in triplet combinations with daratumumab or bortezomib. The safety profile of melflufen, which is characterized primarily by clinically manageable hematologic adverse events, is described. Expert opinion: Melflufen has potential to fill a gap in the myeloma treatment landscape by providing a new mechanism of action with clinically meaningful efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients refractory to multiple novel agents.

Lack of head-to-head trials highlights a need for comparative real-world evidence of proteasome inhibitors plus Rd. Methods: In this retrospective, US population-representative EHR study of RRMM patients initiating IRd, KRd, or VRd in line of therapy (LOT) ≥2 between 1/2014 and 9/30/2018, 664 patients were treated in LOT ≥2 with: IRd, n = 168; KRd, n = 208; VRd, n = 357. Median age was 71/65/71 years; 67%/70%/75% had a frailtymodified score of intermediate/frail; 20%/28%/13% had high cytogenetic risk in I-/K-/V-Rd groups. Risk of PI-triplet discontinuation was lower for I- vs. K-Rd (HR: 0.71) and I- vs. V-Rd (HR: 0.85); unadjusted, median TTNTs (months): 12.7/8.6/14.2 (LOT ≥2) and 16.8/9.5/14.6 (LOT 2–3) (I-/K-/V-Rd). Adjusted TTNT was comparable between I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 with a TTNT benefit among intermediate/frail patients for I- (HR: 0.70; P=0.04) and V- (HR: 0.73; P50% of patients are excluded. Individualized treatment based on patient characteristics, such as frailty status, is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population. © 2020, © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Background: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. Findings: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2–19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4–19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. Interpretation: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

Prolonging overall survival (OS) remains an unmet need in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In ELOQUENT-2 (NCT01239797), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ERd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). We report results from the pre-planned final OS analysis after a minimum follow-up of 70.6 months, the longest reported for an antibody-based triplet in RRMM. Overall, 646 patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs were randomized 1:1 to ERd or Rd. PFS and overall response rate were co-primary endpoints. OS was a key secondary endpoint, with the final analysis planned after 427 deaths. ERd demonstrated a statistically significant 8.7-month improvement in OS versus Rd (median, 48.3 vs 39.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95.4% Cl, 0.68–1.00]; P = 0.0408 [less than allotted α of 0.046]), which was consistently observed across key predefined subgroups. No additional safety signals with ERd at extended follow-up were reported. ERd is the first antibody-based triplet regimen shown to significantly prolong OS in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs. The magnitude of OS benefit was greatest among patients with adverse prognostic factors, including older age, ISS stage III, IMWG high-risk disease, and 2–3 prior LoTs. © 2020, The Author(s).

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation. Methods: Data were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. Results: A total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice-weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice-weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug-related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance. Conclusions: Ixazomib maintenance following ixazomib-based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

BACKGROUND Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) and forces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibits nuclear factor κB, and reduces oncoprotein messenger RNA translation, is a potential novel treatment for myeloma that is refractory to current therapeutic options. METHODS We administered oral selinexor (80 mg) plus dexamethasone (20 mg) twice weekly to patients with myeloma who had previous exposure to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and an alkylating agent and had disease refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory agent, and daratumumab (triple-class refractory). The primary end point was overall response, defined as a partial response or better, with response assessed by an independent review committee. Clinical benefit, defined as a minimal response or better, was a secondary end point. RESULTS A total of 122 patients in the United States and Europe were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and 123 were included in the safety population. The median age was 65 years, and the median number of previous regimens was 7; a total of 53% of the patients had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A partial response or better was observed in 26% of patients (95% confidence interval, 19 to 35), including two stringent complete responses; 39% of patients had a minimal response or better. The median duration of response was 4.4 months, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.6 months. Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typically grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 events were noted in up to 25% of patients, and no grade 4 events were reported). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% of the patients (grade 3 in 25% and grade 4 in 33%). Thrombocytopenia led to bleeding events of grade 3 or higher in 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS Selinexor-dexamethasone resulted in objective treatment responses in patients with myeloma refractory to currently available therapies. (Funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics; STORM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336815. © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

Background: The randomized phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and to date, has the longest follow-up of any monoclonal antibody in patients with RRMM. Methods: In this extended 4-year follow-up of the ELOQUENT-2 trial, the coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate as well as the secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing Ld-based triplet regimens to guide treatment selection, 4 randomized controlled trials—ELOQUENT-2, ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, and POLLUX—were indirectly compared to provide insight into the relative efficacy of these regimens in RRMM. Results: Data at 4 years were consistent with 2- and 3-year follow-up data: ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 29% versus Ld (hazard ratio, 0.71) while maintaining safety. The greatest PFS benefit among the assessed subgroups was observed in patients at the median time or further from diagnosis (≥3.5 years) with 1 prior line of therapy, who had a 44% reduction in the risk of progression/death, and in patients in the high-risk category, who had a 36% reduction in favor of ELd. This regimen also showed a relative PFS benefit that was maintained beyond 50 months. Conclusions: The sustained PFS benefit and long-term safety of ELd at 4 years, similar to those observed at 2 and 3 years, support ELd as a valuable therapeutic option for the long-term treatment of patients with RRMM. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society

Substantial improvements in survival have been seen in multiple myeloma (MM) over recent years, associated with the introduction and widespread use of multiple novel agents and regimens, as well as the emerging treatment paradigm of continuous or long-term therapy. However, these therapies and approaches may have limitations in the community setting, associated with toxicity burden, patient burden, and other factors including cost. Consequently, despite improvements in efficacy in the rigorously controlled clinical trials setting, the same results are not always achieved in real-world practice. Furthermore, the large number of different treatment options and regimens under investigation in various MM settings precludes the feasibility of obtaining head-to-head clinical trial data, and there is a temptation to use cross-trial comparisons to evaluate data across regimens. However, multiple aspects, including patient-related, disease-related, and treatment-related factors, can influence clinical trial outcomes and lead to differences between studies that may confound direct comparisons between data. In this review, we explore the various factors requiring attention when evaluating clinical trial data across available agents/regimens, as well as other considerations that may impact the translation of these findings into everyday MM management. We also investigate discrepancies between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness through a literature review of non-clinical trial data in relapsed/ refractory MM on novel agent−based regimens and evaluate these data in the context of phase 3 trial results for recently approved and commonly used regimens. We thereby demonstrate the complexity of interpreting data across clinical studies in MM, as well as between clinical studies and routine-care analyses, with the aim to help clinicians consider all the necessary issues when tailoring individual patients’ treatment approaches.

Despite remarkable improvements in outcome for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and frontline therapy becoming increasingly effective, with prolonged disease control, MM remains incurable and relapse remains an inevitability for the majority of patients. The past two decades have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number and variety of therapeutic options for MM, including the emergence of four novel classes of agents with distinct mechanisms of action and the approval of ten new individual agents. Treatment selection and sequencing are emerging as important new issues for consideration by clinicians when planning for the longer-term management of their MM patients. Additionally, the emerging treatment paradigms of triplet versus doublet therapy and the use of treat-to-progression and/or maintenance approaches are influencing the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). With the wealth of therapeutic options becoming available to us, it is important to try to establish recommended treatment options for RRMM patients to guide selection of subsequent therapies based on key factors of importance. Furthermore, the development of new agents with unique mechanisms of anti-myeloma activity remains a very high priority in the field. This chapter provides a succinct overview of the issues affecting the treatment of RRMM patients, including a summary of important recent data and recommendations for treatment approaches in different patient subgroups and in different disease settings. It also provides a longer-term perspective, examining how treatment of RRMM patients may evolve in parallel with the evolution of frontline therapy and with the emergence of next-generation novel agents in the future. © 2018, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Substantial improvements in survival have been seen in multiple myeloma (MM) over recent years, associated with the introduction and widespread use of multiple novel agents and regimens, as well as the emerging treatment paradigm of continuous or long-term therapy. However, these therapies and approaches may have limitations in the community setting, associated with toxicity burden, patient burden, and other factors including cost. Consequently, despite improvements in efficacy in the rigorously controlled clinical trials setting, the same results are not always achieved in real-world practice. Furthermore, the large number of different treatment options and regimens under investigation in various MM settings precludes the feasibility of obtaining head-to-head clinical trial data, and there is a temptation to use cross-trial comparisons to evaluate data across regimens. However, multiple aspects, including patient-related, disease-related, and treatment-related factors, can influence clinical trial outcomes and lead to differences between studies that may confound direct comparisons between data. In this review, we explore the various factors requiring attention when evaluating clinical trial data across available agents/regimens, as well as other considerations that may impact the translation of these findings into everyday MM management. We also investigate discrepancies between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness through a literature review of non-clinical trial data in relapsed/refractory MM on novel agent−based regimens and evaluate these data in the context of phase 3 trial results for recently approved and commonly used regimens. We thereby demonstrate the complexity of interpreting data across clinical studies in MM, as well as between clinical studies and routine-care analyses, with the aim to help clinicians consider all the necessary issues when tailoring individual patients’ treatment approaches. © 2018, The Author(s).

BACKGROUND: The immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide plus dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was investigatorassessed progressionfree survival. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were randomly assigned to the elotuzumab group (60 patients) or the control group (57 patients). After a minimum followup period of 9.1 months, the median progressionfree survival was 10.3 months in the elotuzumab group and 4.7 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the elotuzumab group as compared with the control group was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.86; P=0.008). The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab group as compared with 26% in the control group (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.49 to 7.11). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (13% in the elotuzumab group vs. 27% in the control group), anemia (10% vs. 20%), and hyperglycemia (8% vs. 7%). A total of 65% of the patients in each group had infections. Infusion reactions occurred in 3 patients (5%) in the elotuzumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with multiple myeloma in whom treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had failed, the risk of progression or death was significantly lower among those who received elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received pomalidomide plus dexamethasone alone. Copyright © 2018 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival benefit compared with placebo, bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 PANORAMA 1 (Panobinostat Oral in Multiple Myeloma 1) trial. Despite this benefit, patients in the panobinostat arm experienced higher rates of adverse events (AEs) and higher rates of discontinuation due to AEs. This PANORAMA 1 subanalysis examined AEs between 2 treatment phases of the study (TP1 and TP2), in which administration frequency of bortezomib and dexamethasone differed per protocol. The incidences of several key AEs were lower in both arms following the planned reduction of bortezomib dosing frequency in TP2. In the panobinostat arm, rates of thrombocytopenia (grade 3/4: TP1, 56·7%; TP2, 6·0%), diarrhoea (grade 3/4: TP1, 24·1%; TP2, 7·1%), and fatigue (grade 3/4: TP1, 16·3%; TP2, 1·8%) were lower in TP2 compared with TP1. Dose intensity analysis of panobinostat and bortezomib by cycle in the panobinostat arm showed reductions of both agent doses during cycles 1–4 due to dose adjustments for AEs. Exposure-adjusted analysis demonstrated a reduction in thrombocytopenia frequency in TP1 following dose adjustment. These results suggest that optimization of dosing with this regimen could improve tolerability, potentially leading to improved patient outcomes. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Background: Therapeutic advancements following the introduction of autologous stem cell transplantation and 'novel' agents have significantly improved clinical outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Increased life expectancy, however, has led to renewed concerns about the long-term risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs). This review outlines the most up-to-date knowledge of possible host-, disease-, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of SPMs in patients with MM, and provides practical recommendations to assist physicians. Design: A Panel of International Myeloma Working Group members reviewed the most relevant data published in the literature as full papers, or presented at meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, European Hematology Association, or International Myeloma Workshops, up to June 2016. Here, we present the recommendations of the Panel, based on this literature review. Results: Overall, the risk of SPMs in MM is low, multifactorial, and partially related to the length of patients' survival and MM intrinsic susceptibility. Studies suggest a significantly increased incidence of SPMs when lenalidomide is administered either following, or concurrently with, oral melphalan. Increased SPM incidence has also been reported with lenalidomide maintenance following high-dose melphalan, albeit to a lesser degree. In both cases, the risk of death from MM was significantly higher than the risk of death from SPMs, with lenalidomide possibly providing a survival benefit. No increase in SPM incidence was reported with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (without melphalan), or with bortezomib plus oral melphalan, dexamethasone, or thalidomide.Conclusion: In general, the risk of SPMs should not alter the current therapeutic decision-making process in MM. However, regimens such as lenalidomide plus dexamethasone should be preferred to prolonged exposure to lenalidomide plus oral melphalan. SPM risk should be carefully discussed with the patient in the context of benefits and risks of different treatment options. © The Author 2016.

Objectives: Heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma are susceptible to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Managing AEs are important to ensure patients continue therapy long enough to receive the best clinical benefit. Data from the MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 trials were pooled to further characterize the safety profile of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and AE management. Methods: This analysis included 1088 patients who received ≥ 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and progressed ≤ 60 days of last therapy. Patients received 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg/day on days 1-21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged > 75 years) weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thromboprophylaxis was required. Results: The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (56.2%), anemia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (25.8%), which occurred within the first few cycles of treatment. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 33.7% patients, of whom 13.9% had pneumonia, and 40.3% had neutropenia. Pomalidomide dose reductions or interruptions were reported in 24.2% and 66.0% of patients, respectively. AEs were managed by dose modifications and/or supportive care. Conclusions: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed an acceptable safety profile, and AEs were well managed according to study protocols and established guidelines. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Background Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone significantly increased median progression-free survival compared with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial. Here, we present the final overall survival analysis for this trial. Methods PANORAMA 1 is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma with one to three previous treatments. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive panobinostat (20 mg orally) or placebo, with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally), over two distinct treatment phases. In treatment phase 1 (eight 3-week cycles), patients received: panobinostat or placebo on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12; bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; and dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. During treatment phase 2 (four 6-week cycles with a 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule), panobinostat or placebo was given three times a week, bortezomib was administered once a week, and dexamethasone was given on the days of and following bortezomib administration. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01023308. Findings Between Jan 21, 2010, and Feb 29, 2012, 768 patients were enrolled into the study and randomly assigned to receive either panobinostat (n=387) or placebo (n=381), plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. At data cutoff (June 29, 2015), 415 patients had died. Median overall survival was 40·3 months (95% CI 35·0–44·8) in those who received panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus 35·8 months (29·0–40·6) in those who received placebo, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·78–1·14; p=0·54). Of patients who had received at least two previous regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug, median overall survival was 25·5 months (95% CI 19·6–34·3) in 73 patients who received panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus 19·5 months (14·1–32·5) in 74 who received placebo (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·68–1·50). Interpretation The overall survival benefit with panobinostat over placebo with bortezomib and dexamethasone was modest. However, optimisation of the regimen could potentially prolong treatment duration and improve patients' outcomes, although further trials will be required to confirm this. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 13.5 months in a protocol-specified interim analysis, 169 events of disease progression or death were observed (in 53 of 286 patients [18.5%] in the daratumumab group vs. 116 of 283 [41.0%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.52; P

Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd

Purpose: The aim of the International Myeloma Working Group was to develop practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma–related renal impairment (RI). Methods: Recommendations were based on published data through December 2015, and were developed using the system developed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Recommendations: All patients with myeloma at diagnosis and at disease assessment should have serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and electrolytes measurements as well as free light chain, if available, and urine electrophoresis of a sample from a 24-hour urine collection (grade A). The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, preferably, or the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula should be used for the evaluation of estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with stabilized serum creatinine (grade A). International Myeloma Working Group criteria for renal reversibility should be used (grade B). For the management of RI in patients with multiple myeloma, high fluid intake is indicated along with antimyeloma therapy (grade B). The use of high-cutoff hemodialysis membranes in combination with antimyeloma therapy can be considered (grade B). Bortezomib-based regimens remain the cornerstone of the management of myeloma-related RI (grade A). High-dose dexamethasone should be administered at least for the first month of therapy (grade B). Thalidomide is effective in patients with myeloma with RI, and no dose modifications are needed (grade B). Lenalidomide is effective and safe, mainly in patients with mild to moderate RI (grade B); for patients with severe RI or on dialysis, lena-lidomide should be given with close monitoring for hematologic toxicity (grade B) with dose reduction as needed. High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (with melphalan 100 mg/m2 to 140 mg/m2) is feasible in patients with RI (grade C). Carfilzomib can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 15 mL/min, whereas ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dex-amethasone can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 30 mL/min (grade A). © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Panobinostat is a potent pan-deacetylase inhibitor that affects the growth and survival of multiple myeloma (MM) cells through alteration of epigenetic mechanisms and protein metabolism. Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (PAN-BTZ-Dex) led to a significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Pbo-BTZ-Dex) in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractoryMMin the phase 3PANORAMA1 trial. This subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes in patients in the PANORAMA 1 trial based on prior treatment: A prior immunomodulatory drug (IMiD; n 5 485), prior bortezomib plus an IMiD (n 5 193), and ≥2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (n5147). Median PFS with PAN-BTZ-Dex vs Pbo-BTZ-Dex across subgroups was as follows: prior IMiD (12.3 vs 7.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.68), prior bortezomib plus IMiD (10.6 vs 5.8 months; HR, 0.52;95%CI, 0.36-0.76),and ≥2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (12.5 vs 4.7 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.72). Common grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities in patients who received PAN-BTZ-Dex across the prior treatment groups included thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, diarrhea, and asthenia/ fatigue. Incidence of on-treatment deaths among patients who received prior bortezomib and an IMiD (regardless of number of prior regimens) was similar between treatment arms. This analysis demonstrated a clear PFS benefit of 7.8 months with PAN-BTZ-Dex among patients who received ‡2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD, a population with limited treatment options and poorer prognosis. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01023308. © 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.

Recent developments in the treatment of multiple myeloma have led to improvements in response rates and to increased survival; however, relapse is inevitable in almost all patients. Recurrence of myeloma is typically more aggressive with each relapse, leading to the development of treatment-refractory disease, which is associated with a shorter survival. Several phase II and III trials have demonstrated the efficacy of recently approved agents in the setting of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, including immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, and proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib and carfilzomib. Currently, however, there is no standard treatment for patients with relapsed and/or refractory disease. This Review discusses the current treatment landscape for patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma and highlights disease-related and patient-related factors - such as pre-existing comorbidities or toxicities - that are important considerations for clinicians when selecting an appropriate treatment regimen.

Treatment in medical oncology is gradually shifting from the use of nonspecific chemotherapeutic agents toward an era of novel targeted therapy in which drugs and their combinations target specific aspects of the biology of tumor cells. Multiple myeloma (MM) has become one of the best examples in this regard, reflected in the identification of new pathogenic mechanisms, together with the development of novel drugs that are being explored from the preclinical setting to the early phases of clinical development. We review the biological rationale for the use of the most important new agents for treating MM and summarize their clinical activity in an increasingly busy field. First, we discuss data from already approved and active agents (including second- and third-generation proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents and alkylators). Next, we focus on agents with novel mechanisms of action, such as monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), cell cycle-specific drugs, deacetylase inhibitors, agents acting on the unfolded protein response, signaling transduction pathway inhibitors and kinase inhibitors. Among this plethora of new agents or mechanisms, some are specially promising: anti-CD38 MoAb, such as daratumumab, are the first antibodies with clinical activity as single agents in MM. Moreover, the kinesin spindle protein inhibitor Arry-520 is effective in monotherapy as well as in combination with dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients. Immunotherapy against MM is also being explored, and probably the most attractive example of this approach is the combination of the anti-CS1 MoAb elotuzumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, which has produced exciting results in the relapsed/refractory setting. © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited.