Search

The outcome of 221 patients with bulky (≥10 cm) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine and consolidative radiotherapy (RT) only in those with a positive end-of-treatment (EOT) positron emission tomography (PET) scan was evaluated. With a median follow-up of 9.6 years, 5- and 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) in EOT PET-negative cases were 94.0% and 90.4%, respectively, and in PET-positive cases, 5/10-year PFS was 64.6% (p < 0.001), with 15% overall receiving RT. Five-year PFS for Deauville (D) score DX/D1-3 was 93.6%, compared with D4 66.7% (p < 0.001) and D5 33.3% (p < 0.001). Omission of RT in EOT PET-negative cases is associated with excellent long-term outcomes in bulky cHL., (© 2024 The Author(s). British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Young patients ≤ 50 years old with multiple myeloma (MM) account for about 10% of cases and are underrepresented in the literature., Methods: We explored disease characteristics, treatments, and outcomes following modern therapies of young MM patients using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (CMRG) database. We included 493 patients ≤ 50 years old diagnosed with MM or plasma cell leukemia without concurrent amyloidosis or POEMS syndrome from January 1, 2010, to July 1, 2022., Results: The median age was 46 years old (range: 25.6-50). Most patients fell into the R-ISS II category (72.7%), and 24.1% had high-risk cytogenetics. The majority of patients (89.9%) received a proteasome inhibitor-based first-line treatment, 92.1% received a stem cell transplant, and 65.6% had maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Median follow-up from initial treatment to patients' last follow-up was 48.5 (range: 0-155) months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 45.0 months (95% CI: 40.2-50.0). Maintenance therapy post-ASCT improved median PFS to 52.3 months (95% CI: 43.1-68.2), compared to 23.6 months (95% CI: 20.0-34.8) without maintenance [p < 0.001]., Conclusion: Although the overall survival has not yet been reached in this young population, our reported median PFS of only 45 months highlights the urgent need to develop innovative treatments to induce more profound and durable responses., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Quadruplet regimens (anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with proteosome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory (IMID) drugs) are increasingly being investigated in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of our study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to measure the efficacy and toxicity of quadruplet regimens utilized in NDMM. Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, and meeting libraries from inception to January 24, 2024, in addition to ASCO conference abstracts 2024 were searched using terms reflecting MM and component of the quadruplet regimen. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared backbone regimens consisting of a PI and IMID versus the same regimen plus an anti-CD38 mAb in NDMM. We identified seven RCTs including 3716 patients. Compared to triplets, quadruplets increase the overall response rate (ORR, relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05), and progression free survival (PFS, hazard ratio [HR]] 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66). Quadruplets increase the rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity at 10-5 (RR 1.39, 95% 1.23-1.58) and at 10-6 (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36-1.94). Quadruplets improve overall survival (OS, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79). There was a slight increase in the rates of grade 3-4 infections (RR 1.22 [95% CI 1.07-1.39]) noted with quadruplets compared to triplets. Overall, in this meta-analysis quadruplets were associated with improved efficacy including ORR, MRD negativity, PFS and OS with a slight increase in infection rates. Quadruplet regimens represent a new standard of care particularly in transplant eligible NDMM., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Hematology.)

Purpose: The optimal management of stage II follicular lymphoma (FL) is unclear. Radiation therapy (RT) alone has been the gold standard treatment, but a proportion of patients relapse. We sought to characterize outcomes and prognostic factors for stage II FL treated with RT alone to identify a high-risk subgroup of patients who may benefit from treatment intensification., Methods: This was a population-based, province-wide, retrospective study. Included patients had grade 1-3A, non-mesenteric, stage IIA or IIAE FL diagnosed between 1986 and 2016 and treated with curative-intent (≥20 Gy) RT alone., Results: 102 patients were included. Median follow-up was 10.4 years (range, 0.3-22.3). Median age was 59 years (range, 33-86). Median greatest disease diameter was 3.6 cm (range, 1.5-11.5). Freedom from progression (FFP) was 60.3% at 5 years and 40.7% at 10 years. Overall survival (OS) was 89.2% at 5 years and 81.8% at 10 years. Greatest disease diameter of >3.6 cm was associated with inferior FFP (10-year FFP 34% vs. 47%, p  = 0.013) on univariable analysis and inferior FFP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, p  = 0.019) and inferior OS (HR 2.12, p  = 0.027) on multivariable analysis (MVA). Older age was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.08, unit = 1 year, p  < 0.001) on MVA., Conclusions: 40.7% of stage II FL patients treated with RT alone remained disease-free at 10 years. Greatest disease diameter >3.6 cm was associated with inferior FFP and OS, representing a novel prognostic indicator in this population that may help in the decision-making process on whether to complement RT with systemic therapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: David W. Scott has received grants from Roche. Alina S. Gerrie has received grants from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche Canada, consulting fees and honoraria from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, and Janssen, and support for travel expenses from Janssen. Diego Villa has received grants from Roche and AstraZeneca and honoraria from Roche, Merck, BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, BeiGene, and Novartis. Laurie H. Sehn has received grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc., and Teva, and consulting fees and honoraria from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc., AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Merck, Seagen, Teva, and TG Therapeutics. Kerry J. Savage has received grants from Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb, has received consulting fees and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and Seagen, participates on the data safety monitoring board of Regeneron, and participates on the steering committee of Beigene and AstraZeneca. Yi Xu, Belinda A. Campbell, Matthew Chan, Jessica Chan, Pedro Farinha, Christopher P. Venner, and Andrea C. Lo report no disclosures., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.)

In patients with multiple myeloma (MM), the presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities is associated with worse disease control and survival. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) does benefit these patients. Tandem transplantation has been explored as a means to deepen responses and further improve survival however, its role remains controversial. This is particularly true in the era of novel agent induction and post-transplant maintenance therapy. The aim of this study was to use the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database and examine a large cohort of real-world patients comparing the outcomes of tandem versus single ASCT specifically in high-risk patients receiving novel agent-based induction and post-transplant maintenance. The data for this study was derived retrospectively from a comprehensive national-level database of Canadian patients with MM. High-risk cytogenetics was defined as presence of del17p, t(4;14), or t(14;16). Those receiving allogeneic transplant were excluded. Tandem transplantation was defined as a second ASCT performed consecutively without interim relapse or progression after first ASCT. Those with relapse or progressive disease within 3 months of completing a first transplant were excluded. We compared response depth, progression-free, and overall survival (OS) based on single or tandem transplantation procedures. The impact of covariates of interest was also assessed. A total of 381 patients with high-risk cytogenetics were identified. A total of 242 received single and 139 patients received tandem transplants. All received post-transplant maintenance. The most common induction regimen for these patients was cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and steroids (CyBorD, 87%). Forty-one patients (10.8%) required reinduction prior to first ASCT. The best overall responses at any time were 98.3% (90.5% ≥ very good partial response [VGPR]) and 98.6% (89.9% ≥ VGPR) in the single and tandem ASCT groups, respectively. Survival outcomes were similar with the median progression-free survival for single or tandem ASCT of 35.2 and 35.3 months (P = .88) and the median OS were 92.6 and 88.9 months, respectively (P = .72). No statistically significant differences were seen based on type of cytogenetic abnormality or type of maintenance. This was confirmed on multivariate analysis. In the real-world setting, tandem ASCT does not improve outcomes for MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics. This may be driven by the use of effective pre- and post-ASCT therapies. The development of more potent induction and consolidation along with current nearly ubiquitous continuous maintenance therapies until disease progression does not support the use of a second high-dose procedure., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Exercise can help mitigate side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), particularly when initiated before HSCT. However, the exercise-related barriers, facilitators, and preferences of this population remain unclear., Objective: This study aimed to explore the patient experience to inform future implementation of a prehabilitation intervention., Interventions/methods: A 2-phase sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted using (1) cross-sectional survey and (2) focus groups. Survey questions aligned with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Focus group data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach, followed by inductive thematic analysis to generate themes that represented the exercise-related barriers, facilitators, and preferences of participants., Results: Twenty-six participants completed phase 1 (n = 22 with multiple myeloma). Fifty percent of participants (n = 13) were fairly/very confident in their ability to exercise pre-HSCT. Eleven participants completed phase 2. Exercise barriers included knowledge/skill limitations, inadequate healthcare provider support, and the emotional toll of treatment. Facilitators included social support and goals. Exercise preferences were related to 2 themes: (1) program structure (subthemes: prescription and scheduling, mode of delivery) and (2) support (subthemes: support from personnel, tailoring, and education)., Conclusion: Key exercise-related barriers included knowledge limitations, disease/treatment effects, and inadequate support. Prehabilitation should be tailored, flexible, and include education and a virtual or hybrid delivery model in this population., Implications for Practice: Nurses are well positioned to identify functional limitations and counsel and refer patients to exercise programming and/or physiotherapy services. Including an exercise professional in the pretransplant care team would provide key supportive care assistance for the nursing team., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable cancer mostly affecting older adults and is characterized by a series of remission inductions and relapses. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients using bortezomib/lenalidomide-based regimens in the Canadian real world as well as their outcomes in the second line. The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB) is a national database with input from multiple Canadian Centres with now up to 8000 patients entered. A total of 1980 transplant ineligible patients were identified in the CMRG-DB between the years of 2007-2021. The four most commonly used induction regimens are bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) (23%), cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (CyBorD) (47%), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) (24%), and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) (6%). After a median follow-up of 30.46 months (0.89-168.42), the median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) of each cohort are 23.5, 22.9, 34.0 months, and not reached (NR) and 64.1, 51.1, 61.5 months, and NR respectively. At the time of data cut-off, 1128 patients had gone on to second-line therapy. The mPFS2 based on first-line therapy, VMP, CyBorD, Rd, and VRd is 53.3, 48.4, 62.7 months, and NR respectively. The most common second-line regimens are Rd (47.4%), DRd (12.9%), CyBorD (10.3%), and RVd (8.9%) with a mPFS and a mOS of 17.0, 31.1, 15.4, and 14.0 months and 34.7, NR, 47.6, 33.4 months, respectively. This study represents the real-world outcomes in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible myeloma patients in Canada. The spectra of therapy presented here reflect the regimens still widely used around the world. While this is sure to change with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies now reflecting a new standard of care in frontline therapy, this cohort is reflective of the type of multiple myeloma patient currently experiencing relapse in the real-world setting., Competing Interests: Kaedbey: Honoraria: Janssen, BMS, FORUS, Sanofi, and Pfizer. Reece: Research funding: Janssen, Takeda, BMS, and Millennium; Consultancy:  Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and BMS; Honoraria: BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Pfizer, and GSK. Venner:  Honoraria: Janssen, BMS, Pfizer, Abbvie, Sanofi, Forus, and GSK. McCurdy: Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. Chu: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Amgen; Research funding: BMS/Celgene and Miltenyi. Louzada: Honoraria: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Pfizer. Jimenez‐Zepeda: Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Merck, and BMS. Mian: Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK Awards: HHS Research Early Career Award from Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation. Song: Honoraria: Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, Forus, Amgen, GSK, Gilead, and Novartis. Sebag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees: Janssen Inc., Amgen Canada, Takeda Canada, and Celgene Canada. Stakiw: Honoraria: Janssen, FORUS Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Sanofi. White: Honoraria: Amgen, Antengene, BMS, Forus, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. Reiman: Consulting/honoraria/research: Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, Takeda, Pfizer, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca. Aslam: Honoraria: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, and Celgene. Bergstrom: Honoraria: Janssen and BMS. Research funding: BMS. Kotb: Honoraria: Akcea, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, Celgene, Pfizer, and Takeda; Research funding: Merck and Sanofi; Current equity holder in a private company: Karyopharm. LeBlanc: Advisory committees: BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, and FORUS Therapeutics; Honoraria: Pfizer, (© 2024 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDC-ASCT) is standard therapy for metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) in patients whose disease progresses during or after conventional chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of HDC-ASCT in relapsed mGCT patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, over the past two decades., Methods: Patients with mGCTs who received HDC-ASCT at two provincial cancer referral centers from 2000-2018 were identified from institutional databases. Baseline clinical and treatment characteristics were collected, as well as overall survival (OS ) and disease-free survival (DFS). Relevant prognostic variables were analyzed., Results: Forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 28 years (range 19-56). A majority (95%) had non-seminoma histology and testis/retroperitoneal primary (84%). Twenty patients (47%) had poor-risk disease, as per The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC), at start of first-line chemotherapy. HDC-ASCT was used as second-line therapy in 65% of patients, and 58% of ASCT patients received tandem transplants. Median followup after ASCT was 22 months (range 2-181). At last followup, 42% of patients were alive without disease, including 3/7 (43%) of patients with primary mediastinal disease. Two-year and five-year DFS/OS ratios were 44%/65% and 38%/45%, respectively. Median OS and DFS for all patients were 30.0 months (13.3-46.6) and 8.0 months (0.9-15.1), respectively., Conclusions: We found that HDC-ASCT is an effective salvage therapy in mGCT, consistent with existing literature. Patients appeared to benefit regardless of primary site. Although limited by small sample size, we found a numerical difference in DFS and OS between second- and third-line HDC-ASCT and single vs. tandem ASCT.

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains an important option for eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients as part of initial therapy. Using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (CMRG) national database, we examined the details and outcomes of ASCT performed as first-line therapy in eligible Canadian MM patients between 2007 to 2021. We included 3821 patients with 72% receiving CyBorD induction and 2061 patients receiving maintenance, consisting of lenalidomide +/- steroids in 78.3%. The median PFS and OS for patients given a single ASCT were 35.4 and 126 months. Those receiving a second induction regimen had significantly inferior outcomes, although when maintenance was used, results were comparable regardless of the number of induction regimens administered (median PFS 55.3 vs 51.1 months [p = 0.11]; median OS 158.6 vs not yet reached [p = 0.13]). Consolidation patients had a longer median PFS (55.3 vs 34.4 months [p = 0.001]), but no significant gain in median OS (p = 0.065). Patients who received lenalidomide-based maintenance experienced a median PFS of 53.7 months and OS of 159 months. In the multivariable analysis, use of any type of maintenance therapy vs no maintenance was associated with a lower risk of progression (HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.47-0.57)) and death (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.51-0.67)). This real-world study demonstrates that, overall, first-line treatment sequence in transplant-eligible patients produces a median OS of ≥10 years. It also highlights the contribution of post-ASCT maintenance, particularly lenalidomide given until progression., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n  = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n  = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) ( n  = 351) or placebo-Rd ( n  = 354) were evaluated post hoc . Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS ( n  = 511) or DOR ( n  = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome., Competing Interests: Paul G. Richardson: Consultancy: BMS/Celgene, Takeda, GSK, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Karyopharm, AstraZeneca, Novartis; Research funding: Oncopeptides, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Karyopharm. Nizar J. Bahlis: Honoraria and advisory board member: Karyopharm, Genentech, Janssen, BMS, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer; Research funding: Pfizer. Darrell White: Honoraria: Amgen, Antengene, BMS/Celgene, FORUS Therapeutics, Sanofi, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, Karyopharm. Lionel Karlin: Honoraria: Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, BMS/Celgene, Takeda; Advisory board member: Janssen, Amgen, GSK, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Sanofi. Sung‐Soo Yoon: Member of advisory board: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron; Research funding: Roche‐Genentech, Kyowa‐Kirin, Yuhan Pharma. Christopher P. Venner: Honoraria: Takeda, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, AbbVie, FORUS Therapeutics. Kenshi Suzuki: Consultancy: Amgen, Takeda, BMS; Research funding: BMS; Honoraria: BMS, Amgen, Takeda, ONO, Novartis, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen. Hirohiko Shibayama: Research funding: Celgene, Ono, AbbVie, Eisai, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, Essential Pharma Japan, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, HUYABIO International; Honoraria: Ono, Takeda, AbbVie, Eisai, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Celgene, SymBio, Kyowa Kirin. Xiaoquan Zhang, Miguel Villarreal, Philip Twumasi‐Ankrah: Employee: Takeda. Richard Labotka: Employee and equity holder: Takeda. Robert M. Rifkin: Member of board of directors/advisory committee: Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Coherus, Fresenius‐Kabi, Sanofi, Takeda, Karyopharm; Current employment and equity holder: McKesson. Sagar Lonial: Consultancy: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Takeda, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron; Research funding: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Takeda; Honoraria: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, GSK, Takeda, AbbVie, Merck; Member of board of directors/advisory committee: TG Therapeutics; Ownership of stock/shares: TG Therapeutics. Shaji K. Kumar: Research funding: Celgene, Adaptive, Sanofi, AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, KITE, Merck, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche; Advisory board member: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive, KITE, MedImmune/AstraZeneca; Member of independent review committee: Oncopeptides. Philippe Moreau: Consultancy and member of advisory board: Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, AbbVie, GSK. Thierry Facon, Fritz Offner, Lotfi Benboubker, Eric Voog, and S. Vincent Rajkumar have no conflict of interest to declare., (© 2023 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

While most patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) receive initial therapy, reported attrition rates are high. Understanding attrition rates and characteristics of patients not receiving subsequent therapy is useful for MM stakeholders. We performed an analysis of attrition rates in a large disease-specific database of patients with newly diagnosed MM who received at least one line of therapy between Jan 1/10-Dec 31/20. Attrition was defined as failure to receive a subsequent line of therapy despite progression of MM or due to death. A total of 5548 patients were identified, 3111 autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) patients and 2437 non-ASCT. In the ASCT cohort, the attrition rate was 7% after line 1, 12% after line 2, and 23% after line 3. In non-ASCT patients, the attrition rate was 19% after line 1, 26% after line 2, and 40% after line 3. Death was the dominant contributor to attrition across all cohorts, with a minority of patients alive with progressive disease in the absence of further therapy at each line. Multivariable analysis identified older age, shorter time to progression, and inferior response as independent risk factors for attrition. Our data show that attrition rates increase with each line of therapy and are higher in non-ASCT patients but are appreciably lower than previously reported. This study supports a revision of the previous definition of attrition, demonstrating that most patients who do not receive subsequent therapy are either continuing their current therapy and/or are in remission off-treatment rather than being irreversibly lost to attrition., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Supervision, tailoring, and flexibility have been proposed as key program elements for delivering successful exercise programs for people with multiple myeloma (MM). However, no studies to date have evaluated the acceptability of an intervention employing these components. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a virtually supported exercise program and eHealth application for people with MM., Methods: A qualitative description approach was used. One-on-one interviews were conducted with participants who completed the exercise program. Content analysis was used to analyze verbatim transcripts from interviews., Results: Twenty participants were interviewed (64.9 ± 6.7 years of age, n = 12 females). Participants had positive perceptions of the exercise program. Two themes emerged related to strengths/limitations: One Size Does Not Fit All (sub-themes: Supportive & Responsive Programming and Diverse Exercise Opportunities), and App Usability. Supportive and Responsive Programming was a main strength of the program, characterized as programming that was tailored, involved active support, and delivered by appropriate personnel. The inclusion of Diverse Exercise Opportunities was also regarded as a strength, as it accommodated the preferences of all participants. Related to App Usability, participants felt the app was simple and user friendly but had a few less intuitive components., Conclusion: The virtually supported exercise program and eHealth application were acceptable for people with MM. Programs should employ tailoring, active support, and appropriate personnel to bolster acceptability and include both supervised and flexible exercise formats. eHealth apps should be simple to use so technology proficiency is not a barrier to participation., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database, a retrospective study of 167 newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that received lenalidomide-dexamethasone as front-line treatment was conducted to understand the impact of lenalidomide dosing. Starting dose modifications were common, 42% of patients started on lenalidomide <25 mg with normal renal function. During treatment course, 35% of patients required further dose reduction. Dose reductions in the first year did not have an impact on progression free survival or overall survival. Further studies need to be conducted to understand the impact of dosing strategies of anti-MM agents in the real world., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: eHealth exercise interventions have the unique ability to leverage the benefits of in-person programming (tailoring and supervision) with the benefits of home programming (flexibility). There may be a role for eHealth-delivered exercise for people with multiple myeloma (MM), as exercise tailoring and supervision are critical for successful outcomes due to the significant impacts/risks of myeloma-related side effects. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a 12-week virtually supported eHealth exercise program., Methods: Participants with MM completed a 12-week virtually supported home exercise program involving virtually supervised group workouts, independent workouts, and aerobic exercise. Tailoring was facilitated by the functionality of HEAL-Me, a novel eHealth app. Participants completed virtual fitness assessments and questionnaires at baseline and week 12., Results: Twenty-nine participants consented, 26 completed all follow-up testing (90%). Exercise adherence was 90% (group), 83% (independent), and 90% (aerobic). No serious adverse events (grade ≥3) occurred. Significant improvements were found for quality of life and physical fitness. There was a high level of program/app satisfaction: 96% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the exercise program was beneficial, 93% found it enjoyable, 89% were satisfied or very satisfied with delivery through the HEAL-Me app, and 48% felt that the eHealth program helped them manage cancer-related symptoms and side-effects., Conclusion: An eHealth intervention that is individually tailored and includes virtual supervision and active support from the healthcare team is feasible and acceptable to people with MM. The findings from this study warrant investigation using a large-scale randomized controlled trial., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

There is a lack of consensus on therapy sequencing in previously treated multiple myeloma, particularly after anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) therapy. Earlier reports on selinexor (X) regimens demonstrated considerable efficacy in early treatment, and after anti-BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapy. Here, we present data from 11 heavily pretreated patients who predominantly received BCMA-antibody-drug conjugate therapy. We observe that X-containing regimens are potent and achieve durable responses with numerically higher overall response and clinical benefit rates, as well as median progression free survival compared to patients' prior anti-BCMA therapies, despite being used later in the treatment course. In an area of evolving unmet need, these data reaffirm the efficacy of X-based regimens following broader anti-BCMA therapy., Competing Interests: Muhamed Baljevic ‐ Consultancy: BMS/Celgene, Cardinal Health; Sanofi‐Genzyme. Advisory Boards: Oncopeptides, Janssen Research, Karyopharm, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi‐Genzyme. Speaker: NCCN, CurioScience, AJH. Cristina Gasparetto ‐ Leadership: Celgene. Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie/Genentech; Celgene; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Karyopharm Therapeutics; Sanofi. Speaker: GlaxoSmithKline; Karyopharm Therapeutics; Sanofi. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene; Karyopharm Therapeutics. Gary J. Schiller ‐ clinical research support from KaryopharmSascha A. Tuchman ‐ Consulting: Caelum, Sanofi, Shattuck Labs, Janssen; Research support: Karyopharm, Sanofi, Caelum, Janssen. Natalie S. Callander ‐ Research Funding: Cellectar. Suzanne Lentzsch ‐ Leadership: Caelum Biosciences. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Caelum Biosciences. Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie/Genentech; Amgen; Caelum Biosciences; Celularity; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Sanofi; Sorrento Therapeutics; Takeda. Speaker: Clinical Care Options/NCCN; PeerView. Research Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics; Sanofi. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent 11‐1F4 mAb for use in AL Amyloidosis. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen. Jorge Monge ‐ Consultancy for BMS, Research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics. Rami Kotb ‐ Research funding: Merck, Sanofi. Ownership/Share holder: Karyopharm. Honoraria: Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer. Nizar J. Bahlis ‐ Consultancy and advisory board: BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Genentech, Sanofi, Karyopharm. Research funding: PfizerDarrell White‐ Amgen, Antengene, Celgene/BMS, Forus, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Takeda: honoraria, consultancyChristine I. Chen ‐ Consulting or Advisory Role ‐ Abbvie; AstraZeneca; Bristol‐Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences; Janssen; Novartis; Research Funding ‐ Gilead Sciences. Heather J. Sutherland ‐ Honoraria ‐ Amgen; Bristol‐Myers Squibb; Celgene; Genzyme; Janssen; Takeda. Consulting or advisory role ‐ Amgen; Bristol‐Myers Squibb; Celgene; Janssen; Sanofi; Takeda. Sumit Madan ‐ Speaker bureau: Janssen, BMS Ad hoc advisory board/consultancy: Janssen, Takeda, Oncopeptide, Pfizer. Richard LeBlanc‐ Consultancy/advisory board: BMS Canada; Janssen Inc.; Amgen Canada; Takeda Canada; Sanofi Canada. Michael Sebag ‐ Honoraria: Amgen; Bristol‐Myers Squibb; Celgene; Janssen‐Ortho; Karyopharm Therapeutics; Novartis; Takeda. Research funding: Janssen. Patents, Royalties, Other. Intellectual Property: Patent but with no associated royalties or profit. Christopher P. Venner ‐ Honoraria: Amgen; Bristol‐Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Sanofi; Takeda. William I. Bensinger ‐ Speakers bureau: Janssen, BMS, Amgen, Takeda, SanofiDane R. Van Domelen, Ohad S. Bentur, and Chris Zhang are employees of Karyopharm Therapeutics. Andrew DeCastro, Jatin J. Shah, and Michael G. Kauffman are former employees of Karyopharm Therapeutics. Sharon Shacham is a former employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics and holds patents (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide‐containing nuclear transport modulators and uses and holding pending patents (PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) on hydrazide‐containing nuclear transport modulators and uses. Brea Lipe ‐ Consultant for BMS, Janssen, GSK., (© 2022 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Carfilzomib is an active and commonly used treatment in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database, we performed a retrospective observational study of patients treated with carfilzomib for relapse of MM in a real-world setting in Canada between years 2007 and 2020. A total of 445 patients were included in this study: the doublet (Kd/p, n  = 218) and triplets (KCd, n  = 88; KRd, n  = 99; KPd/p, n  = 40). One hundred and twenty-two (27%) received carfilzomib-based treatment in line 2, 133 (30%) in line 3, 90 (20%) in line 4, and 100 (23%) in line 5 or higher. Carfilzomib was dosed weekly in 40% of patients and twice weekly in 60%. The overall response rate of the entire cohort was 57.7%, with 33.6% of patients achieving very good partial response or better. Median progression-free survival for the overall cohort was 6.3 months with overall survival 19.7 months. This study provides a benchmark for carfilzomib-based regimens in the real world, demonstrating that these regimens are effective in treating patients with relapsed MM., Competing Interests: Arleigh McCurdy: honoraria—BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. Martha Louzada: honoraria—Janssen, BMS, Amgen, and Pfizer. Christopher P. Venner: honoraria—Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda; research funding—BMS and Amgen. Victor H. Jimenez‐Zepeda: honoraria—Janssen, Takeda, Merck, and BMS. Richard LeBlanc: membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees—BMS Canada, Janssen Inc., Amgen Canada, Takeda Canada, and Sanofi Canada. Michael Sebag: membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees—Janssen Inc., Amgen Canada, Takeda Canada, and BMS Canada. Kevin Song: research funding—BMS; honoraria—BMS, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. Darrell White: honoraria—Amgen, Antengene, BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. Hira Mian: honoraria—BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK; awards—HHS Research Early Career Award from Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation; research funding—Janssen. Rami Kotb: research funding—Merck and Sanofi; ownership/share holder—Karyopharm; honoraria—BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, and Merck. Donna Reece: research funding—Otsuka, BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Merck, BMS, and Millennium; consultancy—BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Karyopharm, and Takeda; honoraria—BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. All remaining authors have declared no financial or perceived conflicts of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Considerable progress has been made in therapeutic options for multiple myeloma (MM). Understanding the current landscape of MM treatment options and associated outcomes in the real world is important in providing key insights into clinical and knowledge gaps which could be targeted for further optimization., Methods: The Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB) is a prospectively maintained disease-specific database with >7000 patients. The objective of this study was to describe the trends in the treatment landscape and outcomes including early mortality, time to next treatment, and overall survival (OS) in each line of treatment stratified by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) receipt among newly-diagnosed MM patients in Canada between 2007 and 2018., Results: A total of 5154 patients were identified among which 3030 patients (58.8%) received an upfront ASCT and 2124 (41.2%) did not. At diagnosis, the median age was 64 years and 58.6% were males. Bortezomib and lenalidomide were most frequently used (>50%) in first and second-line treatment respectively among both the ASCT and non-ASCT cohort. The median OS was 122.0 months (95% Cl 115.0-135.0 months) and 54.3 months (95% CI 50.8-58.8 months) for the ASCT and non-ASCT cohort respectively with an incremental decrease in OS in each subsequent line of treatment., Conclusion: We present the largest study to date in the Canadian landscape showing the characteristics, therapy usage, and outcomes among MM patients. This information will be critical in benchmarking current outcomes and provide key insight into areas of unmet needs and gaps for improvement of MM patients nationally., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Daratumumab (dara) has significantly altered the therapeutic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), especially in the relapsed setting. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of dara-containing regimens in the Canadian real-world setting among relapsed and refractory MM available within the national Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB). A total of 583 MM patients who received dara-based therapy in second-line or later treatment were included. After a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 13.1 and 32.9 months, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 23.5 and 49.1 months in second-line treatment and decreased to 12.8 and 43.0 months in third-line and 7.0 and 20.5 months in fourth-line treatment respectively. Dara in monotherapy with or without corticosteroids after a median of four prior lines of therapy resulted in a median PFS of 3.9 months and a median OS of 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib, lenalidomide or pomalidomide to dara resulted in an improved median PFS and OS of 8.3 and 26.2 months; 26.8 and 43.0 months; and 9.7 and 31.4 months respectively. These retrospective data from the CMRG-DB suggest that outcomes are superior when dara is used in combination and in earlier lines of treatment., (© 2022 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10 -5 ) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The treatment of multiple myeloma has dramatically improved due to the availability of novel therapies that are highly effective and are quickly moving into first-line therapy. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) recently recommended that patients who receive daratumumab should only be eligible to receive either carfilzomib or pomalidomide but not both, for relapsed MM. In order to assess the efficacy of these two agents in the relapsed setting, we utilized our national myeloma database. A total of 121 patients were reviewed, 49 patients received CAR- before POM-based (CAR-POM), and 73 patients received POM- before CAR-based (POM-CAR) therapy. In the groups selected, the median PFS was 4.93 months (95% CI, 2.76-7.07) and 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.75-6.94) for CAR-POM and POM-CAR, respectively. The median OS for patients treated with CAR-POM was 11.01 months (95% CI, 4.50-19.13), and for patients treated with POM-CAR the median OS was 10.98 months (95% CI, 8.98-19.17). In this real-world observational study, we demonstrated that both CAR- and POM-based therapies, irrespective of the order in which they were used, were effective treatment options for patients with advanced relapsed MM.

Background: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs), including carfilzomib, potentiate the activity of selinexor, a novel, first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in preclinical models of multiple myeloma (MM)., Methods: The safety, efficacy, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor (80 or 100 mg) + carfilzomib (56 or 70 mg/m 2 ) + dexamethasone (40 mg) (XKd) once weekly (QW) was evaluated in patients with relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) not refractory to carfilzomib., Results: Thirty-two patients, median prior therapies 4 (range, 1-8), were enrolled. MM was triple-class refractory in 38% of patients and 53% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain 1q. Common treatment-related adverse events (all/Grade 3) were thrombocytopenia 72%/47% (G3 and G4), nausea 72%/6%, anaemia 53%/19% and fatigue 53%/9%, all expected and manageable with supportive care and dose modifications. MTD and RP2D were identified as selinexor 80 mg, carfilzomib 56 mg/m 2 , and dexamethasone 40 mg, all QW. The overall response rate was 78% including 14 (44%) ≥ very good partial responses. Median progression-free survival was 15 months., Conclusions: Weekly XKd is highly effective and well-tolerated. These data support further investigation of XKd in patients with MM., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38 is a recent class of drugs introduced into the multiple myeloma therapeutic landscape. While clinical trial data have shown a remarkable impact on outcomes, the efficacy of daratumumab combination therapies in specific clinically relevant subgroups including among patients refractory to lenalidomide maintenance remains unknown., Methods: In this study, retrospective data were reviewed from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group and the German Munster Myeloma databases to identify patients that received daratumumab in combination with pomalidomide (DPd), lenalidomide (DRd), and bortezomib (DVd) in a population that had relapsed on lenalidomide maintenance postautologous stem cell transplant. The primary aim of the study was to look at outcomes of these patients in different daratumumab combinations., Results: A total of 73 patients were identified. The median age of the patients at the time of daratumumab initiation was 60 (38-72) and 64.4% ( n = 47) were men. In the selected cohort, 43.8% ( n = 32) were treated with DRd, 31.5% ( n = 23) with DVd, and 24.7% ( n = 18) with DPd regimen. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the entire cohort was 15.8 months (95% CI, 12.9-37.1 months). The median PFS of the individual regimens was as follows: DPd 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.7-not reached), DRd 21.7 months (95% CI, 11.6-not reached), and DVd 12.9 months (95% CI, 3.1-not reached)., Conclusions: Daratumumab-containing therapies are effective regimens in patients progressing on lenalidomide maintenance. Additional studies are required to decide the optimal regimen post-lenalidomide maintenance., Competing Interests: HM: Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. Awards: Research Early Career Award from Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation. Research funding: Janssen. CV: Honoraria: Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. Research funding: Celgene and Amgen. VJ-Z: Honoraria: BMS, Amgen, Takeda, and Janssen. AM: Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and GSK. MS: membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees: Janssen Inc., Amgen Canada, Takeda Canada, and Celgene Canada. KS: Research funding: Celgene. Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. RL: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees: Celgene; Canada; Janssen Inc.; Amgen Canada; Takeda Canada; Research Funding: Celgene; White: Honoraria and consultancy: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda; Louzada: Honoraria: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Pfizer; Kotb: Research funding: Merck, Sanofi. Ownership/Share holder: Karyopharm. Honoraria: Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck; Reece: Research funding: Otsuka, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Merck, BMS, and Millennium. Consultancy: Celgene, Jansen, Amgen, Karyopharm, and Takeda. Honoraria: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and GSK. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Mian, Eisfeld, Venner, Masih-Khan, Kardjadj, Jimenez-Zepeda, Khandanpour, Lenz, McCurdy, Sebag, Song, LeBlanc, White, Stakiw, Reiman, Louzada, Aslam, Kotb, Gul and Reece.)

Background: Despite the improved awareness of cardiac amyloidosis among clinicians, its incidence and prevalence is not well-described in a community setting. We sought to investigate the incidence and prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis in the community., Methods and Results: In the adult population of Alberta, we examined 3 cohorts: (1) probable cases of cardiac amyloidosis: the presence of physician-assigned diagnosis of amyloidosis (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10 code E85; ICD-9 277.3) and 1 or more health care encounter for heart failure (HF) (ICD-10 I50; ICD-9 428); (2) possible cardiac amyloidosis: the presence of clinical phenotypes suggestive of amyloidosis; and (3) a comparator HF cohort without amyloidosis. Between 2004 and 2018, 982 of the 145,329 patients with HF were identified as probable cardiac amyloidosis. During the same period, the incidence rates of probable cardiac amyloidosis increased from 1.38 to 3.69 per 100,000 person-years and the prevalence rates increased from 3.42 to 14.85 per 100,000 person-years (P trend < .0001). Patients with probable cardiac amyloidosis were more likely to be male, have a higher comorbidity burden, greater health care use, and poorer outcomes as compared with patients with HF without amyloidosis. A much larger group of patients was identified as possible cardiac amyloidosis (n = 46,255), with similar increase in prevalence from 2004 to 2018 (from 416 to 850 per 100,000 person-years)., Conclusions: The incidence and prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis has increased over the last decade. Given the advent of new therapies for cardiac amyloidosis and considering their high cost, it is imperative to devise strategies to screen, identify, and track patients with cardiac amyloidosis from administrative databases., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival., Methods: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172., Findings: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group., Interpretation: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TF received payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Roche, and Takeda. SKK received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen, Janssen, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Takeda, and TeneoBio; and consulted for or participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Antengene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche-Genentech, Secure Biotherapeutics, and Takeda. TP received consulting fees from Celgene and Janssen; received payment or honoraria for educational events from Janssen; received payment for expert testimony from CSL Behring, Oncopeptides, and Takeda; and holds stock or stock options in Novo Nordisk. RZO received support for the present manuscript from Janssen; received laboratory research funding from Asylia Therapeutics, BioTheryX, and Heidelberg Pharma; received clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; received royalties or licenses for, has patents planned, issued or pending for, and holds stock or stock options in Asylia Therapeutics; received consulting fees from EcoR1 Capital; and participated on an advisory board for Amgen, BioTheryX, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite, Neoleukin, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Takeda. PM received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. NB received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Pfizer; participated on an independent review committee for Janssen, Karyopharm, and Legend Biotech; received honoraria for educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen; and participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. HQ received grants or contracts from Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, and Sanofi; and had a leadership or fiduciary role in advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. HG received grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation, Janssen, Johns Hopkins University, and Sanofi; received consulting fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Incyte, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Molecular Partners, MundiPharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. MOD received consulting fees from Janssen; has several patents planned, issued, or pending relating to the use of natural killer cells and sialyltransferase inhibition in the treatment of cancer; participated on an advisory board for Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; serves as a director of ONK Therapeutics; and holds stock or stock options in ONK Therapeutics and Carrick Therapeutics. AP received grants or contracts from Sanofi and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for presentations and educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for a speakers bureau from Janssen and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen and Sanofi. CPV received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. KW received honoraria from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. NR served in an advisory role for Amgen, bluebird bio, Caribou, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immuneel. MM received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received travel accommodations from Janssen and Takeda. LF received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and received payment or honoraria for educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. TA is an employee of and holds equity in Genmab. JW and RVR are employees of Janssen. CMU, BT, MD, and JV are employees of Janssen; and hold equity in Johnson & Johnson. SZU received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda; and received personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, MundiPharma, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda. SB, HN, CH, JRM, MT, and XL declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lenalidomide is an important component of initial therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, either as maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or as first-line therapy with dexamethasone for patients' ineligible for ASCT (non-ASCT). This retrospective study investigated treatment patterns and outcomes for ASCT-eligible and -ineligible patients who relapsed after lenalidomide as part of first-line therapy, based on data from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database for patients treated between January 2007 and April 2019. Among 256 patients who progressed on lenalidomide maintenance therapy, 28.5% received further immunomodulatory derivative-based (IMiD-based) therapy (lenalidomide/pomalidomide) without a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (bortezomib/carfilzomib/ixazomib), 26.2% received PI-based therapy without an IMiD, 19.5% received both an IMiD plus PI, 13.5% received daratumumab-based regimens, and 12.1% underwent salvage ASCT. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longest for daratumumab-based therapy (22.7 months) and salvage ASCT (23.4 months) and ranged from 6.6 to 7.3 months for the other treatments (P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was also longest for daratumumab and salvage ASCT. A total of 87 non-ASCT patients received subsequent therapy, with 66.7% receiving bortezomib-based therapy and 13.8% receiving other PI-based therapy. Median PFS was 15.4 and 24.8 months for bortezomib-based and other PI-based therapy, respectively (P = .404). During most of the study period, daratumumab was not funded; in this setting, switching to a different therapeutic class following relapse on lenalidomide produced the longest remissions for non-ASCT patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine optimum treatment following relapse on lenalidomide, especially in the light of increased access to daratumumab., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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

Background: The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data., Methods: The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020)., Results: The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange., Conclusions: High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response., Results: A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P<0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy., Conclusions: Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

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 (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The MCRN-003/CCTGMYX.1 is a single arm phase II trial of weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (wKCd), exploring a convenient immunomodulator (IMiD)-free regimen in relapsed myeloma. Weekly carfilzomib (20/70 mg/m 2 ), dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 was delivered over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response after four cycles. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, response depth, PFS and OS. Exploratory endpoints included the impact of cytogenetics, prior therapy exposure and serum free light chain (sFLC) escape; 76 patients were accrued. The ORR was 85% (68% ≥very good partial response [VGPR] and 29% ≥complete response [CR]). The median OS and PFS were 27 and 17 months respectively. High-risk cytogenetics conferred a worse ORR (75% vs. 97%, p = .013) and median OS (18 months vs. NR, p = .002) with a trend toward a worse median PFS (14 vs. 22 months, p = .06). Prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) or lenalidomide did not influence OS or PFS. The sFLC was noted in 15% of patients with a median PFS of 17 months when included as a progression event. The most common ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events were infectious (40%), vascular (17%) and cardiac (15%). The wKCD is a safe and effective regimen in relapse, especially for patients ineligible for lenalidomide-based therapies., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: To understand the impact of therapy sequencing on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The use of daily, low-dose, lenalidomide maintenance (LM) has raised concern for fostering resistance, preventing its use in the relapsed setting., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database. Patients were grouped based on receipt of LM after autologous stem cell transplant and receipt of lenalidomide in second-line therapy, 575 patients were included., Results: Patients treated with LM had statistically similar 2nd PFS when re-exposed to lenalidomide in second-line therapy compared to those receiving non-lenalidomide-containing regimens (10.2 vs 14.0 months, P =.53). This cohort also had the longest 2nd OS, 18 months longer than patients treated with LM who did not receive lenalidomide at relapse (55.3 vs 37 months, P =.004). Patients treated with LM also demonstrated deeper responses to second-line therapy than their non-LM counterparts., Conclusion: Our data suggest that patients progressing on LM who receive lenalidomide-containing therapy at first relapse have comparable 2nd PFS and better 2nd OS compared to non-lenalidomide-containing second-line regimens. Identification of patients mostly likely to benefit from further lenalidomide-containing therapy is paramount., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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/m 2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening clinical syndrome characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and microvascular thrombosis, resulting in ischemia and organ damage. Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplasm arising from clonal plasma cells within the bone marrow. The treatment frequently includes multi-agent immunochemotherapy, often with the use of proteasome inhibitors (PIs) such as bortezomib, carfilzomib, or ixazomib. There are increasing reports of TMA in association with PI exposure. This review summarizes the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of PI-related drug-induced TMA. We will outline the definition and diagnosis of TMA and explore an important cause of hemolysis in patients with MM: drug-induced TMA after PI exposure, an increasingly recognized therapeutic complication. This will be emphasized through the description of 3 novel cases of TMA. These illustrative cases occurred after treatment with high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone as part of the MCRN003/MYX1 phase II clinical trial (NCT02597062) in relapsed MM., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has necessitated changes to the way patients with chronic diseases are managed. Given that patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of covid-19 infection and related complications, national bodies and experts around the globe have made recommendations for risk mitigation strategies for those vulnerable patients. Understandably, because of the novelty of the virus, many of the proposed risk mitigation strategies have thus far been reactionary and cannot be supported by strong evidence. In this editorial, we highlight some of the risk mitigation strategies implemented at our institutions across Canada during the first wave of covid-19, and we discuss the considerations that should be made when managing patients during the second wave and beyond., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: Medical writing support provided by SD and AC of impact Medicom Inc. was funded by Janssen Canada. RF has participated in advisory boards for Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Teva, and Novartis. RK has received honoraria from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen, and has participated on advisory boards for Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Takeda, and Sanofi. KS has received grant support from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb and has received honoraria from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline. CPV has received honoraria from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Takeda. DW has received honoraria from Amgen, Antengene, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. DER has participated on advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Karyopharm; has received research funding from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Takeda; and has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda., (2020 Multimed Inc.)

Introduction: Early integration of palliative care (PC) with oncological care is associated with improved outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Limited information exists on the frequency, timing, and predictors of PC consultation in patients receiving oncological care. The Cross Cancer Institute (CCI) is the sole tertiary cancer center serving the northern half of the Canadian province of Alberta, located in the city of Edmonton. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients with advanced cancer at the CCI who received consultation by the CCI PC program and the comprehensive integrated PC program in Edmonton, and to determine the timing and predictors of consultation., Materials and Methods: In this secondary analysis of routinely collected health data, adult patients who died between April 2013 and March 2014, and had advanced disease while under the care of a CCI oncologist, were eligible. Data from the Alberta Cancer Registry, electronic medical records, and Edmonton PC program database were linked., Results: Of 2,253 eligible patients, 810 (36%) received CCI PC consultation. Median time between consultation and death was 2 months (range, 1.1-5.4). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, residence, income, cancer type, and interval from advanced cancer diagnosis to death influenced odds of receiving consultation. Among 1,439 patients residing in Edmonton, 1,121 (78%) were referred to the Edmonton PC program., Conclusion: A minority of patients with advanced cancer received PC consultation at the tertiary cancer center, occurring late in the disease trajectory. Frequency and timing of PC consultation varied significantly, according to multiple factors., Implications for Practice: Clinical and demographic factors are associated with variations in frequency and timing of palliative care consultation at a cancer center and may, in some cases, reflect barriers to access that warrant attention., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell (PC) malignancy of terminally differentiated B lymphocytes that is typically associated with the secretion of partial and/or complete monoclonal immunoglobulins and a constellation of particular symptoms and signs. MM is a treatable condition, and timely diagnosis is essential to limit or avoid irreversible target-organ damage and to prolong survival. The Myeloma Canada Research Network Consensus Guideline Consortium (MCRN-CGC) proposes national consensus recommendations for the diagnosis of MM and associated PC neoplasms. The focus is on widely available tests but also highlights recent advancements that are important to include in the diagnostic paradigm. By clarifying and updating the required laboratory, radiographic, and bone marrow investigations, the MCRN-CGC hopes to address the needs of Canadian physicians and people living with MM across the country through accurate and timely diagnosis of MM, as well as appropriate initial stratification to improve treatment selection and outcomes. The MCRN-CGC will periodically review the recommendations herein and update as necessary. Recommendations on the therapeutic approaches and associated monitoring of MM will follow., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)