Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma without intention for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ENDURANCE): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

How to Treat High-Risk Myeloma at Diagnosis and Relapse

Survival in multiple myeloma has improved greatly during the past 2 decades, but this change has primarily benefited patients who have standard-risk disease. Patients with high-risk disease remain a challenge to diagnose and treat. To improve their clinical outcomes, it is imperative to develop tools to readily identify them and to provide them with the most effective available treatments. The most widely used stratification system, the revised International Staging System, incorporates serum β-2 microglobulin, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, and high-risk chromosomal abnormalities [del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16)]. Recent updates have included mutational status and chromosome 1q abnormalities. Plasma cell leukemia, extramedullary disease, circulating plasma cells, renal failure, and frailty are also associated with poor outcome. The treatment approach for a newly diagnosed patient with high-risk multiple myeloma should include induction therapy, autologous stem cell transplantation if appropriate, and maintenance therapy. Triplet therapy with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and steroid, with or without an anti-CD38 antibody, should be considered for induction, along with a proteasome inhibitor and/or immunomodulatory drug for maintenance. Aiming for a deep and sustained response is important. Similar principles apply at relapse, with close monitoring of response, especially extramedullary disease and active management of side effects, so that patients can continue therapy and benefit from treatment. Immune-based therapies, including autologous CAR T-cell-based therapies and bispecific antibodies, show promising activity in relapsed disease and are being actively explored in earlier disease settings. As the prognosis for high-risk disease remains poor, the future goal for this patient group is to develop specific clinical trials to explore novel approaches and therapies efficiently.

A clinical perspective on plasma cell leukemia; current status and future directions

Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is an aggressive plasma cell disorder with a guarded prognosis. The diagnosis is confirmed when peripheral blood plasma cells (PCs) exceed 20% of white blood cells or 2000/μL. Emerging data demonstrates that patients with lower levels of circulating (PCs) have the same adverse prognosis, challenging the clinical disease definition, but supporting the adverse impact of circulating PCs. The cornerstone of treatment consists of combination therapy incorporating a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, steroids, and/or anthracyclines and alkylators as part of more-intensive chemotherapy, followed by consolidative autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in eligible patients and then maintenance therapy. Monoclonal antibodies are also currently being evaluated in this setting with a strong rationale for their use based on their activity in multiple myeloma (MM). Due to limited therapeutic studies specifically evaluating pPCL, patients with pPCL should be considered for clinical trials. In contrast to MM, the outcomes of patients with pPCL have only modestly improved with novel therapies, and secondary PCL arising from MM in particular is associated with a dismal outlook. Newer drug combinations, immunotherapy, and cellular therapy are under investigation, and these approaches hopefully will demonstrate efficacy to improve the prognosis of pPCL.

A phase 1b study of once-weekly carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Twice‐weekly carfilzomib with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) is an effective regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here we evaluated once‐weekly carfilzomib with Rd (once‐weekly KRd) in NDMM patients. The NDMM patients were enrolled regardless of transplant eligibility. Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1‐21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on carfilzomib days (also day 22 for cycles 1‐8) for ≤18, 28‐day cycles. Enrollment initiated in a carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m² (20 mg/m² on cycle one, day 1; 70 mg/m² thereafter) NDMM dose‐expansion arm, which was suspended because of serious adverse events. After evaluation of dose‐limiting toxicities in a two‐step‐up dose‐evaluation cohort, an NDMM dose‐expansion arm (carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m²) was opened. Fifty‐one NDMM patients were enrolled in dose‐finding and dose‐expansion cohorts. Results are presented for the carfilzomib 56 mg/m² NDMM dose‐expansion arm (n = 33). The grade ≥ 3 treatment‐emergent AE (TEAE) rate was 63.6%. Twenty‐five patients underwent stem cell collection; 18 proceeded to auto stem cell transplant, and five resumed KRd on study after autoSCT. The overall response rate (ORR) based on best overall response by cycle four was 97.0% (≥very good partial response [VGPR], 69.7%) in the NDMM 20/56 mg/m² cohort. In patients who did not receive autoSCT (n = 15), the median number of cycles was 16.0; ORR was 93.3% (≥VGPR, 80.0%). At a median follow‐up of 8.1 months, median progression‐free survival was not reached. Once‐weekly KRd (carfilzomib 56 mg/m²) had a favorable safety profile and promising activity in NDMM, supporting the use of this regimen in this setting.

Measurable residual disease in multiple myeloma and light chain amyloidosis: more than meets the eye

The emergence of highly effective multiple myeloma (MM) treatments may bring cure within reach and highlights the need for highly sensitive measurable residual disease (MRD) techniques to replace conventional response assessments. MRD is being incorporated as an endpoint in an increasing number of studies and had been repeatedly shown to be both a predictive marker of response to treatment and a prognostic marker for future relapse. However, those results should be cautiously interpreted due to non-uniform reporting and the need for longer follow up to assess for sustained MRD negativity. This review aims to critically analyze the key MRD aspects including the current evidence supporting the use of MRD in clinical practice and the pitfalls of the various methods used to assess MRD. The utility of MRD for light chain (AL) amyloidosis will also be discussed.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) as induction therapy for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients (Myeloma XI+): Interim analysis of an open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world.

CONCLUSIONS

The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852.

Kidney transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: narrative analysis and review of the last 2 decades

There have been significant advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last 2 decades. Approximately 25% of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma have some degree of kidney impairment. During the course of illness, nearly 50% of myeloma patients will develop kidney disease. Moreover, approximately 10% of myeloma patients have advanced kidney disease requiring dialysis at presentation. Hemodialysis is associated with a significantly reduced overall survival. In the setting of prolonged long-term overall survival due to the use of newer immunotherapeutic agents in the treatment of myeloma, patients with myeloma and advanced kidney disease may benefit from more aggressive management with kidney transplantation. Unfortunately, most data regarding outcomes of kidney transplantation in patients with myeloma come from single center case series. With the advent of novel treatment choices, it remains unclear if outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with myeloma have improved in recent years. In this descriptive systematic review, we coalesced published patient data over the last 20 years to help inform clinicians and patients on expected hematologic and kidney transplant outcomes in this complex population. We further discuss the future of kidney transplantation in patients with paraproteinemia.

A Tangle of Genomic Aberrations Drives Multiple Myeloma and Correlates with Clinical Aggressiveness of the Disease: A Comprehensive Review from a Biological Perspective to Clinical Trial Results

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a genetically heterogeneous disease, in which the process of tumorigenesis begins and progresses through the appearance and accumulation of a tangle of genomic aberrations. Several are the mechanisms of DNA damage in MM, varying from single nucleotide substitutions to complex genomic events. The timing of appearance of aberrations is well studied due to the natural history of the disease, that usually progress from pre-malignant to malignant phase. Different kinds of aberrations carry different prognostic significance and have been associated with drug resistance in some studies. Certain genetic events are well known to be associated with prognosis and are incorporated in risk evaluation in MM at diagnosis in the revised International Scoring System (R-ISS). The significance of some other aberrations needs to be further explained. Since now, few phase 3 randomized trials included analysis on patient's outcomes according to genetic risk, and further studies are needed to obtain useful data to stratify the choice of initial and subsequent treatment in MM.

Recent Advances in the Treatment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma

In the past 20 years, few diseases have seen as great progress in their treatment as multiple myeloma. With the approval of many new drugs and the limited availability of clinical trials comparing head-to-head the different possible combinations, the choice of the best treatments at each stage of the disease becomes complex as well as crucial since multiple myeloma remains incurable. This article presents a general description of the novelties of the whole treatment of multiple myeloma, from induction in the newly diagnosed patient through the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and maintenance treatment until early and late relapses, including a section on recently approved drugs as well as novel drugs and immunotherapy in advanced stages of research, and that will surely play a relevant role in the treatment of this devastating disease in the coming years.

Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve rapidly with arrival of multiple new drugs, and emerging data from randomized trials to guide therapy. Along the disease course, the choice of specific therapy is affected by many variables including age, performance status, comorbidities, and eligibility for stem cell transplantation. In addition, another key variable that affects treatment strategy is risk stratification of patients into standard and high-risk MM. High-risk MM is defined by the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), gain 1q, del(17p), or p53 mutation. In this paper, we provide algorithms for the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed MM based on the best available evidence. We have relied on data from randomized controlled trials whenever possible, and when appropriate trials to guide therapy are not available, our recommendations reflect best practices based on non-randomized data, and expert opinion. Each algorithm has been designed to facilitate easy decision-making for practicing clinicians. In all patients, clinical trials should be considered first, prior to resorting to the standard of care algorithms we outline.

Old and new generation immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Over the last two decades, the outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), a malignant plasma cells dyscrasia, have dramatically improved. The development and the introduction of the immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) which include thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide, have contributed significantly to these improvements.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The IMiDs have been shown a multitude of mechanisms of action, including antiangiogenic, cytotoxic and immunomodulatory. The more recent discoveries that the IMiDs bind to cereblon and thus regulate the ubiquitination of key transcription factors including IKZF1 and IKZF3, have provided new insight about their activities.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The IMIDs are widely used in the treatment of the different setting of MM patients and particularly lenalidomide represents the backbone in the therapy of newly diagnosed transplant eligible and transplant ineligible patients, in the maintenance setting post-transplant and in the relapsed/refractory setting, while pomalidomide is currently utilized in the relapsed/refractory setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Here the mechanisms of action, the clinical efficacy and the management of side effects are reviewed as well as the new classes of cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) and their promising clinical data are described.