Outcome of a Salvage Third Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the age of CAR T cell therapy

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has revolutionized the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, with excellent outcomes and a tolerable safety profile. High dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) is established as a mainstream of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) management in patients who are young and fit enough to tolerate such intensity. This standard was developed based on randomized trials comparing AHCT to chemotherapy in the era prior to novel agents. More recently, larger studies have primarily shown a progression free survival (PFS) benefit of upfront AHCT, rather than overall survival (OS) benefit. There is debate about the significance of this lack of OS, acknowledging the potential confounders of the chronic nature of the disease, study design and competing harms and benefits of exposure to AHCT. Indeed upfront AHCT may not be as uniquely beneficial as we once thought, and is not without risk. New quadruple-agent regimens are highly active and effective in achieving a deep response as quantified by measurable residual disease (MRD). The high dose chemotherapy administered with AHCT imposes a burden of short and long-term adverse effects, which may alter the disease course and patient's ability to tolerate future therapies. Some high-risk subgroups may have a more valuable benefit from AHCT, though still ultimately suffer poor outcomes. When compared to the outcomes of CAR T cell therapy, the question of whether AHCT can or indeed should be deferred has become an important topic in the field. Deferring AHCT may be a personalized decision in patients who achieve MRD negativity, which is now well established as a key prognostic factor for PFS and OS. Reserving or re-administering AHCT at relapse is feasible in many cases and holds the promise of resetting the T cell compartment and opening up options for immune reengagement. It is likely that personalized MRD-guided decision making will shape how we sequence in the future, though more studies are required to delineate when this is safe and appropriate.

Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)

To explore the optimal mobilization for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, we conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m2 for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor. After randomization, 27 patients in the etoposide group and 29 patients in the G-CSF alone group received mobilizations. Six (22.2%) patients in the etoposide group and 15 (51.7%) patients in the G-CSF alone group received plerixafor based on a peripheral blood CD34+ cell count of < 15/mm3 (p = 0.045). The median count of CD34+ cells collected was significantly higher in the etoposide group (9.5 × 106/kg vs. 7.9 × 106/kg; p = 0.018), but the optimal collection rate (CD34+ cells ≥ 6 × 106/kg) was not significantly different between the two groups (96.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.195). The rate of CD34+ cells collected of ≥ 8.0 × 106/kg was significantly higher in the etoposide group (77.8% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.025). Although the rates of grade II-IV thrombocytopenia (63.0% vs. 31.0%; p = 0.031) and grade I-IV nausea (14.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.048) were significantly higher in the etoposide group, the rates of adverse events were low in both groups, with no neutropenic fever or septic shock. Thus, both single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF and G-CSF alone with risk-adapted plerixafor were effective and safe, but the former may be the better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations.

Bridging advanced myeloma patients to subsequent treatments and clinical trials with classical chemotherapy and stem cell support

Rapidly progressing relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with compromised marrow have limited treatment options. Thus, non-myeloablative chemotherapy with a stem cell boost (SCB) may provide disease control and hematopoietic improvement as bridge to subsequent therapies. We identified 96 patients who received a SCB between January 2011 and December 2019 at the Mount Sinai Hospital. Patients had a median age of 64 years, received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy and 68 and 42% were triple-class and penta-drug refractory, respectively. Chemotherapy included melphalan (MEL) (n = 16), melphalan + carmustine (BCNU/MEL) (n = 52) or a variant of DCEP (dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin) (n = 28). Median time to neutrophil recovery was 10 days and was significantly lower with DCEP (8 days) compared to MEL and BCNU/MEL (10-11 days) (p = 0.0047). Time to progression, progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.19, 2.7 and 8.38 months, respectively. The BCNU/MEL group had the highest response rate of 85% (p = 0.05), clinical benefit rate of 94% (p = 0.0014), progression-free survival of 3.3 months (p = 0.4) and overall survival of 8.7 months (p = 0.5). Sixty-six patients (69%) were bridged to new lines of therapy, including clinical trials. Non-myeloablative chemotherapy with SCB provides rapid disease control and marrow recovery with potential to receive further therapy.

The first relapse in multiple myeloma: how to pick the next best thing

The choice of treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) at first relapse/progression is based on many factors: (1) treatment-related factors, which include the regimen used during first induction, the quality and duration of first response achieved, toxicities from the first treatment, whether the patient underwent autologous stem cell transplant, and whether the patient was on maintenance at the time of relapse/progression; (2) disease-related factors, including disease presentation and pace of progression; and (3) patient-related factors, including functional age and performance status. The learning objectives are to present the treatment options for patients with MM upon their first relapse and to learn about various strategies for selecting an optimal treatment regimen.

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for relapsed multiple myeloma performed with cells procured after previous transplantation-study on behalf of CMWP of the EBMT

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) may be performed in multiple myeloma (MM) patients relapsing after a previous auto-HCT. For those without an adequate dose of stored stem cells, remobilization is necessary. This retrospective study included patients who, following disease relapse after the first auto-HCT(s), underwent stem cell remobilization and auto-HCT performed using these cells. There were 305 patients, 68% male, median age at salvage auto-HCT was 59 years. The median time to relapse after the first-line penultimate auto-HCT(s) was 30.6 months, the median follow-up after salvage auto-HCT 31 months. The 2- and 4-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) after the salvage auto-HCT was 5 and 9%, the relapse incidence 56 and 76%, respectively. Overall survival (OS) after 2 and 4 years was 76 and 52%, progression-free survival (PFS) 39 and 15%. In multivariable analysis an increasing interval between the penultimate auto-HCT and relapse was associated with better OS and PFS, later calendar year of salvage auto-HCT with better OS. In conclusion, salvage auto-HCT performed with cells remobilized after a previous auto-HCT was associated with acceptable NRM. The leading cause of failure was disease progression of MM, which correlated with a shorter interval from the penultimate auto-HCT to the first relapse.

Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in 2020/2021 and Beyond

Despite the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, exciting therapeutic progress continues to be made in MM. New drug approvals for relapsed/refractory (RR)MM in 2020/2021 include the second CD38 monoclonal antibody, isatuximab, the first BCMA-targeting therapy and first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin, the first BCMA-targeting CAR T cell product Idecabtagen-Vicleucel (bb2121, Ide-Cel), the first in-class XPO-1 inhibitor selinexor, as well as the first-in-class anti-tumor peptide-drug conjugate, melflufen. The present introductory article of the Special Issue on "Advances in the Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Novel Agents, Immunotherapies and Beyond" summarizes the most recent registration trials and emerging immunotherapies in RRMM, gives an overview on latest insights on MM genomics and on tumor-induced changes within the MM microenvironment, and presents some of the most promising rationally derived future therapeutic strategies.

Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Therapies

Despite the evolution of the therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) over the past decade, autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with both newly diagnosed and relapsed MM. The advent of novel therapies, such as immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies, has led to unprecedented levels of deep hematologic responses. Nonetheless, studies show that ASCT has an additive effect leading to additional deepening of responses. As the therapeutic agents for MM continue to evolve, the timing, duration, and sequence of their use in combination with ASCT will be crucial to understand to obtain the deepest response and survival benefit for patients with MM. This review aims to discuss the role of ASCT for the management of MM, with a particular focus on the role of ASCT in the context of novel therapies and minimal residual disease.

Cost saving, patient centered algorithm for progenitor cell mobilization for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation

Administration of plerixafor with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilizes CD34+ cells much more effectively than G-CSF alone, but cost generally limits plerixafor use to patients at high risk of insufficient CD34+ cell collection based on low peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ counts following 4 days of G-CSF. We analyzed costs associated with administering plerixafor to patients with higher day 4 CD34+ cell counts to decrease apheresis days and explored the use of a fixed split dose of plerixafor instead of weight-based dosing. We analyzed 235 patients with plasma cell disorders or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who underwent progenitor cell mobilization and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) between March 2014 and December 2017. Two hundred ten (89%) received G-CSF plus Plerixafor and 25 (11%) received G-CSF alone. Overall, 180 patients (77%) collected in 1 day, 53 (22%) in 2 days and 2 (1%) in 3 days. Based on our data, we present a probabilistic algorithm to identify patients likely to require more than one day of collection using G-CSF alone. CD34+ cell yield, ANC and platelet recovery were not significantly different between fixed and standard dose plerixafor. Plerixafor enabled collection in 1 day and with estimated savings of $5000, compared to patients who did not receive plerixafor and required collection for three days. While collection and processing costs and patient populations vary among institutions, our results suggest re-evaluation of current algorithms.

Role of Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

Autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) has been the standard of care in eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly due to the advent of several novel drugs. Upfront use of these drugs in induction therapy has significantly increased the rate and depth of responses that have translated into longer remission and survival. This has now raised a debate regarding the role and relevance of auto-SCT in the management of myeloma. However, clinical trials have confirmed the utility of auto-SCT even in the era of novel drugs. Tandem auto-SCT followed by maintenance has shown a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in high-risk MM, and hence can be considered in young and fit patients with high-risk disease. Auto-SCT has the advantages of resetting the bone marrow microenvironment, short-lived toxicity compared to the long-term physical and financial toxicities of continued chemotherapy in the absence of SCT, very low transplant-related mortality (TRM) in high volume centers, and providing longer disease-free survival when followed by maintenance therapy. Allogeneic SCT is one potentially curative option for MM, albeit with an increased risk of death due to high TRM. Strategies to modulate the graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) while maintaining or improving the graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect could place allogeneic SCT back in the treatment armamentarium of MM.

Stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients relapsing after previous autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A multicenter report by the Polish Myeloma Study Group

BACKGROUND

Salvage autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) may be used to treat relapse of multiple myeloma occurring after previous autoHSCT. When insufficient number of hematopoietic stem cells was stored from the initial harvest, remobilization of stem cells is necessary.

PURPOSE

The analysis of stem cell remobilization after previous autoHSCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients, 60% males, median 59 years, were included. Median time interval between autoHSCT and remobilization was 42 months. The first remobilization was performed mostly after chemotherapy: cyclophosphamide (33%), cytarabine (43%), and etoposide (19%).

RESULTS

The first remobilization was successful in 67% patients. About 19% patients required plerixafor rescue, among whom it allowed for successful harvesting in 14%. Use of cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, and etoposide allowed for successful remobilization in 53%, 84%, and 55% patients, respectively. Patients treated with cytarabine had the highest yield of CD34+ cells (median 7.5 × 10⁶ /kg vs 5.8 and 2.4 for etoposide and cyclophosphamide, P = .001). Higher percentage of patients was able to collect ≥2 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg during one leukapheresis after cytarabine (76% vs 21% for cyclophosphamide vs 36% for etoposide, P = .001). Cytarabine use was associated with lower risk of remobilization failure OR = 0.217, P = .02. Toxicity comprised mostly hematological toxicity (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). One patient succumbed to septic shock.

CONCLUSION

Remobilization after previous autoHSCT is feasible only in a proportion of patients. Cytarabine is associated with the highest rate of successful mobilization and the highest yield of mobilized CD34+ cells. The toxicity requires careful surveillance of these patients.

Comparison of single and double autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients

Background

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is one of the standard treatments of choice for eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Herein, we aimed to analyze MM patients at our center and compare the clinical outcomes of single and double ASCT patients.

Materials and methods

Patients who were diagnosed as having MM and had undergone single or double ASCT in our clinic between the years 2003 and 2020 were retrospectively examined.

Results

In this study, the median time of second ASCT is approximately 3.6 years from the first ASCT. Overall survival (OS) duration of the single and double transplanted groups was 4,011 ± 266 vs 3,526 ± 326 days, respectively (p: 0.33). Progression-free survival (PFS) duration of the single and double transplanted groups was 2,344 ± 228 vs 685 ± 120 days, respectively (p: 0.22). Disease assessment after ASCT stable or progressive disease, partial remission, and very good partial or complete remission (CR) in single and double ASCT groups was 62/44/105 and 8/4/5, respectively (p: 0.22).

Conclusion

The present study points out that the second ASCT treatment option for MM patients may not be effective as suggested, especially in the era of novel MM drugs, since our results come from the past data that novel drugs were not exist. In conclusion, we found no benefit with second ASCT in MM patients in terms of PFS and OS or CR rates, and the novel anti-myeloma drugs might decrease the need for a second transplant.

Cryostorage to What End? - Autologous Stem Cell Products in Burkitt Lymphoma, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, and Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Patients

Introduction

Recently, we identified a huge discrepancy between the collection practice and the actual utilization of cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) for high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT). Specifically, patients with Burkitt lymphoma, acute leukemia, and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were frequently not referred for ABSCT after successful PBSC collection.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify variables that are associated with the non-utilization of PBSC grafts.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the collection, storage, and disposal of PBSC grafts in Burkitt lymphoma (n = 18), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL, n = 22), MPN (n = 18), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n = 71) patients. Patients who underwent autologous PBSC collection at 2 collection and transplantation centers between 2001 and 2012 were included and followed up until 2016.

Results

None of the Burkitt lymphoma patients were referred for ABSCT. Only in 1 (6%) patient, the graft was discarded after the patient's death. In all other patients (n = 17, 94%), the grafts were stored independently of the patient's status (death, n = 4, 22%; no follow-up, n = 6, 33%; no indication for ABSCT given, n = 7, 39%). In ALL patients, 4 (18%) patients underwent ABSCT after a median follow-up of 74 (1-182) months. In the remaining patients, PBSC grafts were either discarded (8 patients, 36%) or stored until the reference date (10 patients, 45%). Seven of 18 MPN patients (39%) underwent ABSCT. ABSCT was performed in 24 (34%) AML patients. In 20 (28%) patients who were not referred to ABSCT, an allogeneic transplantation (TPL) was performed. Fifteen (21%) patients received palliative care or deceased, and their grafts were discarded in all but 1 patient. Additional grafts were discarded in 21 (31%) patients and stored in 9 (13%) patients who underwent ABSCT or allogeneic TPL (n = 44).

Conclusions

As the role and efficacy of autologous HDCT/ABSCT are not established in the analyzed entities, the indication for PBSC collection should be reanalyzed in regular intervals. Moreover, PBSC grafts from patients who have deceased, have insufficient grafts, or have already undergone an allogeneic TPL should be considered for disposal or (if applicable) for research use, to economize storage costs on a rational basis.

KRD (carfilzomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the real-life: a retrospective survey in 123 patients

From April 2016, carfilzomib, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRD), became available for use in the daily practice in Italy for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We performed a retrospective survey at 14 different institutions from Southern Italy in order to evaluate patient characteristics and treatment results from an unselected series of patients treated accordingly so far. One hundred and twenty-three consecutive patients were included, with a median of 2 previous lines of therapy (range 1-9) and a median age of 63 years (range 39-82). At the time of analysis, median number of courses administered is 11 (range 1-34), and all patients are evaluable for response. Overall response rate including complete remission, very good partial remission, and partial remission is 85%. After a median follow-up of 27 months, median overall and progression-free survival are 33 and 23 months, respectively. Sixty-three patients are alive and between them, 45 (37%) are in continuous remission. Sixty patients have died (49%), mainly from progressive disease. There were 6 treatment-related deaths (5% of the whole patient population). Overall, hematological and non-hematological toxicity were manageable, mostly on outpatient basis. Arterial hypertension has been observed in 43 cases (35%) but did not lead to treatment interruption. Our data demonstrate that in real life, KRD is highly effective and well tolerated in the majority of patients with RRMM.

Evolution of diagnostic workup and treatment for multiple myeloma 2013-2019

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in diagnostic and therapeutic approach in multiple myeloma among Norwegian hematologists in the current decade.

METHODS

This nationwide study in Norway is based on results of surveys conducted among professionally active hematologists from 2013 to 2019. Every year, respondents participating in the survey suggested treatment regimens used in typical clinical situations in patients with multiple myeloma, as well as diagnostic routines.

RESULTS

The use of regimens containing alkylators and thalidomide was common at the beginning of the studied period. Later, lenalidomide became the most preferred treatment in most first-line patients. Bortezomib maintained a stable position in the treatment of myeloma in patients with renal insufficiency. The lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination became the preferred frontline triplet for transplant-ineligible patients and induction therapy before transplant. Nowadays, the relapse after lenalidomide-based treatment is managed using both bortezomib-based therapies and combinations with the newest agents. Together with the therapeutic landscape, the use of diagnostic criteria and workup as well as supportive care changed in the period influenced by local and international guidelines and recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Norwegian hematologists gradually adopt new clinical concepts, guidelines, and recommendations in their practice.

Are Autologous Stem Cell Transplants Still Required to Treat Myeloma in the Era of Novel Therapies? A Review from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT

Melphalan at a myeloablative dose followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with myeloma. However, therapies such as new immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors and, more recently, monoclonal antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor T cells are challenging the traditional role of ASCT. Which patients benefit from ASCT? Can its use be delayed until first relapse? The field is moving rapidly as novel agents lead to new patient care strategies. The place of ASCT in this changing landscape will be reviewed and reassessed.

Is there still a role for stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma?

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents, which range from immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors to monoclonal antibodies and have now been integrated into both induction and salvage regimens, has dramatically revolutionized the treatment landscape of MM and challenged the role of high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in treating MM. These advances have led to a number of provocative questions. First, what is the current role of stem cell transplantation (SCT) in comparison with standard-dose therapy incorporating novel agents? Second, should ASCT be performed upfront ("early") or later ("delayed") in the course of the disease? Third, should single or double ASCT be performed? Fourth, is allogeneic SCT still an option for patients with MM? This article provides an overview of available data and evidence-based responses regarding the role of SCT in MM.

Utilization of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus statement

Over the last two decades, the utilization of various novel therapies in the upfront or salvage settings has continued to improve survival outcomes for patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM). Thus, the conventional role for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in MM either in the form of an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or an allogeneic stem cell transplant (Allo-SCT) warrants re-evaluation, given the aforementioned clinical advances. Here, we present a consensus statement of our multidisciplinary group of over 30 Mayo Clinic physicians with a special interest in the care of patients with MM and provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of HSCT in MM. We specifically address topics that include the role and timing of an ASCT for MM in the era of novel agents, eligibility for an ASCT, post-ASCT consolidation, and maintenance options, and finally the utility of an upfront tandem ASCT, salvage second ASCT, and an allo-SCT in MM.

Allogeneic transplantation of multiple myeloma patients may allow long-term survival in carefully selected patients with acceptable toxicity and preserved quality of life

Despite significantly improved survival and response rates in patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, it still remains an incurable disease with a poor outcome, especially in high-risk groups. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a potentially curative option but remains controversial due to considerable treatment-related toxicity. We analyzed 109 consecutive myeloma patients who had received reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation at the Freiburg University Medical Center between 2000 and 2016. Although most patients were heavily pre-treated in high-risk constellations, the overall response rate was high with 70%, the median overall survival (OS) 39.2%, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) 14.2 months, with a median follow up of 71.5 months. Survival was significantly better in patients with response to previous therapies than in those with progressive disease (median OS 65 vs. 11.5 months, P=0.003; median PFS 18.4 vs. 5.1 months, P=0.001). Moreover, survival of patients transplanted in first-line was significantly prolonged compared to relapsed/refractory disease (median OS not reached vs. 21.6 months, P<0.001; median PFS 47.7 vs. 9.6 months, P<0.001). The non-relapse mortality was relatively low with a cumulative incidence of 12.4% at ten years. Acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) grade II-IV was observed in 25%, and moderate or severe chronic GvHD in 24%. Quality of life (QoL) assessed with the revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index before and after transplantation remained unchanged. Our data suggest that allogeneic transplantation in the context of novel immunotherapeutic approaches may enable long-term survival and even a potential cure in a carefully selected subgroup of high-risk multiple myeloma patients with acceptable toxicity and preserved QoL.