Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting

An open-label, first-in-human, single agent, dose escalation study for the evaluation of safety and efficacy of SAR442085 in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

Cluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) is a key target on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This multi-centre, Phase 1, single-agent study (NCT04000282) investigated SAR442085, a novel fragment crystallisable (Fc)-modified anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), with enhanced affinity towards Fc-gamma receptor on effector cells in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM.

METHODS

This study comprised two parts: Part-A (dose-escalation involving anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated and naïve patients) and Part-B (dose expansion). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven heavily pre-treated patients were treated in Part A. Part-B (dose-expansion) was not studied. Seven dose-limiting toxicities were reported at DL3, DL5, DL6, and DL7. RP2D was determined to be 5-7·5 mg/kg. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion-related reactions in 70·3% (26/37) patients. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was reported in 48·6% (18/37). Overall response rate was 70% in anti-CD38 mAb naïve and 4% in anti-CD38 pre-treated patients, with a median progression-free survival of 7·62 (95%CI: 2·858; not calculable) months and 2·79 (95%CI: 1·150; 4·172) months and, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of SAR442085 was promising in anti-CD38 mAb naïve patients but did not extend to the larger cohort of anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated patients. This observation, along with transient high-grade thrombocytopenia, could potentially limit its clinical use.

Unravelling Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-World Practice in Spain: The CARINAE Study

Real-world evidence on the impact of monoclonal antibodies as first-line treatment in Spain is limited. This observational, retrospective and prospective, multicenter, descriptive study included 117 transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TIE-NDMM) patients divided into Group A, who received no daratumumab standard regimens, and the DVMP group (daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone treatment). More than 90% of the patients in Group A received bortezomib, lenalidomide, or a combination of them. The median follow-up time for Group A was 38.2 months in comparison to 25.8 months for the DVMP group (p < 0.0001). The rate of DVMP patients that experienced disease progression or death from any cause was 36.8%, compared to 67.3% of Group A patients at 36 months of follow-up. The DVMP group had a higher 36-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (52.9% vs. 31.7%). During the retrospective period, 73.0% of patients reported adverse drug reactions, while in the prospective period, 40.5% experienced adverse events, with no clinical differences between groups. The study supports the use of daratumumab regimens in frontline therapy based on real-world data. The findings provide valuable insights into the clinical outcomes of daratumumab therapy, which can help physicians make informed decisions regarding the optimal treatment approach for this patient population.

Proceedings from the First Onco Summit: LATAM Chapter, 19-20 May 2023, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The Onco Summit 2023: The Latin American (LATAM) Chapter took place over two days, from 19-20 May 2023, in Brazil. The event aimed to share the latest updates across various oncology disciplines, address critical clinical challenges, and exchange best practices to ensure optimal patient treatment. More than 30 international and regional speakers and more than 300 oncology specialists participated in the Summit. The Summit discussions centered on common challenges and therapeutic advances in cancer care, with a specific focus on the unique obstacles faced in LATAM and examples of adaptable strategies to address these challenges. The Summit also facilitated the establishment of a network of oncologists, hematologists, and scientists in LATAM, enabling collaboration to improve cancer care, both in this region and globally, through drug development and clinical research. This report summarizes the key discussions from the Summit for the global and LATAM oncology community.

Multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide: A systematic literature review of trials and real-world evidence

The growing use of frontline lenalidomide treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) is increasing the proportion of lenalidomide-refractory patients, which may limit the efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment (LOT). This systematic literature review (January 2008-October 2023) of clinical trials (CT) and real-world studies (RW) assessed treatment outcomes in adults with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who were previously treated with ≥1 LOT, progressed and were lenalidomide-refractory. Medline, EMBASE and additional electronic databases were searched for articles published in English. Primary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall/objective response rate (ORR); 24 CT and 19 RW were included. For CT, the population-weighted mean of median PFS (CT = 14) and OS (CT = 6) were shorter in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort (months: 8.8 [n = 2699] and 21.7 [n = 1066], respectively) than the intent-to-treat population (months: 13.8 [n = 5380] and 35.9 [n = 2264], respectively); the population-weighted (N = 2142) mean ORR for lenalidomide-refractory patients (CT = 18) was 56.0%. RW reported considerable variation in PFS (RW = 7), OS (RW = 8) and ORR (RW = 8); and median PFS (RW = 2; months) was lower in lenalidomide/bortezomib-refractory (5.5/5.5; n = 81/n = 25) versus lenalidomide-refractory (7.3/8.0; n = 81/n = 61) patients. These data provide evidence that clinical trials and real-world outcomes are suboptimal in lenalidomide-refractory patients with RRMM, highlighting the need to improve treatment options for this population.

The Perspective of Romanian Patients on Continuous Therapy for Multiple Myeloma

The treatment paradigm of multiple myeloma (MM) has shifted in the past years, as continuous therapy is becoming the standard of care for both newly diagnosed and relapsed patients. Although it is indisputable that continuous therapy has added a great benefit on the progression-free as well as overall survival, it is still unclear what the patients' perspective is on this therapeutic approach.

METHODS

This study included 155 adult MM patients from Fundeni Clinical Institute in Romania, receiving continuous therapy with daratumumab, proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, or bi-specific antibodies. The patients had varied economic, social, and educational backgrounds. We developed a questionnaire to interrogate the quantitative and qualitative effect of the therapy on the patients' personal and professional life and to identify the side effects that had the strongest impact on their quality of life.

RESULTS

74.83% of the patients reported that the treatment they received negatively impacted their quality of life. Among them, 40% considered that the most detrimental aspects of the therapy are the financial burden and the negative impact on their professional life. One-third of the patients reported that the therapy negatively impacted their personal life and that it had a deleterious effect on their relationship with their partner and family members. In terms of the side effects experienced, patients considered that tiredness was the main factor causing a decrease in their quality of life, followed by insomnia and bone pain. Despite this, almost none of the patients considered dropping the therapy, and almost half of the patients considered that the frequent visits to the hospital offered them psychological comfort. In addition, more than 70% of the patients declared that they were afraid to stop the therapy if given the choice, with the main concerns being the fear of an early relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Although continuous therapy is associated with a high financial burden and a negative impact on both professional and personal life, the frequent visits to the hospital appear to be reassuring. Moreover, the patients would not opt for treatment discontinuation and felt safer when monitored frequently.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in myeloma clinical trials: an evolving paradigm

Measurement of overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for interpreting the impact of new therapies for multiple myeloma in phase 3 trials. However, as outcomes have improved, it is increasingly challenging to use OS as the primary endpoint if timely approval of novel agents is to be ensured to enable maximum benefit for patients. Surrogate endpoints of OS, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and response to treatment, have contributed to approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency as endpoints demonstrating clinical benefit, and the FDA has recently supported the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma. This review aims to address situations in which the use of PFS as a surrogate endpoint warrants careful interpretation especially for specific subgroups of patients and considers ways to ensure that studies can be designed to account for possible discordance between PFS and OS. The utility of subgroup analyses, including the potential for those not pre-specified, to identify target populations for new agents is also discussed.

Impact of prior lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitor exposure on the effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis from the INSURE study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

METHODS

INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA, and REMIX.

RESULTS

Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide-naïve/-exposed/-refractory and 37/411/110 were PI-naïve/-exposed/-refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable.

CONCLUSION

IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide- and/or PI-nonrefractory versus refractory patients.

Impact of prior treatment on selinexor, bortezomib, dexamethasone outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up subgroup analysis of the BOSTON trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact of prior therapies on outcomes with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in 402 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the phase 3 BOSTON trial.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor (PI)-naïve, bortezomib-naïve, and one prior line of therapy (1LOT) patient subgroups.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of over 28 months, clinically meaningful improvements in PFS were noted across all groups with SVd. The median SVd PFS was longer in all subgroups (lenalidomide-refractory: 10.2 vs. 7.1 months, PI-naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; bortezomib-naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; 1LOT: 21.0 vs. 10.7; p < .05). The lenalidomide-refractory subgroup had longer OS with SVd (26.7 vs. 18.6 months; HR 0.53; p = .015). In all subgroups, overall response and ≥very good partial response rates were higher with SVd. The manageable safety profile of SVd was similar to the overall patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

With over 2 years of follow-up, these clinically meaningful outcomes further support the use of SVd in patients who are lenalidomide-refractory, PI-naïve, bortezomib-naïve, or who received 1LOT (including a monoclonal antibody) and underscore the observed synergy between selinexor and bortezomib.

Functional cure and long-term survival in multiple myeloma: how to challenge the previously impossible

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with survival ranging from months to decades. The goal of 'cure' remains elusive for most patients, but has been shown to be possible, with durable remission and a transition to a plateau phase (analogous to monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance/smoldering myeloma). In this review, two representative cases set the stage to illustrate how this might be possible and what still needs to be determined to achieve functional disease control over a prolonged period. Several developments have emerged, such as improved diagnostics including the definitions and use of SLiM-CRAB criteria and measurable residual disease (MRD) with whole-genome/single-cell sequencing as well as other correlates to better understand disease biology. These advances enable earlier detection, more accurate risk stratification and improved personalized treatment strategies by facilitating analysis of genetic alterations and clonal heterogeneity. Whole-genome sequencing may also identify driver mutations and modes of resistance to immunotherapies as well as other targeted therapies. Today, induction with a CD38 antibody, proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and dexamethasone, potentially followed by autologous stem cell transplantation and lenalidomide maintenance, can be considered standard of care for transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). That prolonged disease control and functional cure can be achieved in non-transplant-eligible (NTE) patients is currently emerging as a distinct possibility: data from phase III trials that incorporate a CD38 antibody into the treatment of NTE NDMM patients demonstrate impressive MRD negativity rates that appear sustained over several years. While the long-term durability of chimeric antigen receptor T cells, bi-specific antibodies and other immunotherapies are being evaluated, several clinical trials are now investigating their role in frontline treatment for TE and NTE patients. These trials will address whether chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy will replace autologous stem cell transplantation and whether such immunotherapies will represent a truly curative option. We conclude that while cure remains elusive, the concept of operational or functional cure provides a new benchmark to strive for and is an emerging area of active and potentially achievable clinical research for MM.

Adjusting for subsequent therapies in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study shows clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival with addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone

TOURMALINE-MM1, the only blinded randomized study in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; ≥1 prior therapy) in the last 10 years, investigated ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (IRd) versus lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rd). Final overall survival (OS) data were based on a median follow-up of 85 months. In RRMM trials where patients have had 1-3 relapses after initial treatment, a high proportion receive subsequent therapy. Application of salvage therapies in blinded trials and newer modes of therapy can increasingly complicate the interpretation of OS. This analysis explores the impact of subsequent therapies on OS outcomes in TOURMALINE-MM1. The inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) method, marginal structural model (MSM), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) were utilized to adjust for confounding on OS, introduced by subsequent therapies. Analyses were conducted for the intent-totreat (ITT) population and ≥2 prior lines subgroup. Unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for IRd versus Rd was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.13) in the ITT population. After adjusting for the impact of subsequent therapies by the RPSFTM method, estimated HR for IRd versus Rd in the ITT population was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74-1.07). Adjusting with IPCW and MSM methods also showed an improvement in HR, favoring IRd. IRd may be particularly beneficial in patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy (IPCW and MSM HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.88; RPSFTM HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.91). These analyses highlight the growing challenge of demonstrating OS benefit in MM patients and the importance of assessing confounding introduced by subsequent therapies when interpreting OS.

Targeting Ikaros and Aiolos: reviewing novel protein degraders for the treatment of multiple myeloma, with a focus on iberdomide and mezigdomide

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is evolving rapidly. Quadruplet regimens incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and CD38 monoclonal antibodies have emerged as standard-of-care options for newly diagnosed MM, and numerous novel therapies have been approved for relapsed/refractory MM. However, there remains a need for novel options in multiple settings, including refractoriness to frontline standards of care.

AREAS COVERED

Targeting degradation of IKZF1 and IKZF3 - Ikaros and Aiolos - through modulation of cereblon, an E3 ligase substrate recruiter/receptor, is a key mechanism of action of the IMiDs and the CELMoD agents. Two CELMoD agents, iberdomide and mezigdomide, have demonstrated substantial preclinical and clinical activity in MM and have entered phase 3 investigation. Using a literature search methodology comprising searches of PubMed (unlimited time-frame) and international hematology/oncology conference abstracts (2019-2023), this paper reviews the importance of Ikaros and Aiolos in MM, the mechanism of action of the IMiDs and CELMoD agents and their relative potency for targeting Ikaros and Aiolos, and preclinical and clinical data on iberdomide and mezigdomide.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging data suggest that iberdomide and mezigdomide have promising activity, including in IMiD-resistant settings and, pending phase 3 findings, may provide additional treatment options for patients with MM.

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis

The primary and prespecified updated analyses of ICARIA-MM (clinicaltrial gov. Identifier: NCT02990338) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a benefit in overall survival (OS) was reported with the addition of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the final OS analysis. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study included patients who had received and failed ≥2 previous therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Between January 10, 2017, and February 2, 2018, 307 patients were randomized (1:1) to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; N=154) or Pd (N=153), stratified based on age (<75 vs. ≥75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2-3 vs. >3). At data cutoff for the final OS analysis after 220 OS events (January 27, 2022), median follow-up duration was 52.4 months. Median OS was 24.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.3) with Isa-Pd and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.4- 26.2) with Pd (hazard ratio=0.78; 95% CI: 0.59-1.02; 1-sided P=0.0319). Despite subsequent daratumumab use in the Pd group and its potential benefit on PFS in the first subsequent therapy line, median PFS2 was significantly longer with Isa-Pd versus Pd (17.5 vs. 12.9 months; log-rank 1-sided P=0.0091). In this analysis, Isa-Pd continued to be efficacious and well tolerated after follow-up of approximately 52 months, contributing to a clinically meaningful, 6.9-month improvement in median OS in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Health-related quality of life in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone: Patient-reported outcomes from GRIFFIN

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM.

Post hoc analysis of daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in Black patients from final data of the GRIFFIN study

Due in part to racial disparities and underrepresentation in clinical studies, optimal therapies for Black patients with multiple myeloma remain undefined. This final analysis of GRIFFIN by race showed that the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) provides clinical benefit among both Black and White transplant-eligible newly diagnosed patients compared with RVd alone. However, Black patients were more likely to discontinue ≥1 drug due to treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, these findings suggest a benefit of D-RVd front-line therapy among Black and White patients and underscore the importance of equitable treatment access for all patients.

Isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed, transplantation-eligible multiple myeloma (SKylaRk): a single-arm, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Isatuximab is a CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the addition of isatuximab to weekly carfilzomib (K), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (d; Isa-KRd) in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and stratified maintenance by cytogenetic risk.

METHODS

This single-arm phase 2 trial was done at three cancer centres (two hospitals and a cancer institute) in Boston (MA, USA). Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and an ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Patients received four 28-day cycles of Isa-KRd, including isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for 8 weeks, then every other week for 16 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter; carfilzomib 56 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 (20 mg/m2 for cycle 1 day 1); lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-21; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally the day of and day after all doses of carfilzomib and isatuximab. Consolidation involved either upfront haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) with two additional cycles or deferred HSCT with four additional cycles of treatment. The primary endpoint was complete response after four cycles of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. All patients who received one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04430894, and has completed enrolment.

FINDINGS

Between July 31, 2020 and Jan 31, 2022, 50 patients were enrolled. Median age was 59 years (range 40-70), 54% (27 of 50 patients) were male, and 44 (88%) were White. 46% (23 of 50) of patients had high-risk cytogenetics. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR 20·7-30·1). 32% (16 of 50 patients) achieved a complete response after four cycles. The overall response rate (ORR) was 90% (45 patients) and 78% (39 patients) achieved a very good partial response (VGPR) or better. After completion of consolidation, 58% (29 patients) achieved a complete response; the ORR was 90% (45 patients) and 86% (43 patients) achieved a VGPR or better. The most common grade 3 or 4 side-effects (≥two patients) included neutropenia (13 [26%] of 50 patients), elevated alanine aminotransferase (six [12%] patients), fatigue (three [6%] patients), thrombocytopenia (three [6%] patients), acute kidney injury (two [4%] patients), anaemia (two [4%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (two [4%] patients). Grade 1-2 infusion-related reactions were seen in 20% (ten patients), with none grade 3. Grade 1-2 hypertension was seen in 14% (seven patients) with one grade 3 (one [2%] patient). There were two deaths assessed as unrelated to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Although the study did not achieve the prespecified complete response threshold, Isa-KRd induced deep and durable responses in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The treatment proved safe and consistent with similar regimens in this setting.

FUNDING

Amgen, Sanofi, and Adaptive.

Real-world multiple myeloma risk factors and outcomes by non-Hispanic Black/African American and non- Hispanic White race/ethnicity in the United States

Examination of the impact of race and ethnicity on multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes has yielded inconsistent results. This retrospective, real-world (RW) study describes patient, disease, and treatment characteristics (and associations with survival outcomes) among newly diagnosed MM patients of non-Hispanic (NH) Black/African American (AA) and NH White race/ethnicity in the US. We included patients from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database who initiated first line of therapy (LOT) for MM between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2022. Of 4,614 patients in our study cohort, 23.3% were NH Black/AA. Non-Hispanic Black/AA patients were younger than NH White patients at diagnosis (median 68 vs. 71 years) and more likely to be female (53.4% vs. 43.5%). Rates of high-risk cytogenetics and 1q21+ were similar between races/ethnicities. The most common primary regimen used was lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (50.1% of NH Black/AA and 48.1% of NH White patients). Receipt of stem cell transplantation during first LOT was less common among NH Black/AA (16.5%) than NH White (21.9%) patients. Unadjusted RW progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (rwOS) were similar between races/ethnicities. After multivariable adjustment, NH Black/AA race/ethnicity was associated with slightly inferior rwPFS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.27). The difference in rwOS (HR=1.12; 95% CI: 0.98-1.28) was not statistically significant. In general, associations between risk factors for rwPFS and rwOS were consistent between races/ethnicities. Findings from this analysis help to inform clinicians about the impact of race/ethnicity on MM treatment paradigms and outcomes in the US.

INSURE: a pooled analysis of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma in routine practice

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports.

Real-world treatment patterns in patients initiating third-line therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively analyze real-world treatment patterns in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who initiated third-line treatment in Europe.

METHODS

German and Italian administrative claims data were sourced from the German AOK PLUS health insurance fund and Italian local health units (2016-2020). Data for the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Spain were sourced from medical chart reviews (MCRs) from 2016 to 2018 (historical) and 2019 to 2021 (new) using electronic case report forms.

RESULTS

Across all countries, immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD)-based regimens were prominent in the third-line setting. From 2016 to 2020, lenalidomide-dexamethasone was most common in Italy (18.0%) and Germany (12.7%). From 2019 to 2021, the most common regimen was ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (67.5%) in the UK, pomalidomide-dexamethasone (17.1%) in France, and daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (15.0%) in Spain. In the historical data (2016-2018), third-line lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-dexamethasone doublet use across the UK (>47%), France (>46%), and Spain (>33%) was high. From historical to new, triplet use increased in Spain (>19% to >60%) as did anti-CD38 agent use in France (15.1% to 51.9%) and Spain (19.7% to 42.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2016 to 2021, third-line regimens were mostly IMiD based. The MCR data demonstrated evolving treatment choices from 2016 to 2018 and 2019 to 2021, providing insights into uptake of novel agents and current RRMM European clinical practice.

Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Progression-Free Survival with D-Rd and VRd Based on MAIA and SWOG S0777 Individual Patient-Level Data

INTRODUCTION

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777.

METHODS

Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd.

RESULTS

PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results.

CONCLUSION

This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population.

Use of the Second Revision of the International Staging System for prognostic stratification of multiple myeloma patients in real-world clinical practice and the importance of sub-groups, including age

Not available.

Nationwide implementation of lenalidomide maintenance in multiple myeloma: A retrospective, real-world study

Lenalidomide maintenance (LM) has shown benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in clinical trials. LM is the recommended standard of care in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT). In Denmark, LM has been approved and publicly funded for all patients treated with HDM-ASCT since June 2019. Patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with their first HDM-ASCT between June 2019 and March 2022 were included and followed until data cut-off in June 2023. To compare outcomes, a historical pre-LM cohort from the Danish MM Registry, consisting of 364 MM patients treated with HDM-ASCT between June 2015 and June 2019, was used. Among 364 patients treated with HDM-ASCT after June 2019, 22.3% received consolidation therapy and 3.7% underwent tandem HDM-ASCT. During follow-up, 297 patients (81.6%) initiated maintenance therapy, with 277 (76.1%) receiving LM. Overall, 145 patients (52.3%) discontinued LM most commonly due to toxicity 75 (51.7%), with fatigue (30.7%), cytopenia (25.3%), and neuropathy (17.3%) being the main reasons. In a 6-month landmark analysis, early discontinuation did not negatively impact PFS or OS. The LM cohort had similar PFS, and OS compared to the pre-LM cohort. The 3-year PFS and OS rates in the LM cohort were 61% and 86%, respectively, while the pre-LM cohort had a 3-year PFS of 55% and a 3-year OS of 89%. In conclusion, the introduction of LM as a nationwide treatment option in Denmark did not lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma in Denmark, Finland and Sweden: An analysis using linked Nordic registries

AIM

The Health outcomes and Understanding of MyelomA multi-National Study (HUMANS) was a large-scale, retrospective study conducted across Denmark, Finland and Sweden using linked data from national registries. We describe the characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) over 2010-2018.

METHODS

Patients with NDMM who received MM-specific, first-line treatments, were categorised by treatment (autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT] or a combination chemotherapy regimen based on bortezomib, lenalidomide or melphalan-prednisolone-thalidomide).

RESULTS

11,023 patients received treatment over 2010-2018. Time between diagnosis and treatment was shortest in Denmark (0.9 months), then Sweden (2.9 months) and Finland (4.6 months). Around one third of patients underwent ASCT. Lenalidomide-based regimens were prescribed to 23-28% of patients in Denmark and Finland, versus 12% in Sweden. Patients receiving lenalidomide had the longest wait for treatment, from 3.2 months (Denmark) to 12.1 months (Sweden). Treatment persistence was highest among patients receiving melphalan-prednisolone-thalidomide (7-8 months) in Finland and Sweden and lowest among those receiving bortezomib (3.5 months) in Finland. Overall survival (OS) was longest among patients with ASCT (7-10 years). Among patients receiving chemotherapy, OS (from diagnosis/treatment initiation), varied between cohorts. In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with smouldering MM, OS decreased for all; for patients receiving bortezomib or lenalidomide, OS from diagnosis was 40-49 and 27-54 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study of patients with NDMM receiving first-line MM-specific treatment, provides real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes to complement data from randomised clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from the randomized, open-label, phase III LIGHTHOUSE study

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Lenalidomide-Pretreated Multiple Myeloma: A Subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by Frailty and Bortezomib Dose Adjustment

INTRODUCTION

A proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are older and/or have comorbidities, requiring dose adjustments. Data from OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928) supported the use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) for treating relapsed/refractory MM. This subanalysis of OPTIMISMM assessed outcome by frailty and/or bortezomib dose adjustment.

METHODS

Patient frailty (nonfrail vs. frail) was classified using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data from patients requiring a bortezomib dose reduction, interruption, and/or withdrawal during PVd treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 559 patients, 93 of 281 (33.1%) and 93 of 278 (33.5%) patients who received PVd and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), respectively, were frail. Overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were higher in nonfrail vs. frail with PVd treatment (ORR, 82.8% vs. 79.6%; PFS, 14.7 vs. 9.7 months); significantly higher than with Vd regardless of frailty. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher with PVd vs. Vd, regardless of frailty. Discontinuations of PVd were lower in nonfrail vs. frail patients (19.2% vs. 30.1%); the median duration of treatment was similar (DoT; 8.8 vs. 8.9 months, respectively). Patients who received PVd with a bortezomib dose adjustment (n = 240) had a longer median DoT (9.3 vs. 4.5 months) and PFS (12.1 vs. 8.4 months) vs. those without.

CONCLUSION

Frail patients treated with PVd demonstrated a higher ORR and a longer PFS and DoT vs. Vd, despite a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs leading to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and/or dexamethasone discontinuation. Therefore, PVd treatment may improve patient outcomes, regardless of frailty.

ANCHOR: melflufen plus dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final results of a phase I/IIa study

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

Melflufen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma refractory to prior alkylators: A subgroup analysis from the OCEAN study

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival (OS), versus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the OCEAN study. Time to progression (TTP) <36 months after a prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was a negative prognostic factor for OS with melflufen. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated patients refractory to prior alkylators (e.g., cyclophosphamide and melphalan) in OCEAN. In 153 patients refractory to prior alkylators (melflufen, n = 78; pomalidomide, n = 75), the melflufen and pomalidomide arms had similar median PFS (5.6 months [95% CI, 4.2-8.3] vs. 4.7 months [95% CI, 3.1-7.3]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.63-1.33]) and OS (23.4 months [95% CI, 14.4-31.7] vs. 20.0 months [95% CI, 12.0-28.7]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.38]). Among alkylator-refractory patients with a TTP ≥ 36 months after a prior ASCT or no prior ASCT (melflufen, n = 54; pomalidomide, n = 53), the observed median PFS and OS were longer in the melflufen arm than the pomalidomide arm. The safety profile of melflufen was consistent with previous reports. These results suggest that melflufen is safe and effective in patients with alkylator-refractory disease, suggesting differentiated activity from other alkylators.

High-volume facilities are significantly more likely to use guideline-adherent systemic immunotherapy for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: implications for cancer care regionalization

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality. While still relatively rare, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising in the US and around the world. Since 2017, two immunotherapeutic drugs, avelumab and pembrolizumab, have been FDA-approved for the treatment of metastatic MCC and have revolutionized outcomes for MCC. However, real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. We aimed to characterize the treatment practices and outcomes of patients with metastatic MCC across the US. A retrospective cohort study of adult cases of MCC in the National Cancer Database diagnosed from 2004 to 2019 was performed. Multivariable logistic regressions to determine the association of a variety of patient, tumor, and system factors with likelihood of receipt of systemic therapies were performed. Univariate Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox survival regressions were performed. We identified 1017 cases of metastatic MCC. From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients received immunotherapy. This increased from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. High-volume centers were significantly more likely to use immunotherapy (odds ratio 3.235, p = 0.002). On univariate analysis, patients receiving systemic immunotherapy had significantly improved overall survival (p < 0.001). One-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 47.2% (standard error [SE] 1.8%), 21.8% (SE 1.5%), and 16.5% (SE 1.4%), respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy versus 62.7% (SE 3.5%), 34.4% (SE 3.9%), and 23.6% (SE 4.4%), respectively, for those who did (Fig. 1). In our multivariable survival regression, receipt of immunotherapy was associated with an approximately 35% reduction in hazard of death (hazard ratio 0.665, p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.548-0.808). Our results demonstrate that the real-world survival advantage of immunotherapy for metastatic MCC is similar to clinical trial data. However, many patients with metastatic disease did not receive this guideline-recommended therapy in our most recent study year, and use of immunotherapy is higher at high-volume centers. This suggests that regionalization of care to high-volume centers or dissemination of their practices, may ultimately improve patient survival.

Use Via Early Access to Ixazomib (UVEA-IXA) Study: Effectiveness and Safety of Ixazomib-based Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Outside of the Clinical Trial Setting

BACKGROUND

In multiple myeloma (MM), improving our understanding of routine clinical practice and the effectiveness of agents outside of clinical trials is important. TOURMALINE-MM1 data resulted in approval of ixazomib for MM patients who have received ≥ 1 prior therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

UVEA-IXA comprised a retrospective chart review in the early access program, and a prospective 1-year follow-up period. Eligible patients had had a biochemical and/or symptomatic relapse after 1-3 prior lines of therapy; no anti-MM therapy for > 3 cycles at the start of ixazomib therapy; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2. Lenalidomide- or proteasome inhibitor (PI)-refractory patients were ineligible. Primary endpoints were response and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Of 357 enrolled patients, 309 were evaluable; most patients received ixazomib alongside lenalidomide (98%) and dexamethasone (97%); 61% had received 2-3 prior lines of therapy. Median PFS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0-20.6) in all evaluable patients, and 19.6 (95% CI: 12.1-27.0) and 13.9 (95% CI: 10.1-18.1) months in patients who received 1 and ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, respectively. The overall response rate was 67% in all evaluable patients, and 72% and 63%, respectively, in patients who received 1 and ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Median overall survival was 35.5 months. The ixazomib safety profile was consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSION

This study supports ixazomib-based therapy as an effective and tolerable treatment in the real-world. Outcomes were favorable in patients with 1 or ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy who were not lenalidomide- or PI-refractory.

A prospective, multicenter, observational study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Japan

Real-world studies permit inclusion of a more diverse patient population and provide more information on the effectiveness of treatments used in routine clinical practice. This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in 295 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in routine clinical practice in Japan. Patients had a median age of 74 years, 80.0% were aged ≥ 65 years, 42.0% had received ≥ 3 lines of prior treatment, and 28.5% were "frail" according to the International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. After a median follow-up of 25.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.3 (95% CI 12.4-19.5) months, while median overall survival was not reached. The overall response rate was 53.9%, and 31.5% of patients had a very good partial response or better. In the subgroup analysis, median PFS was better in patients with 1 versus 2 or ≥ 3 lines of prior treatment (29.0 vs 19.2 or 6.9 months) and paraprotein versus clinical relapse (16.0 vs 7.9 months), but median PFS was not notably affected by frailty score or age group. Dose adjustment was more frequent among patients aged > 75 years, especially early after IRd treatment initiation. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade occurred in 84.4% of patients and 24.7% of patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs; no new safety concerns were found. These findings suggest that oral IRd triplet regimen is an effective and tolerable treatment option for RRMM patients in real-world settings outside of clinical trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03433001; Date of registration: 14 February 2018.

In-class transition from bortezomib-based therapy to IRd is an effective approach in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of in-class transition to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) following parenteral bortezomib (V)-based induction versus continued V-based therapy in US oncology clinics. Patients & methods: Non-transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving in-class transition to IRd (N = 100; US MM-6), or V-based therapy (N = 111; INSIGHT MM). Results: Following inverse probability of treatment weighting, overall response rate was 73.2% with IRd versus 57.5% with V-based therapy (p < 0.0001). Median duration of treatment was 10.8 versus 5.3 months (p < 0.0001). Overall, 18/24% of patients discontinued IRd/V-based therapy due to adverse events. Conclusion: IRd after V-based induction was associated with significantly improved overall response rate and duration of treatment than continued V-based combination therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: US MM-6: NCT03173092; INSIGHT MM: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Does the Simultaneous Introduction of Several Pharmaceuticals in the Post-Lenalidomide Era Translate to Better Outcomes in Relapse Refractory Multiple Myeloma? Findings from the Real-World Innovation in Multiple Myeloma (REAL IMM) Study

Newer methodologies are needed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of a "generation" of pharmaceutical innovation versus the prior standard of care. This chart review study aimed to first evaluate the cumulative clinical benefits of pharmaceutical innovation in everyday relapse/refractory multiple myeloma before analyzing findings in the context of respective real-world outcomes from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. Study endpoints included the 52-week PFS rate in second and third line of therapy (LOT), mPFS-2 across the first and second LOT, the ORR, reasons for discontinuation, and the treatment duration per therapeutic algorithm. Data from 107 patients were collected. The median follow-up was 2.0 years. Of the subjects who met the selection criteria for the second LOT, 72.2% maintained the PFS at 52 weeks. In the third-line setting, the PFS rate at 52 weeks was 63.5%. The mPFS across the first and second, the second, and the third LOTs were 26, 17, and 15 months, respectively. The ORR was 76.1% in the second and 69.7% in the third LOT. After non-response or progression, the main reason for drug discontinuation was treatment intolerability. The second-line ORR and the 52-week PFS rate were similar to previous real-world findings from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. The cumulative mPFS across the second and third LOTs was higher than the respective mPFS across the first and second LOTs. Despite its limitations, the methodology and findings from this study may be used in future clinical and economic evaluations across all hematological malignancies.

Guidelines for the Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials

In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results.

Upfront or Deferred Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Triplet and Quadruplet Induction and Minimal Residual Disease/Risk-Adapted Therapy

The standards of care for the initial treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are eligible for high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT) include highly active triplet and quadruplet regimens based on proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. These regimens are resulting in improved outcomes and increasingly high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative responses without HDM-ASCT as part of the upfront therapy. Furthermore, recent randomized studies have shown that, while transplant-based approaches as a frontline therapy result in significantly longer progression-free survival compared to non-transplant approaches, this has not translated into an overall survival benefit. Given these developments, and in the context of the treatment burden of undergoing HDM-ASCT, in addition to the acute toxicities and long-term sequelae of HDM, which are associated with the genotoxicity of melphalan, there is an increasing rationale for considering deferring upfront HDM-ASCT in select transplant-eligible patients and saving it as a treatment option for later salvage therapy. Here, we review the latest clinical trial data on upfront or deferred HDM-ASCT and on the activity of quadruplet induction regimens, including rates of MRD-negative responses, and summarize emerging treatment approaches in the upfront setting such as the use of MRD-directed therapy and alternatives to HDM-ASCT.

Real-world treatment outcomes of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, focusing on the impact of trial-fitness: CAtholic REsearch network for Multiple Myeloma study (CAREMM-2203)

INTRODUCTION

Carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd) is widely used in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, the treatment outcomes of Kd, especially in trial-unfit patients, have not been extensively studied in the real-world setting.

METHODS

We analyzed the outcomes of 152 RRMM patients who received Kd at our hospitals from April 2018 to March 2022.

RESULTS

At the commencement of Kd, patients received a median of two (range 1-7) lines of prior anti-myeloma therapy. According to the ENDEAVOR study criteria, 93 (61.2%) and 59 (38.8%) patients were classified as the trial-fit and the trial-unfit group, respectively. The overall response (OR) rate for the entire cohort was 71.1% (95% CI 63.2-78.1%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.6 months (95% CI 3.9-6.9 months) and 24.0 months (95% CI 13.4-38.0 months), respectively. There was no significant difference in the OR rate between the trial-fit and the trial-unfit groups (76.3% vs. 62.7%; P = 0.105). However, the median PFS (3.6 months vs. 7.3 months; P < 0.001) and OS (15.0 vs. 36.8 months; P = 0.009) were significantly shorter in the trial-unfit group. On multivariate analysis, trial-fitness (unfit vs. fit) remained a significant covariate influencing the TRM (HR: 4.84, 95% CI 1.66-14.06; P = 0.004) and PFS (HR: 1.82, 95% CI 1.27-2.62; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the treatment outcomes of Kd are acceptable in the real-world setting with significant differences between the trial-fit and the trial-unfit groups, although they are relatively inferior to those of a pivotal trial.

Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma According to Clinical Trials Enrollment: Experience of a Single Institution

The proportion of non-transplant-eligible (NTE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients excluded from clinical trials (CTs) and their prognosis is unknown. CT results may not be generalizable to real-world practice due to strict recruitment criteria. We analyzed causes of NTE-NDMM patient exclusion form CTs and their outcomes. A total of 211 NTE-NDMM patients were included. They were divided into three periods: 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017. Overall, 50% received non-trial treatment (NCT), while 50% participated in a CT (20% control group (CG) and 30% experimental group (EG)). Main causes for exclusion from CTs were comorbidities, ECOG > 2, and renal insufficiency. In the first two periods, the CR rate was similar regardless of treatment type, but in the last period, the EG group showed improved CR. Median PFS was similar in the first two periods, with a benefit seen only in the EG in the last period. The median OS was significantly longer in CT-included patients compared to NCT group in the last two periods. Conclusions: The presence of comorbidities and worsened ECOG were the main reasons for CT exclusion. Patients included in CTs had a longer OS than NCT. This OS benefit may be influenced by a selection bias, making it challenging to generalize CT results to real clinical practice.

Clinical perspectives on the optimal use of lenalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

To improve the outcomes of patients with the otherwise incurable hematologic malignancy of multiple myeloma (MM), a key paradigm includes initial treatment to establish disease control rapidly followed by maintenance therapy to ensure durability of response with manageable toxicity. However, patients' prognosis worsens after relapse, and the disease burden and drug toxicities are generally more challenging with subsequent lines of therapy. It is therefore particularly important that patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) receive optimal frontline therapy. The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has consistently demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with significant and clinically relevant benefit, including deep and durable responses with improved survival in patients with NDMM regardless of their transplant eligibility. Furthermore, comparative studies evaluating this triplet regimen against both doublet and other triplet regimens have established RVd as a standard of care in this setting based upon its remarkable and concordant efficacy. Given the breadth of clinical data, physician familiarity, inclusion in treatment guidelines, and the emerging potential of RVd-containing quadruplet regimens, RVd will likely continue as a key cornerstone of the treatment of NDMM, and its role will therefore likely continue to grow as a therapeutic backbone in the initial treatment of MM.

Management and outcome of 500 multiple myeloma patients treated for first relapse outside clinical studies

Treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) at 1st relapse are expanding. The current study compared common 2nd line regimens administered in a real-world setting. MM patients registered in Maccabi health care services and treated with second line therapy during 2014-2020 were evaluated, analyzing factors affecting time to third line therapy (TT3T). The study included 500 MM patients, previously treated with proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based induction. Median age at second line treatment was 68.5 years (IQR: 61.6-76.4). Most patients received a triplet based induction composed of PI (n = 471, 94.2%), with (n = 71) or without IMID (n = 400), followed by second line treatment composed of lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD) (n = 225, 45%) or lenalidomide-dexamethasone-daratumumab (RD-Dara (n = 104, 20.8%)). Multivariable analysis confirmed treatment type (RD-Dara vs. IMID) to be associated with a lower risk to progress to third line therapy; (HR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.86, p = 0.012). Within a median follow-up period of 22.5 months (intraquartile range 11.1-39.4 m), median TT3T was not reached in patients receiving RD-Dara vs. 32.4 months (95% CI 18.0-46.8 m) with IMID, 18 months (95% CI 10.4-25.6 m) with IMID-PI and 12.1 months (95% CI 5.6-18.7 m) with PI-based regimen. In contrast, PI vs. IMID-based therapy and increased body weight were associated with a higher likelihood of progression (HR = 2.56 (95% CI 1.49-4.42); HR = 1.43, (95% CI 0.96-2.14), p = 0.08). To conclude, second line therapy with RD-Dara was associated with a significantly longer TT3T compared with IMID-based regimen, longer than obtained with PI-IMID and PI-based regimens, in patients treated outside clinical studies and previously exposed to bortezomib.

Real-world Duration of Use and Dosing Frequency of Daratumumab in Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the United States

Daratumumab (DARA) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved as a combination therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and as monotherapy and combination therapy for relapsed or refractory MM cases. We assessed the length of DARA use across lines of therapy and the probabilities of treatment discontinuation in patients with MM in the real-world. We used the deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from Optum to identify patients with MM (n=2124) who received DARA-containing treatment between November 1, 2015 and March 31, 2021 in the United States. Patients were excluded if they had received a stem cell transplant. The duration of DARA use was defined as the time interval between the first initiation and discontinuation of DARA as a time-to-event outcome using the Kaplan-Meier method. A gap of more than 60 days between 2 consequent DARA claim dates was defined as DARA discontinuation. The median duration of continuous DARA use was 16.6 months. By 24 months, 33.1% of patients remained on DARA treatment. In a subgroup analysis of patients with 12 months or more continuous insurance coverage (n=1246), the median length of DARA use was 24.7 months; by 24 months, 51.8% remained on DARA treatment. The dose adherence ratios (observed DARA doses relative to the label) were close to 1.0, particularly among patients with longer follow-up, indicating that real-world DARA dosing frequency was similar to that on the approved label. In summary, this real-world analysis reported that the median duration of continuous DARA use is 16.6 months, with high dosing adherence in patients who have MM.

Addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (GRIFFIN): final analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) in the GRIFFIN study improved the stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the findings of the predefined final analysis.

METHODS

GRIFFIN was an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 35 research centres in the USA. Patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with measurable disease by M protein or free light chain, were aged 18-70 years, had an ECOG performance score of 0-2, and were eligible for autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four D-RVd or RVd induction cycles, autologous HSCT, two D-RVd or RVd consolidation cycles, and lenalidomide with or without daratumumab maintenance therapy for 2 years. Patients received 21-day cycles of oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-14), subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), oral dexamethasone (40 mg weekly) with or without intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-4; day 1, cycles 5-6). Maintenance therapy (28-day cycles) was oral lenalidomide (10 mg on days 1-21) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg intravenously every 4 or 8 weeks, or 1800 mg subcutaneously monthly). Patients could continue lenalidomide maintenance after study treatment completion. The primary endpoint was stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in the response-evaluable population, and has already been reported. Here we report updated stringent complete response rates and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival and overall survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02874742) and ended on April 8, 2022.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 20, 2016, and April 10, 2018, 104 patients were randomly assigned to the D-RVd group and 103 were randomly assigned to the RVd group; most patients were White (85 [82%] in the D-RVd group and 76 [74%] in the RVd group) and male (58 [56%] in the D-RVd group and 60 [58%] in the RVd group). At a median follow-up of 49·6 months (IQR 47·4-52·1), D-RVd improved rates of stringent complete response (67 [67%] of 100] vs 47 [48%] of 98]; odds ratio 2·18 [95% CI 1·22-3·89], p=0·0079), and 4-year progression-free survival was 87·2% (95% CI 77·9-92·8) for D-RVd versus 70·0% (95% CI 55·9-80·3) for RVd, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·45 (95% CI 0·21-0·95, p=0·032) for risk of disease progression or death with D-RVd. Median overall survival was not reached for either group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·31-2·56], p=0·84). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-RVd versus RVd groups were neutropenia (46 [46%] of 99 vs 23 [23%] of 102), lymphopenia (23 [23%] vs 23 [23%]), leukopenia (17 [17%] vs eight [8%]), thrombocytopenia (16 [16%] vs nine [9%]), pneumonia (12 [12%] vs 14 [14%]), and hypophosphataemia (ten [10%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 46 (46%) of 99 patients in the D-RVd group and in 53 (52%) of 102 patients in the RVd group. One patient in each treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event that resulted in death (bronchopneumonia in the D-RVd group; cause unknown in the RVd group); neither was related to study treatment. No new safety concerns occurred with maintenance therapy.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of daratumumab to RVd improved the depth of response and progression-free survival in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. These results justify further evaluation in phase 3 studies.

FUNDING

Janssen Oncology.

Disparities in Outcomes of Hospitalizations Due to Multiple Myeloma: A Nationwide Comparison

Background With the advent of novel treatments, there is a declining trend in the multiple myeloma (MM) mortality rate with an increasing hospitalization rate. However, there is limited population-based data on trends and outcomes of hospitalizations due to MM in the United States (US). Methods We analyzed the publicly available Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2007 to 2017 to identify MM hospitalizations. Results Hospitalizations for MM increased from 17,100 (8.71%) in 2007 to 19,490 (9.92%) in 2017. The in-hospital mortality rate declined from 8.4% in 2007 to 4.9% in 2017 (P <0.001) and discharge to facilities decreased from 20.4% in 2007 to 17.4% in 2017 (P <0.001). The odds of in-hospital mortality were higher with increasing age (odds ratio (OR): 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38 -1.54; P <0.0001), pneumonia (OR: 4.18; 95% CI: 3.63 - 4.81, P <0.0001), septicemia (OR: 2.50; 95% CI: 2.22 - 2.82; P <0.0001), renal failure (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.34 -1.64; P <0.0001), uninsured/self-pay insurance status (OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 2.18 - 3.3; P <0.0001), rural hospital (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.88 -2.72; P<0.0001), and urban-non-teaching hospitals (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.23 - 1.56; P <0.0001). Also, increasing age (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.11-1.18, P <0.0001), Black race (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.23, P <0.0001), and multiple comorbidities were associated with higher disability. Conclusion Hospitalizations for MM continued to increase, whereas in-hospital mortality continued to decrease. Advanced age, sepsis, pneumonia, and renal failure were associated with higher odds of mortality in MM patients.

Immunomodulatory properties of CD38 antibodies and their effect on anticancer efficacy in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

CD38 has been established as an important therapeutic target for multiple myeloma (MM), for which two CD38 antibodies are currently approved-daratumumab and isatuximab. CD38 is an ectoenzyme that degrades NAD and its precursors and is involved in the production of adenosine and other metabolites.

AIM

Among the various mechanisms by which CD38 antibodies can induce MM cell death is immunomodulation, including multiple pathways for CD38-mediated T-cell activation. Patients who respond to anti-CD38 targeting treatment experience more marked changes in T-cell expansion, activity, and clonality than nonresponders.

IMPLICATIONS

Resistance mechanisms that undermine the immunomodulatory effects of CD38-targeting therapies can be tumor intrinsic, such as the downregulation of CD38 surface expression and expression of complement inhibitor proteins, and immune microenvironment-related, such as changes to the natural killer (NK) cell numbers and function in the bone marrow niche. There are numerous strategies to overcome this resistance, which include identifying and targeting other therapeutic targets involved in, for example, adenosine production, the activation of NK cells or monocytes through immunomodulatory drugs and their combination with elotuzumab, or with bispecific T-cell engagers.

In-class transition (iCT) of proteasome inhibitor-based therapy: a community approach to multiple myeloma management

Long-term proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment can improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, but this can be difficult to achieve in clinical practice due to toxicity, comorbidities, and the burden of repeated parenteral administration. US MM-6 (NCT03173092) enrolled transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd; ≤39 cycles or until progression or toxicity) following three cycles of bortezomib-based induction. Primary endpoint: 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction, and actigraphy. At datacut, in the fully accrued cohort of 140 patients, median age was 73 years with 42% aged ≥75 and 61% deemed frail; 10% of patients were ongoing on treatment. After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 71% (95% confidence interval: 61-78). ORR increased from 62% at the end of induction to 80% following in-class transition (iCT) to IRd for a median of 11 months. The 2-year OS rate was 86%. The overall safety profile/actigraphy levels were consistent with previous reports; QoL/treatment satisfaction scores were stable with ongoing therapy. iCT to IRd may allow prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile, while maintaining QoL.

Mezigdomide plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

Despite recent progress, multiple myeloma remains incurable. Mezigdomide is a novel cereblon E3 ubiquitin ligase modulator with potent antiproliferative and tumoricidal activity in preclinical models of multiple myeloma, including those resistant to lenalidomide and pomalidomide.

METHODS

In this phase 1-2 study, we administered oral mezigdomide in combination with dexamethasone to patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. The primary objectives of phase 1 (dose-escalation cohort) were to assess safety and pharmacokinetics and to identify the dose and schedule for phase 2. In phase 2 (dose-expansion cohort), objectives included the assessment of the overall response (partial response or better), safety, and efficacy of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone at the dose and schedule determined in phase 1.

RESULTS

In phase 1, a total of 77 patients were enrolled in the study. The most common dose-limiting toxic effects were neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. On the basis of the phase 1 findings, investigators determined the recommended phase 2 dose of mezigdomide to be 1.0 mg, given once daily in combination with dexamethasone for 21 days, followed by 7 days off, in each 28-day cycle. In phase 2, a total of 101 patients received the dose identified in phase 1 in the same schedule. All patients in the dose-expansion cohort had triple-class-refractory multiple myeloma, 30 patients (30%) had received previous anti-B-cell maturation antigen (anti-BCMA) therapy, and 40 (40%) had plasmacytomas. The most common adverse events, almost all of which proved to be reversible, included neutropenia (in 77% of the patients) and infection (in 65%; grade 3, 29%; grade 4, 6%). No unexpected toxic effects were encountered. An overall response occurred in 41% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 31 to 51), the median duration of response was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.5; data not mature), and the median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 5.5), with a median follow-up of 7.5 months (range, 0.5 to 21.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The all-oral combination of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone showed promising efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, with treatment-related adverse events consisting mainly of myelotoxic effects. (Funded by Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CC-92480-MM-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374085; EudraCT number, 2017-001236-19.).

Benefit Versus Risk Assessment of Melflufen and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analyses From Longer Follow-up of the OCEAN and HORIZON Studies

INTRODUCTION

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) but directionally different overall survival (OS) favoring pomalidomide (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10) in OCEAN.

METHODS

These analyses further investigated prognostic subgroups impacting survival in updated data from the randomized, phase 3 OCEAN study (NCT03151811; date: February 3, 2022) and the phase 2 HORIZON study (NCT02963493; date: February 2, 2022).

RESULTS

In OCEAN, subgroups prognostic for OS were age (P = .011; <65 years favored pomalidomide) and no previous autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or progression >36 months after ASCT (P = .001; favored melflufen). Overall, 245 of 495 (49%) patients randomized had received a previous ASCT, of which 202 (82%) had progressed within 36 months following their ASCT. When excluding patients who had progressed <36 months post-ASCT (melflufen group, n = 145; pomalidomide group, n = 148), median OS was 23.6 months with melflufen and 19.8 months with pomalidomide (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62-1.12]; P = .22). Among patients with triple-class refractory disease in HORIZON, patients who had progressed <36 months post-ASCT (n = 58) had a lower response rate and shorter duration of response and PFS than the remaining patients (n = 52). Safety was consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSION

These analyses demonstrate a consistent benefit for melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have not received an ASCT or progressed >36 months after receiving an ASCT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03151811).

Clinical Outcomes and Serum B-Cell Maturation Antigen Levels in a Real-World Unselected Population of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

BACKGROUND

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients have been widely published in the clinical trials setting, but data published from real-world settings are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We determined the survival and factors that predict outcomes among 161 unselected, newly diagnosed MM patients whose frontline therapy was started at a single clinic specializing in the treatment of this B-cell malignancy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

None of these patients underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation as part of their initial therapy and the population had a high proportion (35%) of cytogenetic high-risk patients.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 42.7 months, the cohort had a median PFS of 22.8 months and a median OS of 136.2 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 97.5%, 85.3%, and 76.2%, respectively. These results are considerably better than those reported from patients enrolled in clinical trials and those from countries with national registries. Age <65 years predicted for a longer OS (p = 0.0004). Baseline serum B-cell maturation antigen (sBCMA) levels were also assessed and showed median and mean levels of 320.3 ng/mL and 551.1 ng/mL, respectively. Furthermore, patients with baseline sBCMA levels in the lowest quartile (≤136.2 ng/mL) showed a longer PFS (p = 0.0262).

CONCLUSION

These results provide clinicians with a real-world understanding of the survival of unselected, newly diagnosed patients initiating therapy in a clinic specializing in the care of MM patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Following Injectable PI-Based Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

This nationwide, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), ixazomib plus lenalidomide (LEN) and dexamethasone (DEX) (IRd) following injectable PI-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Of 45 patients enrolled, 36 patients received IRd after achieving at least a minor response to 3 cycles of bortezomib or carfilzomib plus LEN + DEX (VRd, n=6; KRd, n=30). At median follow-up of 20.8 months, the 12-month event-free survival rate (primary endpoint) was 49% (90% CI: 35.9-62.0), counting 11 events of progressive disease/death, 8 dropouts and 4 missing response data. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate by Kaplan-Meier analysis (dropouts as censoring) was 74% (95% CI: 56-86). Median PFS and time to next treatment (95% CI) were 29.0 (21.3-NE) and 32.3 (14.9-35.4) months, respectively; median OS was not evaluable. The overall response rate was 73%, and 42% of patients had a very good partial response or better. Frequent (≥10% incidence) grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were decreased neutrophil and platelet counts (n=7 [16%] each). Two deaths occurred (one during KRd treatment and one during IRd treatment), both due to pneumonia. IRd following injectable PI-based therapy was tolerable and efficacious in RRMM patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03416374; Date of registration: January 31, 2018.

Impact of bortezomib-based versus lenalidomide maintenance therapy on outcomes of patients with high-risk multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression-free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high-risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard-risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib-based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.

METHODS

In total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel-agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib-based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib-based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high-risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression-free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

No superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post-transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

The role of staging in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

The importance of cancer staging is determined by how accurately it can predict prognosis, and how useful it is for treatment decisions. Compared to other malignancies, multiple myeloma (MM) staging proved more challenging because of unreliable prognostic factors and wide-ranging life expectancy. As traditional MM staging continues to evolve, it requires reassessment of its prognostic and predictive value.

AREAS COVERED

The studies that included prognostic and predictive value of MM stages from 1975 through 2023 were selected for this review using PubMed, MEDLINE platforms. The history and evolution of MM staging are revisited, including its role in predicting survival, treatment planning and potential practical implications for the future. The role of MM staging for oncological practice and patient counseling is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The utility of the traditional MM staging remains unsatisfactory because it lacks a strong connection with the disease biology, prognosis or treatment planning. Additionally, it demonstrates a modest value for patient counseling because individual prognosis is subject to under- or overestimation, and the median survival or survival rates are difficult concepts to grasp. Although the role of MM stages may change in the future, the current research upholds the notion that MM staging benefits more medical research and clinical trials than oncological practice.

A safety review of recently approved and emerging drugs for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Multiple new drugs have been approved over the past 5 years for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and these are being increasingly widely used. Clinicians need to familiarize themselves with common toxicities associated with these drugs and with novel toxicities requiring specific management and supportive care.

AREAS COVERED

We review common toxicities associated with agents approved for RRMM in the past 5 years, including the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab, the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, the bispecific antibody teclistamab, the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products idecabtagene vicleucel and ciltacabtagene autoleucel, the selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound selinexor, and the drug-peptide conjugate melflufen, as well as toxicities associated with emerging agents for RRMM including additional bispecific antibodies, the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax, and the cereblon E3 ligase modulators iberdomide and mezigdomide. We searched the published literature using PubMed, plus congress abstracts, for the above list of drug names or classes and 'myeloma.'

EXPERT OPINION

Optimal management of toxicities associated with these recently approved and emerging therapies will be critical in maximizing clinical benefit and aiding widespread adoption in routine clinical practice. We summarize current recommendations and guidelines and provide expert insights into supportive care requirements.