Bendamustine in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Extramedullary relapse of multiple myeloma presenting as space-occupying lesion in liver treated with daratumumab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone and bendamustine

Extramedullary relapse in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is often associated with loss of biochemical response and the appearance of measurable residual disease in the bone marrow. Fever is an unusual presenting manifestation of MM. Treatment of extramedullary relapse in patients progressing on proteasome inhibitors, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies and immunomodulatory drugs is challenging, as access to chimeric antigen receptor T-cells and bispecific antibodies is limited. We report a case of relapsed MM who presented with fever and hepatic space-occupying lesion mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma. In this case report, we also present our experience of using a novel combination regimen comprising Dara-Pom-Benda-Dexa (daratumumab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone and bendamustine) for relapsed MM.

Revisiting the Role of Alkylating Agents in Multiple Myeloma: Up-to-Date Evidence and Future Perspectives

From the 1960s to the early 2000s, alkylating agents (e.g., melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and bendamustine) remained a key component of standard therapy for newly-diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Later on, their associated toxicities (including second primary malignancies) and the unprecedented efficacy of novel therapies have led clinicians to increasingly consider alkylator-free approaches. Meanwhile, new alkylating agents (e.g., melflufen) and new applications of old alkylators (e.g., lymphodepletion before chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapy) have emerged in recent years. Given the expanding use of antigen-directed modalities (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T therapy), this review explores the current and future role of alkylating agents in different treatment settings (e.g., induction, consolidation, stem cell mobilization, pre-transplant conditioning, salvage, bridging, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy) to ellucidate the role of alkylator-based regimens in modern-day MM management.

Clinical Management of Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Review of Current Strategies and Emerging Therapies

Major progress has been made in the upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, but the disease ultimately relapses and leads to death in the vast majority of those afflicted. New treatment strategies and modalities are necessary to treat myeloma in relapse, particularly in cases of triple-refractory status defined by disease progression during or shortly after treatment with immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy. In this manuscript, we review recent promising developments in the treatment of triple-class refractory myeloma including bispecific antibodies and T cell engagers, chimeric antigen receptor cellular therapies, as well as chemotherapeutics with novel mechanisms of action.

Bendamustine in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase II trial

Treatment of patients with resistant/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is an unmet need. In this phase II study, we evaluated the role of bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination in this setting. Between February 2020 and December 2021, 28 patients were recruited. Patients received bendamustine 120 mg/m² day 1, pomalidomide 3 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 11, 22, regimen given for a maximum of six cycles. The median (range) age of the patients was 54 (30-76) years and 15 (53.6%) were males. Patients had received a median (range) of three (two-six) prior lines and 85.7% were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary end-point was the overall response rate (ORR) defined as ≥partial response after at least three cycles. Secondary objectives were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis was done. An ORR of 57.6% was achieved. Patients with extramedullary myeloma had a better response rate. At a median follow-up of 8.6 months, the median PFS and OS were 6.2 and 9.7 months respectively. Toxicity was manageable; mainly haematological (neutropenia, 46.4%; anaemia, 42.8%; and thrombocytopenia, 7.1%). Bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone could be a novel combination for the heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory myeloma population.

Adding bendamustine to melphalan before ASCT improves CR rate in myeloma vs. melphalan alone: A randomized phase-2 trial

Definite cure remains exceptional in myeloma patients even after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with melphalan (Mel) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Thus, improving efficacy of HDCT in MM remains an unresolved issue. This randomized phase II trial compared standard 200 mg/m² Mel HDCT to experimental HDCT with 200 mg/m² bendamustine, given both at days −4 and −3, combined with 100 mg/m² melphalan at days −2 and −1 (BenMel) before ASCT as first-line consolidation in myeloma patients. The primary endpoint aimed to identify at least a 15% improvement in the complete remission rate (stringent CR + CR) after HDCT with BenMel compared with Mel alone. A total of 120 MM patients were 1:1 randomized. The rate of sCR/CR after ASCT was higher in BenMel than in Mel treated patients (70.0% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.039). Three patients in the BenMel group (5.0%) had reversible acute renal insufficiency compared with none in Mel patients. Minimal residual disease negativity (<10-5) by flow cytometry was observed in 26 (45.6%) BenMel patients and 22 (37.9%) in the Mel group (p = 0.375). Our data suggest that BenMel HDCT is safe and improves the sCR/CR rate compared with standard Mel alone.

Bendamustine-Based Regimens as Salvage Therapy in Refractory/Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Retrospective Real-Life Analysis by the Polish Myeloma Group

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease and patients become refractory to the treatment in the course of the disease. Bendamustine-based regimens containing steroids and other agents are among the therapeutic options offered to MM patients. Here, we investigated the safety and the efficacy of bendamustine used in patients with refractory/relapsed MM (RRMM). The patients were treated with bendamustine and steroids (n = 52) or bendamustine, steroids and immunomodulatory agents or proteasome inhibitors (n = 53). Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and frequency of adverse events were compared between both study groups. Most efficacy measurements were better in patients treated with three-drug regimens: overall response rate (55% versus 37%, p = 0.062), median PFS (9 months versus 4 months, p < 0.001), median OS survival (18 months versus 12 months, p = 0.679). The benefit from combining bendamustine and steroids with an additional agent was found in subgroups previously treated with both lenalidmide and bortezomib, with stem cell transplant and with more than two previous therapy lines. Toxicity was similar in both study groups and bendamustine-based therapies were generally well-tolerated. Our study suggests that bendamustine may be an effective treatment for patients with RRMM. Three-drug regimens containing bendamustine, steroids and novel agents produced better outcomes and had acceptable toxicity. The efficacy of bendamustine combined with steroids was limited.

DCEP and bendamustine/prednisone as salvage therapy for quad- and penta-refractory multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) almost invariably progresses through novel therapies. Patients with quad-refractory MM (refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide) and penta-refractory MM (additional refractoriness to daratumumab) have few treatment options. Two chemotherapy regimens, bendamustine/prednisone (BP) and dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (DCEP), are often used in quad- and penta-refractory MM, but there are limited data on outcomes in this heavily pre-treated population. We conducted a single-center retrospective study to identify all patients who received DCEP and/or BP for quad- or penta-refractory MM. Disease response and refractoriness were defined by International Myeloma Working Group criteria. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR). We identified 27 patients who received BP for quad- or penta-refractory MM. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 6. The ORR for BP was 26%. The median PFS for BP was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.1-1.6) and median OS was 8.7 months (95% CI 2.3-15.0). Patients treated with cyclophosphamide had less response to BP. Thirty-one patients received DCEP for quad-refractory or penta-refractory MM. The median number of prior treatment regimens was 8. The ORR to DCEP was 35%. The median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 1.5-3.8) and median OS was 6.2 months (95% CI 4.4-7.8). DCEP and BP retain efficacy in quad- and penta-refractory MM. Our analysis supports prospective study of these regimens, possibly in combination or in comparison with other agents in this area of unmet need.

Dose-intensified bendamustine and melphalan (BenMel) conditioning before second autologous transplantation in myeloma patients

Consolidation in myeloma patients with high-dose melphalan chemotherapy (Mel HDCT) and autologous transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care since more than 2 decades. However, definite cure remains exceptional despite intensive treatment, and improving effectiveness of HDCT remains an unmet clinical need. Combining intensified bendamustine with melphalan may represent an option. We analyzed safety and efficacy of combining dose-intensified bendamustine (200 mg/m² on days -4/-3) with high-dose melphalan (100 mg/m² on days -2/-1) before a second (tandem) ASCT in adverse risk myeloma patients after Mel HDCT/ASCT1. Twelve patients received BenMel conditioning before ASCT2 because of high-risk cytogenetics and/or failure to achieve complete remission (CR) after Mel HDCT/ASCT1. Comparing Mel HDCT/ASCT1 and BenMel HDCT/ASCT2, we observed no differences in hematologic recovery and tolerance. Acute renal injury after BenMel conditioning occurred in 3 (25%) patients, but was reversible in all patients, and there were no treatment related deaths. Complete remission rates were increasing from 42% after Mel/ASCT1 to 75% after BenMel/ASCT2. PFS 1 year after ASCT2 was 67%, and OS was 83%. These data suggest that dose-intensified bendamustine with melphalan conditioning is safe and warrants a prospective randomized comparison to standard melphalan HDCT in myeloma patients.

Clinical Outcomes Related to the Use of Bendamustine Therapy for Multiple Myeloma Patients Relapsed/Refractory to Immunomodulatory Drugs and Proteasome Inhibitors

Objective:

Multiple myeloma patients who are relapsed or refractory to both proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have been reported to have poor outcomes. Bendamustine has been reported to have an antitumor effect in newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of bendamustine therapy in heavily pretreated MM patients who were refractory to PIs and IMiDs.

Materials and Methods:

Nineteen RRMM patients treated either with bendamustine and steroids (n=13) or a combination of bendamustine with novel drugs (n=6) were included. The median number of previous treatment lines was 5 (minimum-maximum: 3-8) and median time from diagnosis was 6 years (minimum-maximum: 1-16). All of the patients were resistant to at least one of the IMiDs and one of the PIs. Bendamustine was given at doses ranging from 90 mg/m² to 120 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of 28-day cycles.

Results:

A median of 2 (minimum-maximum: 1-8) treatment cycles was administered per patient. The toxicity of bendamustine was mild and mostly of hematological origin. No complete remission was achieved. There was partial remission and stable disease in 21% and 11% of the patients, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of patients had progressive disease. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was 2 and 4 months, respectively.

Conclusion:

Bendamustine therapy was well tolerated but showed limited anti-myeloma activity in heavily pretreated patients who were refractory to IMiDs and PIs.

Multiple myeloma in the marrow: pathogenesis and treatments

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a B cell malignancy resulting in osteolytic lesions and fractures. In the disease state, bone healing is limited owing to increased osteoclastic and decreased osteoblastic activity, as well as an MM-induced forward-feedback cycle where bone-embedded growth factors further enhance tumor progression as bone is resorbed. Recent work on somatic mutation in MM tumors has provided insight into cytogenetic changes associated with this disease; the initiating driver mutations causing MM are diverse because of the complexity and multitude of mutations inherent in MM tumor cells. This manuscript provides an overview of MM pathogenesis by summarizing cytogenic changes related to oncogenes and tumor suppressors associated with MM, reviewing risk factors, and describing the disease progression from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to overt MM. It also highlights the importance of the bone marrow microenvironment (BMM) in the establishment and progression of MM, as well as associated MM-induced bone disease, and the relationship of the bone marrow to current and future therapeutics. This review highlights why understanding the basic biology of the healthy and diseased BMM is crucial in the quest for better treatments and work toward a cure for genetically diverse diseases such as MM.

Optimal use of bendamustine in hematologic disorders: Treatment recommendations from an international consensus panel - an update

Bendamustine has achieved widespread international regulatory approval and is a standard agent for the treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Since approval, the number of indications for bendamustine has expanded to include aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma and novel targeted therapies, based on new bendamustine regimens/combinations, are being developed against CLL and lymphomas. In 2010, an international panel of bendamustine experts met and published a set of recommendations on the safe and effective use of bendamustine in patients suffering from hematologic disorders. In 2014, this panel met again to update these recommendations since the clarification of issues including optimal dosing and management of bendamustine-related toxicities. The aim of this report is to communicate the latest consensus on the use of bendamustine, permitting the expansion of its safe and effective administration, particularly in new combination therapies.

Recommendations on the clinical use of bendamustine in lymphoproliferative syndromes and multiple myeloma

Bendamustine is an increasingly used hybrid alkylating agent that is active in lymphoid neoplasias via a novel mechanism of action. There are some pending questions about its use in clinical practice because of its developmental features. A consensus panel of several leading Spanish hematologists with broad experience in the clinical use of bendamustine has established recommendations for the management and treatment of hematological patients with bendamustine based on available clinical data and the experience of the participants. These recommendations address the dose and treatment regimen for different clinical indications, the management of toxicity, and support therapy. This article contains the conclusions of this consensus panel, which are intended to serve as guidelines for the use of bendamustine.

Bendamustine in multiple myeloma

The advent of high-dose melphalan with autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), the availability of novel agents such as thalidomide, lenalidomide (immunomodulatory drugs or IMiDs) and bortezomib (proteasome inhibitor) and improvements in supportive care have allowed to increase overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM) patients; nevertheless, MM remains an incurable pathology. For this reason, newer agents are required for continued disease control. Bendamustine is an old drug rediscovered in the last decade. In fact, its unique mechanism of action with structural similarities to both alkylating agents and antimetabolities, but which is not cross-resistant to alkylating agents, has reawakened interest in the use of this drug in the treatment of MM. Studies have proven the safety and efficacy of bendamustine administered alone or in combination with new drugs in both upfront and relapse/refractory settings of MM patients, including those with renal impairment. Moreover, bendamustine has been successfully used as conditioning for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Finally, the use of bendamustine does not compromise peripheral blood stem-cell collection. This drug is generally well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events being due to myelosuppression. Non-haematological adverse events are infrequent and usually mild.

Bendamustine, thalidomide and dexamethasone combination therapy for relapsed/refractory myeloma patients: results of the MUKone randomized dose selection trial

There is a significant unmet need in effective therapy for relapsed myeloma patients once they become refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide. While data from the front line setting suggest bendamustine is superior to melphalan, there is no information defining optimal bendamustine dose in multiply-treated patients. We report a multi-centre randomized two-stage phase 2 trial simultaneously assessing deliverability and activity of two doses of bendamustine (60 mg/m2 vs. 100 mg/m2) days 1 and 8, thalidomide (100 mg) days 1-21 and low dose dexamethasone (20 mg) days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-d cycle. Ninety-four relapsing patients were treated on trial, with a median three prior treatment lines. A pre-planned interim deliverability and activity assessment led to closure of the 100 mg/m2 arm due to excess cytopenias, and led to amendment of entry criteria for cytopenias. Non-haematological toxicities including thromboembolism and neurotoxicity were infrequent. In the 60 mg/m2 arm, treatment was deliverable in 61.1% subjects and the partial response rate was 46.3% in the study eligible population, with 7.5 months progression-free survival. This study demonstrates bendamustine at 60 mg/m2 twice per month with thalidomide and dexamethasone is deliverable for repeated cycles in heavily pre-treated myeloma patients and has substantial clinical activity.

Bendamustine in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone is a viable salvage option in myeloma relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide

Treatment options are limited in myeloma relapsed or refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide (double-relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; DRMM). Bendamustine is an antitumour agent that has efficacy in relapsed myeloma. We retrospectively analysed data from 30 DRMM patients who received a combination of bendamustine, thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) in 28-day treatment cycles. Bendamustine was administered with a cumulative dose of up to 200 mg/m(2). Thalidomide (50-150 mg) was given daily as tolerated, and dexamethasone was given at an equivalent dose of up to 160 mg per cycle. A median of 5 (2-9) treatment cycles were administered per patient. Twenty-six patients (87 %) achieved stable disease or better. At a median follow-up time of 12.1 (2.3-21.5) months, median (95 % CI) progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.0 (2.6-5.3) months and 7.2 (5.2-9.2) months, respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological: anaemia (n = 8, 34.8 %), neutropenia (n = 16, 69.6 %) and thrombocytopenia (n = 10, 43.5 %). Non-haematological toxicities included pain (n = 3, 13.0 %), infection (n = 7, 30.4 %) and sensory neuropathy (n = 1, 4.3 %). We propose that BTD is a viable salvage treatment option for DRMM patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma: a phase II study

Bendamustine demonstrated synergistic efficacy with bortezomib against multiple myeloma (MM) cells in vitro and seems an effective treatment for relapsed-refractory MM (rrMM). This phase II study evaluated bendamustine plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (BVD) administered over six 28-day cycles and then every 56 days for six further cycles in patients with rrMM treated with ⩽4 prior therapies and not refractory to bortezomib. The primary study end point was the overall response rate after four cycles. In total, 75 patients were enrolled, of median age 68 years. All patients had received targeted agents, 83% had 1–2 prior therapies and 33% were refractory to the last treatment. The response rate⩾partial response (PR) was 71.5% (16% complete response, 18.5% very good PR, 37% partial remission). At 12 months of follow-up, median time-to-progression (TTP) was 16.5 months and 1-year overall survival was 78%. According to Cox regression analysis, only prior therapy with bortezomib plus lenalidomide significantly reduced TTP (9 vs 17 months; hazard ratio=4.5; P=0.005). The main severe side effects were thrombocytopenia (30.5%), neutropenia (18.5%), infections (12%), neuropathy (8%) and gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events (both 6.5%). The BVD regimen is feasible, effective and well-tolerated in difficult-to-treat patients with rrMM.

An old drug with a new future: bendamustine in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Bendamustine is a unique bifunctional alkylating agent with promising activity in multiple myeloma (MM). It is currently licensed in Europe for use as frontline treatment with prednisolone for patients with MM who are unsuitable for transplantation and who are contraindicated for thalidomide and bortezomib therapy.

AREAS COVERED

Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of bendamustine administered alone or in combination in both the upfront and relapse settings of MM patients, including those with renal insufficiency, were reviewed. The use of bendamustine as conditioning for autologous stem-cell transplantation and the possibility of stem-cell mobilization after bendamustine therapy are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Bendamustine seems to be efficacious either in monotherapy or in combination with other drugs in previously treated or untreated patients. This is due to its unique mechanism of action including its ability to activate apoptosis and inhibit mitotic checkpoints, making it potentially more effective than other alkylating agents. Moreover, it has an acceptable toxicity profile and is suitable for patients with renal impairment. Finally, this drug does not seem to compromise the possibility of achieving a stem-cell mobilization. Nonetheless, data from Phase III studies demonstrating its effectiveness in terms of overall survival are not yet available.

Bendamustine overcomes resistance to melphalan in myeloma cell lines by inducing cell death through mitotic catastrophe

Melphalan has been a mainstay of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy for many years. However, following treatment with this alkylator, malignant plasma cells usually escape both apoptosis and cell cycle control, and acquire drug-resistance resulting in tumor progression. Bendamustine is being used in MM patients refractory to conventional DNA-damaging agents, although the mechanisms driving this lack of cross-resistance are still undefined. Here, we investigated the molecular pathway of bendamustine-induced cell death in melphalan-sensitive and melphalan-resistant MM cell lines. Bendamustine affected cell survival resulting in secondary necrosis, and prompted cell death primarily through caspase-2 activation. Also, bendamustine blocked the cell cycle in the G2/M phase and induced micronucleation, erratic chromosome spreading and mitotic spindle perturbations in melphalan-resistant MM cells. In these cells, both Aurora kinase A (AURKA) and Polo-like kinase-1 (PLK-1), key components of the spindle-assembly checkpoint, were down-regulated following incubation with bendamustine, whereas levels of Cyclin B1 increased as a consequence of the prolonged mitotic arrest induced by the drug. These findings indicate that, at least in vitro, bendamustine drives cell death by promoting mitotic catastrophe in melphalan-resistant MM cells. Hence, activation of this alternative pathway of cell death may be a novel approach to the treatment of apoptosis-resistant myelomas.

United Kingdom Myeloma Forum (UKMF) position statement on the use of bendamustine in myeloma

Bendamustine is a unique bifunctional alkylating agent with promising activity in myeloma. Despite the increasing number of studies demonstrating its efficacy in both the upfront and relapse settings, including patients with renal insufficiency, the optimal use of bendamustine, in terms of dosage, schedule and combination with other agents, has yet to be defined. It is currently licensed for use as frontline treatment with prednisolone for patients with myeloma who are unsuitable for transplantation and who are contraindicated for thalidomide and bortezomib. Studies in relapsed/refractory patients are currently ongoing with other combinations. Given the increasing data to date, the UK Myeloma Forum believes that bendamustine with steroids alone or in combination with a novel agent could be considered for patients with multiply relapsed myeloma. This document provides guidance for the use of bendamustine for patients with myeloma until the results of definitive studies are available.

Future directions of next-generation novel therapies, combination approaches, and the development of personalized medicine in myeloma

Despite tangible progress in recent years, substantial therapeutic challenges remain in multiple myeloma (MM), particularly for patients at high risk for early relapse or death and for those with advanced multi-drug resistant disease and refractoriness to currently available combination regimens. Addressing these challenges requires identification of novel classes of anti-MM agents, their incorporation into safe and more effective combination regimens, and development of efficient algorithms to select the most appropriate therapeutic options for the clinical and molecular features of individual patients at a given time during their disease. Ideally, these goals can be facilitated by preclinical identification of the "driver" molecular lesions on which different myeloma subtypes exquisitely depend, and by informative preclinical models simulating the clinical setting(s) in which trials will be conducted. Large prospective studies of patients treated uniformly with contemporary clinical regimens are essential, but there is also a major need for flexibility in studying new regimens in the future. Long-term patient follow-up and integrated annotation of clinical (safety and efficacy) and correlative (molecular, biochemical, etc) data are also critical. Novel molecular profiling techniques will likely identify more clinically and biologically discrete subsets of patients with recurrent, even if infrequent, lesions. This molecular heterogeneity, combined with the increasing numbers of candidate therapeutic targets and respective investigational agents, may pose formidable challenges for the development and implementation of personalized medicine in MM. This review discusses these challenges, as well as potential strategies to address them, with the aim of making significant improvement in the clinical outcome of patients with MM.

Emerging therapies for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Encouraging progress has been made in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The rapidly evolving understanding of key pathways responsible for tumor growth and survival has led to the development of novel agents (including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, and other targeted agents) with the potential to provide significant improvements in response and survival, and influence treatment guidelines. This review summarizes recent advances in understanding of the biology of relapsed/refractory MM and clinical trials with novel targeted agents that are currently under investigation for patients with this disease.

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents

The introduction of the Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors, used either as a single-agent or combined with classic anti-myeloma therapies, has improved the outcome for patients with relapsed myeloma. However, there is currently no generally accepted standard treatment for relapsed/refractory myeloma patients, partly because of the absence of trials comparing the efficacy of the novel agents in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Choice of a new treatment regimen depends on both patient and disease-specific characteristics. A lenalidomide-based regimen is the first choice in patients with neuropathy, while bortezomib has the highest efficacy in patients with renal insufficiency and is not associated with increased risk of thromboembolism. A second autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) can be applied in patients with a progression-free period of ≥ 18-24 months after the first auto-SCT. In high-risk relapse such as occurring early after auto-SCT consolidation with allogeneic SCT can be considered. In this review we provide an overview of the various salvage regimens and give recommendations for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma in different clinical settings.