Final Overall Survival Analysis of the TOURMALINE-MM1 Phase III Trial of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone for triple class exposed/refractory relapsed multiple myeloma: a subgroup analysis of the ALGONQUIN trial

Given the early use of triplet and quadruplet regimens, most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) will be exposed and/or refractory to PIs, IMiDs, and anti-CD38 mAbs after first- or second-line treatment. Effective treatment for this group of triple class exposed/refractory (TCE/R) patients is crucial. Here we present a post-hoc subgroup analysis of TCE/R patients treated on the ALGONQUIN study of belantamab mafodotin plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone (belamaf-Pd) for relapsed MM. Of the 99 patients treated on the ALGONQUIN study, 69 were TCE and 56 were TCR and were included in this analysis. Patients had a median of three prior lines of therapy. The ORR was 86.4% in TCE patients and 84.9% in TCR patients, with ≥ very good partial response rates of 64% and 68% respectively. The median progression free survival was 18.3 months in TCE patients and 19.6 months in TCR patients, with overall survival not yet reached and 34.4 months, respectively for TCE and TCR patients. No new safety signals were identified. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were keratopathy (48%), decreased visual acuity (42%), neutropenia (36%), thrombocytopenia (27%), and infection (25%). In this subgroup analysis of the ALGONQUIN study, patients with TCE/TCR disease treated with belamaf-Pd achieved high clinical response rates with durable remissions, comparable to other novel therapeutics in this space.

Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals.

Updates on Therapeutic Strategies in the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Multiple myeloma is a heterogeneous condition characterized by the proliferation of monoclonal B-cells, for which there is currently no curative treatment available. Relapses are, unfortunately, common after first-line treatment. While the prognosis for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma is generally poor, advances in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma offer hope. However, the expansion of effective options in targeted treatment offers renewed optimism and hope that patients who fail on older therapies may respond to newer modalities, which are often used in combination. We review currently approved and novel investigational agents classified by mechanisms of action, efficacy, approved setting, and adverse events. We delve into future directions of treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, reviewing novel agents and therapeutic targets for the future.

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.

Phase I study of TQB3602, an oral proteasome inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

TQB3602 is a novel orally bioavailable proteasome inhibitor. This study is the first-in-human phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of TQB3602 in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

METHODS

This is a multicenter phase I clinical trial consisting of the 3+3 dose-escalation phase and dose expansion phase. Patients with MM who have received ≥2 prior antimyeloma therapies were enrolled. TQB3602 is administered at a dose of 0.5~7mg on days 1, 8, 15 in 28-day cycle.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RRMM patients who relapsed or failed ≥2 lines of therapies were enrolled in the dose escalation phase. Two patients in the 7.0 mg dose group developed dose-limiting toxicity events (one with grade 2 peripheral neuropathy [PN] complicated by pain and one with diarrhea and abdominal pain), leading to a maximum tolerated dose of 6.0 mg. Any-grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24 (96.0%) patients, while grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 13 (52.0%). The most common grade ≥3 AEs was anemia (6, 24.0%). The incidence rate of PN was 16% with no grade ≥3 PN occurred. TQB3602 was rapidly absorbed, resulting in a time-to-plasma peak concentration of 0.8-1.5 h. The mean half-life was approximately 82 h. The AUClast and Cmax were approximately 1.9 times higher on day 15 than on day 1. Among 22 response-evaluable patients, 63.7% achieved stable disease or better.

CONCLUSIONS

TQB3602 is well tolerated, with a favorable neurotoxicity profile, and has shown preliminary efficacy in patients with RRMM. The anticipated therapeutic dose was 6 mg and was adopted for an ongoing dose-expansion phase.

Comparative effectiveness of lenalidomide/dexamethasone-based triplet regimens for treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States: An analysis of real-world electronic health records data

BACKGROUND

This retrospective longitudinal study compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone+lenalidomide (Rd)-based triplet regimens containing proteasome inhibitors (PIs) ixazomib (IRd), carfilzomib (KRd), and bortezomib (VRd) or monoclonal antibodies (MABs) elotuzumab (ERd) and daratumumab (DRd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)-including those with high cytogenetic risk-primarily treated at community oncology clinics in the United States.

METHODS

Electronic health records of adult RRMM patients in a deidentified real-world database (01/01/2014-09/30/2020) who initiated IRd, KRd, VRd, ERd, or DRd in the second or later line of therapy (LOT) were analyzed. The index date was the date of initiation of each LOT and baseline was the 6-month pre-index period. Duration of therapy (DOT), time to next therapy (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared across regimens with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of the 1,185 patients contributing 1,332 LOTs, 985 had standard cytogenetic risk (median age, 71 years) and 180 had high risk (median age, 69 years). Compared with other regimens, DRd was associated with longer DOT overall (adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.42, 2.38] vs. KRd, 1.65 [1.20, 2.28] vs. ERd, 1.58 [1.23, 2.04] vs. IRd, and 1.54 [1.18, 2.00] vs. VRd), and longer TTNT and PFS. KRd was associated with shorter OS compared with DRd (1.45 [1.01, 2.08]) and VRd (1.32 [1.01, 1.73]). High-risk patients had similar outcomes with all triplet regimens.

CONCLUSION

Although DRd improved clinical outcomes overall, Rd-based triplet regimens containing a PI or MAB are similarly effective in high-risk RRMM.

Molecular Pathogenesis of Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Implications

Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of bone-marrow-localized, isotype-switched plasma cells that secrete a monoclonal immunoglobulin and cause hyperCalcemia, Anemia, Renal failure, and lytic Bone disease. It is preceded, often for decades, by a relatively stable monoclonal gammopathy lacking these clinical and malignant features. Both conditions are characterized by the presence of types of immunoglobulin heavy gene translocations that dysregulate a cyclin D family gene on 11q13 (CCND1), 6p21 (CCND3), or 12q11 (CCND2), a maf family gene on 16q23 (MAF), 20q11 (MAFB), or 8q24 (MAFA), or NSD2/FGFR3 on 4p16, or the presence of hyperdiploidy. Subsequent loss of function of tumor suppressor genes and mutations activating MYC, RAS, NFkB, and cell cycle pathways are associated with the progression to malignant disease.

Efficacy and safety of daratumumab with ixazomib and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients after one prior line of therapy: Final results of the phase 2 study DARIA

The use of lenalidomide in frontline therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) has increased the number of those who become refractory to lenalidomide at second line. In this context, we assessed the efficacy of daratumumab in combination with ixazomib and dexamethasone (Dara-Ixa-dex) in the prospective phase 2 study DARIA. Eligible patients had relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) after one prior line with a lenalidomide-based regimen. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, safety and changes in biomarkers of bone metabolism. Overall, 50 patients were enrolled (median age 69 years, 56% males). 32 (64%) patients were refractory to lenalidomide, and 17 (34%) had undergone autologous transplant. The ORR was 64% (n = 32); whereas 17 (34%) had a very good partial response or better. The median time to first response was 1.0 month. After a median follow-up of 23.4 months, the median PFS and OS were 8.1 and 39.2 months, respectively. Furthermore, significant changes in markers of bone metabolism became evident as early as at 6 months on treatment. Regarding safety, 21 (42%) patients had ≥1 grade 3/4 adverse event (AE); the most common was thrombocytopenia (n = 9, 18%). 14 (28%) patients had ≥1 serious AE (SAE), the most common being acute kidney injury and pneumonia (n = 2, each). Four patients died due to infections. In conclusion, second-line treatment with Dara-Ixa-dex in patients with RRMM pre-treated with a lenalidomide-based regimen resulted in rapid responses along with a favorable effect on bone metabolism.

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.

Lenalidomide use in multiple myeloma (Review)

Lenalidomide is a second-generation new immunomodulatory medication used to treat multiple myeloma (MM). Its mechanism of action involves affecting the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, interleukin-6, cytochrome c, caspase-8, as well as other factors including immunological modulation and the direct killing of cells, among others, rendering it a fundamental medication, useful for the treatment of MM. Combining lenalidomide with other medications such dexamethasone, bortezomib, ixazomib, carfilzomib and daratumumab can markedly alleviate MM. When autologous-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) cannot be utilized to treat newly diagnosed individuals with MM (NDMM), monotherapy maintenance following lenalidomide and dexamethasone may be employed. Following ASCT, single-agent maintenance with lenalidomide can be performed as an additional treatment. The combination of bortezomib and lenalidomide has been demonstrated to be associated with favorable response rates, tolerable toxicity, and therapeutic benefits although caution is warranted to prevent the onset of peripheral neuropathy with its use. A new-generation oral drug with an excellent safety profile, ixazomib, is more practical and therapeutically applicable in relapsed refractory MM. However, the frequent occurrence of cardiovascular events, hematocrit, and infections with it require flexible adjustment in its clinical application. Carfilzomib produces a rapid and profound response in patients with NDMM eligible for transplantation, but its cardiovascular side effects need to be closely monitored. The primary aim of the present review was to examine the pharmacological properties and pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide, as well as the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide-based treatments with reference to data from clinical trials and real-world studies.

Network meta-analysis of efficacy of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons across relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatments following the approval of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd), we conducted an indirect comparison of the efficacy of IRd relative to several RRMM therapies using Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) models.

METHODS

Data for the NMA were obtained through a systematic literature review (conducted in June 2020), which identified randomized controlled trials (base case) and observational studies (extended network analysis) reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

In the base case, IRd was associated with a significantly longer PFS than lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), bortezomib monotherapy (V), dexamethasone (Dex), and pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom-dex), a significantly shorter PFS than daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd), and a PFS comparable to elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (ERd) and carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd). IRd was associated with a significantly longer OS than V, Dex, and Pom-dex, and an OS comparable to Rd, ERd, KRd, and DRd. The ORR of IRd was significantly higher than Rd, V, and Dex, significantly lower than KRd and DRd, and comparable to Pom-dex and ERd. The extended network analyses and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case.

DISCUSSION

This NMA shows that IRd is relatively efficacious among RRMM treatments. Being an oral regimen, IRd is also convenient to manage.

CONCLUSION

IRd could be a preferable treatment option for many patients with RRMM, particularly those seeking an efficacious and convenient therapeutic option.

Influence of diabetes mellitus on the biochemical parameters and outcomes of multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of MM in most registries remains stable or showing only a slightly increase. However, prevalence of MM is increasing due to the increase in overall survival in the last two decades. The aim of this study was to observe changes in biochemical parameters during the diagnosis and treatment of MM.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of the biochemical indicators, survival time, and related adverse events of 196 patients with MM.

RESULTS

Of the 196 patients with MM, 26 were diagnosed with DM (DM-MM group) at the first diagnosis, 31 with steroid-induced diabetes mellitus (SID-MM group) during treatment, and 139 without DM (MM group). There was no significant difference between the three groups in the mean age of onset, sex ratio, incidence of hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, abnormal lactate dehydrogenase, and median value of D-dimer and fibrinogen during diagnosis and treatment. There was no significant difference in survival time between the SID-MM and MM groups, but there was a significant difference between the DM-MM and MM groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the three groups in the incidence of hypercalcemia, anemia, and renal function impairment. The survival time of patients with DM was shorter than that of patients without DM.

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.

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).

Proteasome inhibition in combination with immunotherapies: State-of-the-Art in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disorder accounting for around 1.8% of all neoplastic diseases. Nowadays, clinicians have a broad arsenal of drugs at their disposal for the treatment of MM, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, CAR T-cell therapies and antibody-drug conjugates. In this paper we briefly highlight essential clinical elements relating to proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib. Studies suggest that the early use of immunotherapy may improve outcomes significantly. Therefore, in our review we specifically focus on the combination therapy of proteasome inhibitors with novel immunotherapies and/or transplant. A high number of patients develop PI resistance. Thus, we also review new generation PIs, such as marizomib, oprozomib (ONX0912) and delanzomib (CEP-18770) and their combinations with immunotherapies.

Effect modification in network meta-analyses for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and meta-analyse the evidence for effect modification by refractory status and number of treatment lines in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM); and to assess whether effect modification is likely to invalidate network meta-analyses (NMA) that assume negligible modification.

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis and simulation.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the literature (e.g., OVID Medline) to identify eligible publications in February 2020 and regularly updated the search until January 2022. We also contacted project stakeholders (including industry) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled trials reporting stratified estimates for comparisons with at least one of a prespecified set of treatments relevant for use in Norwegian RRMM patients.

OUTCOMES

We used meta-analysis to estimate relative HRs (RHRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with respect to refractory status and number of treatment lines. We used the estimated RHRs in simulations to estimate the percentage of NMA results expected to differ significantly in the presence versus absence of effect modification.

RESULTS

Among the 42 included publications, stratified estimates were published by and extracted from up to 18 (43%) publications and on as many as 8364 patients. Within-study evidence for effect modification is very weak (p>0.05 for 47 of 49 sets of stratified estimates). The largest RHR estimated was 1.32 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.49) for the modifying effect of refractory status on HR for PFS. Simulations suggest that, in the worst case, this would result in only 4.48% (95% CI 4.42% to 4.54%) of NMA estimates differing statistically significantly in the presence versus absence of effect modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, effect modification appears to be sufficiently small that it can be neglected in adequately performed NMAs. NMAs can probably be relied on to provide estimates of HRs for OS and PFS in RRMM, subject to caveats discussed herein.

Breaking through Multiple Myeloma: A Paradigm for a Comprehensive Tumor Ecosystem Targeting

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a cancerous condition characterized by the proliferation of plasma cells within the hematopoietic marrow, resulting in multiple osteolytic lesions. MM patients typically experience bone pain, kidney damage, fatigue due to anemia, and infections. Historically, MM was an incurable disease with a life expectancy of around three years after diagnosis. However, over the past two decades, the development of novel therapeutics has significantly improved patient outcomes, including response to treatment, remission duration, quality of life, and overall survival. These advancements include thalidomide and its derivatives, lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which exhibit diverse mechanisms of action against the plasma cell clone. Additionally, proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib, ixazomib, and carfilzomib disrupt protein degradation, proving specifically toxic to cancerous plasma cells. Recent advancements also involve monoclonal antibodies targeting surface antigens, such as elotuzumab (anti-CS1) and daratumumab (anti-CD38), bispecific t-cell engagers such as teclistamab (anti-BCMA/CD3) and Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T)-based strategies, with a growing focus on drugs that exhibit increasingly targeted action against neoplastic plasma cells and relevant effects on the tumor microenvironment.

Ubiquitin-proteasome system as a target for anticancer treatment-an update

As the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) regulates almost every biological process, the dysregulation or aberrant expression of the UPS components causes many pathological disorders, including cancers. To find a novel target for anticancer therapy, the UPS has been an active area of research since the FDA's first approval of a proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in 2003 for treating multiple myeloma (MM). Here, we summarize newly described UPS components, including E3 ubiquitin ligases, deubiquitinases (DUBs), and immunoproteasome, whose malfunction leads to tumorigenesis and whose inhibitors have been investigated in clinical trials as anticancer therapy since 2020. We explain the mechanism and effects of several inhibitors in depth to better comprehend the advantages of targeting UPS components for cancer treatment. In addition, we describe attempts to overcome resistance and limited efficacy of some launched proteasome inhibitors, as well as an emerging PROTAC-based tool targeting UPS components for anticancer therapy.

Pathogenesis, clinical characteristics and personalized managements of multiple myeloma with chromosome 1 abnormalities

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a biologically heterogeneous malignancy defined by the proliferation of monoclonal plasma cells. Despite the tremendous advancement in MM treatment over the past decades, relapse remains a major problem which is inevitable for most patients. In particular, a partial of patients with early relapse and poor outcomes are classified as a high-risk group. Apart from the clinical stage, genetic aberrations are now recognized as important prognostic factors for identifying high-risk patients. Chromosome 1 abnormalities (C1As), particularly 1q21 gain or amplification, have been identified as common genetic aberrations in patients with MM and are often considered unfavorable prognostic markers for progression-free survival and overall survival. However, more effective therapeutic approaches are still needed to overcome the negative impact of C1As. Therefore, we summarize the prevalence, pathogenesis, clinical significance and present therapeutic condition of C1As in MM, and attempt to conclude the precise and personalized management for patients with C1As.

Real-world effectiveness of ixazomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: the REMIX study

Ixazomib (IXA) is an oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) used in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IXA-Rd) for patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The REMIX study is one of the largest prospective, real-world analysis of the effectiveness of IXA-Rd in the setting of RRMM. Conducted in France between August 2017 and October 2019, the REMIX study, a non-interventional prospective study, included 376 patients receiving IXA-Rd in second line or later and followed for at least 24 months. Primary endpoint was the median progression-free survival (mPFS). Median age was 71 years (Q1-Q3 65.0 - 77.5) with 18.4% of participants older than 80 years. IXA-Rd was initiated in L2, L3 and L4 + for 60.4%, 18.1% and 21.5%, respectively. mPFS was 19.1 months (95% CI [15.9, 21.5]) and overall response rate (ORR) was 73.1%. mPFS was 21.5, 21.9 and 5.8 months in patients receiving IXA-Rd as L2, L3, L4 + respectively. Among patients receiving IXA-Rd in L2 and L3, mPFS was similar for patients previously exposed to lenalidomide (19.5 months) than for those lenalidomide naive (not exposed, 22.6 months, p = 0.29). mPFS was 19.1 months in patients younger than 80 years and 17.4 months in those 80 years or older (p = 0.06) with similar ORR (72.4% and 76.8%) in both subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 78.2% of patients including 40.7% of treatment-related AE. IXA discontinuation was due to toxicity in 21% of patients. To conclude, the results of the REMIX study are consistent with the results of Tourmaline-MM1 and confirm the benefit of IXA-Rd combination in real life. It shows the interest of IXA-Rd in an older and frailer population, with an acceptable effectiveness and tolerance.

Cardiac toxicities in multiple myeloma: an updated and a deeper look into the effect of different medications and novel therapies

With the continuous improvement in survival of cancer patients, including those with multiple myeloma, related to the novel treatment agents and therapeutic approaches, the probability for patients to develop cardiovascular disease has significantly increased, especially in elderly patients and those with additional risk factors. Multiple myeloma is indeed a disease of the elderly population and so these patients are, solely by age, at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Risk factors for these events can be patient-, disease- and/or therapy-related, and they have been shown to adversely impact survival. Cardiovascular events affect around 7.5% of patients with multiple myeloma and the risk for different toxicities has considerably varied across trials depending on patients' characteristics and treatment utilized. High grade cardiac toxicity has been reported with immunomodulatory drugs (odds ratio [OR] around 2), proteasome inhibitors (OR 1.67-2.68 depending on the specific agent, and generally higher with carfilzomib), as well as other agents. Cardiac arrhythmias have also been reported with various therapies and drug interaction plays a significant role in that setting. Comprehensive cardiac evaluation before, during and after various anti-myeloma therapy is recommended and the incorporation of surveillance strategies allows early detection and management resulting in improved outcomes of these patients. Multidisciplinary interaction including hematologists and cardio-oncologists is critical for optimal patient care.

An Investigation into the Relationship Between Choice of Model Structure and How to Adjust for Subsequent Therapies Using a Case Study in Oncology

BACKGROUND

A common challenge in health technology assessments (HTAs) of cancer treatments is how subsequent therapy use within the trial follow-up may influence cost-effectiveness model outcomes. Although overall survival (OS) is often a key driver of model results, there are no guidelines to advise how to adjust for this potential confounding, with different approaches available dependent on the model structure.

OBJECTIVE

We compared a partitioned survival analysis (PartSA) with a semi-Markov multi-state model (MSM) structure, with and without attempts to adjust for the impact of subsequent therapies on OS using a case study describing outcomes for people with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Both model structures included three health states: pre-progression, progressed disease and death. Three traditional crossover methods were considered within the context of the PartSA, whereas for the MSM, the probability of post-progression death was pooled across arms. Impacts on the model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were recorded.

RESULTS

The unadjusted PartSA produced an ICER of £623,563, and after adjustment yielded an ICER range of £381,340-£386,907. The unadjusted MSM produced an ICER of £1,283,780. Adjusting OS in the MSM resulted in an ICER of £345,486.

CONCLUSIONS

The simplicity of the PartSA is lost when the decision problem becomes more complex (for example, when OS data are confounded by subsequent therapies). In this setting, the MSM structure may be considered more flexible, with fewer and less restrictive assumptions required versus the PartSA. Researchers should consider important study design features that may influence the generalisability of data when undertaking model conceptualisation.

Management of Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Advanced Therapies: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Routine Clinical Practice

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy in adults worldwide. Over the past few years, major therapeutic advances have improved progression-free and overall survival, as well as quality of life. Despite this recent progress, MM remains incurable in the vast majority of cases. Patients eventually relapse and become refractory to multiple drug classes, making long-term management challenging. In this review, we will focus on the treatment paradigm of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) in the era of advanced therapies emphasizing the available novel modalities that have recently been incorporated into routine practice, such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, and other promising approaches. We will also discuss major factors that influence the selection of appropriate drug combinations or cellular therapies, such as relapse characteristics, and other disease and patient related parameters. Our goal is to provide insight into the currently available and experimental therapies for RRMM in an effort to guide the therapeutic decision-making process.

Elkourahy Omar S. Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in the First Relapse

The treatment scope for relapsed myeloma has been expanded considerably in the last few years, by virtue of the advent of numerous novel agents with new mechanisms of actions. This has resulted in increasing responses and prolonging survival even in advanced diseases. The wealth of novel regimens comes with the challenges of balancing toxicities and aligning a regimen with the biology of myeloma and the nature of relapse in conjunction with the patient’s treatment history, comorbidities, and personal preference. The second-line treatment in myeloma includes new generation of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators, CD38 monoclonal antibodies, Panobinostat, and Elotuzumab. Recent randomized trials have shown that triplet combinations incorporating CD38 monoclonal antibodies, dexamethasone along with either proteasome inhibitor or immunomodulator were superior to doublet combinations in terms of response rate and progression-free survival. The choice of the second-line therapy is determined by lenalidomide/bortezomib exposure and resistance and access to new agents. Furthermore, autologous transplantation should be considered in selected cases. Here, we will be discussing the optimal management of multiple myeloma in the first relapse.

Overall Survival With Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (POLLUX): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

With the initial analysis of POLLUX at a median follow-up of 13.5 months, daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the time of final analysis for overall survival (OS).

METHODS

POLLUX was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to D-Rd or Rd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Rd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression.

RESULTS

Significant OS benefit was observed with D-Rd (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.91; P = .0044) at a median (range) follow-up of 79.7 months (0.0-86.5). The median OS was 67.6 months for D-Rd compared with 51.8 months for Rd. Prespecified analyses demonstrated an improved OS with D-Rd versus Rd in most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one, two, or three prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and refractoriness to their last prior line of therapy or a proteasome inhibitor. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Rd versus Rd were neutropenia (57.6% v 41.6%), anemia (19.8% v 22.4%), pneumonia (17.3% v 11.0%), thrombocytopenia (15.5% v 15.7%), and diarrhea (10.2% v 3.9%).

CONCLUSION

D-Rd significantly extended OS versus Rd alone in patients with RRMM. To our knowledge, for the first time, our findings, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase III CASTOR trial, demonstrate OS improvement with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02076009 [POLLUX]).

Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Review of Available Therapies and Clinical Scenarios Encountered in Myeloma Relapse

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with the usual disease course requiring induction therapy, autologous stem cell transplantation for eligible patients, and long-term maintenance. Risk stratification tools and cytogenetic alterations help inform individualized therapeutic choices for patients in hopes of achieving long-term remissions with preserved quality of life. Unfortunately, relapses occur at different stages of the course of the disease owing to the biological heterogeneity of the disease. Addressing relapse can be complex and challenging as there are both therapy- and patient-related factors to consider. In this broad scoping review of available therapies in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), we cover the pharmacologic mechanisms underlying active therapies such as immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), traditional chemotherapy, and Venetoclax. We then review the clinical data supporting the use of these therapies, organized based on drug resistance/refractoriness, and the role of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Approaches to special situations during relapse such as renal impairment and extramedullary disease are also covered. Lastly, we look towards the future by briefly reviewing the clinical data supporting the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapy, bispecific T cell engagers (BITE), and Cereblon E3 Ligase Modulators (CELMoDs).

Real-world toxicity and effectiveness of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in Korean patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) have proven efficacy and an excellent safety profile in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there are limited reports on the real-world safety and effectiveness of IRd regimens in Asian patients with RRMM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 60 patients with RRMM who were treated with IRd.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 68 years. Forty percent of patients did not meet the eligibility criteria for the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Patients received a median of one prior line of therapy. Non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more common than hematologic AEs. The most common AE was skin rash, followed by gastrointestinal toxicities. Most grade 3 or higher AEs were observed in less than 5% of the patients, except for skin rashes and infections. IRd therapy did not aggravate peripheral neuropathy (PN) in 20 of the 24 patients with pre-existing peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate was 85%. After a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the median progression-free survival was 25.9 months and overall survival was not reached.

CONCLUSION

Ixazomib and Rd combination therapy had a comparable toxicity profile and effectiveness in real-world RRMM patients.

Proposed risk-scoring model for estimating the prognostic impact of 1q gain in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

1q gain (+1q) is the most common high-risk cytogenetic abnormality (HRCA) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, its prognostic value remains unclear in the era of novel agents. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the impact of +1q on the outcomes of 934 patients newly diagnosed with MM. +1q was identified in 53.1% of patients and verified as an independent variate for inferior overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio, 1.400; 95% confidence interval, 1.097-1.787; p = .007). Concurrence of other HRCAs (particularly t(14;16) and del(17p)) further exacerbated the outcomes of patients with +1q, suggesting prognostic heterogeneity. Thus, a risk-scoring algorithm based on four risk variates (t(14;16), hypercalcemia, ISS III, and high LDH) was developed to estimate the outcomes of patients with +1q. Of the patients, 376 evaluable patients with +1q were re-stratified into low (31.6%), intermediate (61.7%), and high risk (6.7%) groups, with significantly different progression-free survival and OS (p < .0001), in association with early relapse of the disease. The prognostic value of this model was validated in the CoMMpass cohort. While attaining undetectable MRD largely circumvented the adverse impact of +1q, it scarcely ameliorated the outcome of the patients with high risk, who likely represent a subset of patients with extremely poor survival. Hence, patients with +1q are a heterogeneous group of high-risk patients, therefore underlining the necessity for their re-stratification. The proposed simple risk-scoring model can estimate the outcomes of patients with +1q, which may help guide risk-adapted treatment for such patients.

A pooled analysis of outcomes according to cytogenetic abnormalities in patients receiving ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for multiple myeloma

Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.

Stem Cell Mobilization with Ixazomib and G-CSF in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

(1) Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard consolidation strategy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and for a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory disease. For stem cell mobilization, G-CSF alone or in combination with chemotherapy mobilizing agents and/or plerixafor are commonly used. Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor with less neurotoxic potential, which previously showed the ability to mobilize stem cells in preclinical studies. (2) Methods: Prospective single-center phase 1 study assessing the efficacy and safety of stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM undergoing HDCT and ASCT. Primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving a yield of at least 6.0 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells within the first apheresis. G-CSF (filgrastim) 10 μg/kg/day was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) from day 1 to day 5 (planned apheresis) and ixazomib 4 mg orally at day 4. Plerixafor 24 mg s.c. was administered if the stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF was not sufficient. (3) Results: 19 patients were treated within the study between 06/2020 and 02/2021. The primary endpoint was reached in 17 (89%) patients, with a median of 7.1 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells collected within the first apheresis, comparable to previously published results, and only 2 (11%) patients required a second apheresis. Median number of circulating CD34+ cells was 14.0 × 10⁶/L (2.0-95.2) before the administration of ixazomib, and 33.0 × 10⁶/L (4.2-177.0) pre-apheresis. However, 9 (47%) patients required the addition of plerixafor to ensure optimal stem cell collection. (4) Conclusions: The combination of ixazomib and G-CSF showed promising stem cell mobilizing activity in patients with MM prior to HDCT and ASCT. Future larger studies might further investigate the role of ixazomib in stem cell mobilization regimens for MM.

No needles needed: All-oral therapy options for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Immense progress has been made for the treatment of multiple myeloma over the past two decades, with patient outcomes improving dramatically as a result. Patient quality of life, however, is constantly challenged by complications of the disease, side effects of therapy and the overall burden receiving continuous treatment. Compared to parenteral agents, all-oral regimens can provide logistically favorable alternatives and are associated with improved quality of life. Here, we review the currently available and investigational oral therapies for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma and provide a practical clinical reference tool. We explore the factors that dictate the selection of therapy, such as prior drug refractoriness, disease biology and patient-specific considerations. Regimens with their respective supporting clinical data are organized by the degree of prior treatment, from lenalidomide-sensitive to heavily pretreated patients. We explore common challenges such as renal insufficiency and cytopenias. Lastly, we review investigational oral agents.

How to Manage Patients with Lenalidomide-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Although lenalidomide-based combinations, such as lenalidomide plus a proteasome inhibitor or an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, improve the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), there is a tendency to use these regimens as a frontline treatment. This strategy has led to the development of refractoriness early in the disease course, usually after the patient's first treatment. Since lenalidomide-free regimens have so far shown limited efficacy in lenalidomide-refractory patients, there is an unmet need for other treatment options. In this review, we discuss the therapeutic options available to treat the general population of lenalidomide-refractory patients (mono, double and triple refractory) and the subpopulation of patients with other high-risk features such as renal failure, extramedullary disease, and high-risk cytogenetics. Moreover, new promising individual therapies and the possible impact of immunotherapy in RRMM patients are debated.

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

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

Fitness and frailty in myeloma

As the aging population grows, so too does the number of well-tolerated antimyeloma therapies. Physicians will see an increasing volume of patients for subsequent lines of therapy, which could now extend this relationship for over a decade. For younger patients, treatment choices are infrequently impacted by concerns of fitness, but instead about effecting the deepest, most durable response. Older adults, in contrast, are more likely to experience under- than overtreatment, and therefore more objective (and ideally straightforward) ways to evaluate their fitness and ability to tolerate therapy will increasingly assist in decision-making. Post hoc analyses categorizing the fitness of trial patients in the modern treatment era globally demonstrate that even in highly selected populations, those that are recategorized as less fit or frail are consistently at higher risk of inferior outcomes and increased toxicities. Real-world data are comparatively lacking but do demonstrate that most patients with myeloma are not representative of those enrolled on clinical trials, generally more heavily burdened by comorbidities and more likely to be categorized as "less than fit." Simultaneously, the number of therapeutic options open to patients in the relapsed setting continues to grow, now including T-cell engagers and cellular therapies, with their unique toxicity profiles. The aim of this review is to summarize the available data, highlight some of the approaches possible to easily assess fitness and how results might inform treatment selection, and illustrate ways that patients' condition can be optimized rather than lead to exclusion from the more complex therapies newly available.

Management of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Recent advances

Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for ∼10% of total hematologic malignancies worldwide. In India, the incidence of MM has increased two-fold with marked heterogeneity. Significant improvements in terms of clinical outcomes have been observed in the management of MM in recent years. However, most patients develop a disease relapse with the first or subsequent treatments. A combination of immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide and lenalidomide) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs; bortezomib) has been the mainstay for the therapeutic management of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This review highlights the management of RRMM with newer agents such as belantamab, carfilzomib, daratumumab, elotuzumab, ixazomib, mafadotin, selinexor, panobinostat, and venetoclax, with more focus on PIs. As a single agent and in combination with other drugs including dexamethasone and carfilzomib has been studied extensively and approved by the United States, European Union, and India. Clinical trials of these newer agents, either alone or in combination, for the treatment of RRMM in Western countries indicate survival, improved outcomes, and overall well-being. However, evidence in Indian patients is evolving from ongoing studies on carfilzomib and daratumumab, which will ascertain their efficacy and safety. Currently, several guidelines recommend carfilzomib-based, daratumumab-based, and panobinostat-based regimens in RRMM patients. Currently, with more accessible generic versions of these drugs, more Indian patients may attain survival benefits and improved quality of life.

Impact of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone therapy on overall survival in multiple myeloma patients: Analysis of the emerging-markets subgroup of the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) showed clinical efficacy over placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Over a median follow-up of ∼85 months, as patients showed disease progression, they received subsequent novel therapies that confounded the overall survival (OS) benefit. Here, we conducted a post hoc analysis in 148 patients from seven countries defined as emerging markets, with limited access to novel therapies for MM during the trial period, to describe the impact of these therapies on OS. Patients were randomised to ixazomib-Rd (n = 71) or placebo-Rd (n = 77). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.7 versus 10.2 months, with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.504; p = 0.008) demonstrating a statistically significant improvement as observed in the primary trial. The median OS improved by 32.6 months with ixazomib-Rd over placebo-Rd (63.5 vs. 30.9 months; HR, 0.794; p = 0.261); however, the statistically significant benefit seen in PFS was not observed for OS. Improvement with ixazomib-Rd over placebo-Rd was observed in overall response (81.7% vs. 64.9%; odds ratio [OR], 2.38; p = 0.019) and complete response (22.5% vs. 3.9%; OR, 7.57; p < 0.001). Patient-reported quality of life and use of subsequent therapies were similar across treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified. Compared with the main cohort, median OS was 10 months longer with ixazomib-Rd and 21 months shorter with placebo-Rd in this subgroup, indicating a clinically meaningful survival benefit of ixazomib-Rd treatment in this patient population with limited access to subsequent novel therapies.

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy

Simple Summary

We report the final outomes of the addition of ixazomib to the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the routine clinical practice. With prolonged follow-up, the overall response rate was similar in both cohorts, but the addition of ixazomib induced more deeper responses. Median progression free survival was significantly better in patients receiving ixazomib and translated into better overal survival. Inferior results were seen in patients who were pretreated with lenalidomide in previous regimens. We conclude that the treatment using IRD regimen in routine practice is easy, well tolerated, and with very good therapeutic outcomes, comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial.

Abstract

Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N  =  127) or RD (N  = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

An update on the safety of ixazomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) have rapidly expanded over the past few years with several newly approved drugs. While there is need to explore treatments that lead to longer responses and survival, special consideration should be given on reducing treatment burden, reducing toxicities, and improving quality of life. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor for the treatment of MM, combining clinical efficacy with a favorable safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of ixazomib. Pharmacokinetic considerations, management of common toxicities, and the impact of the drug on the current and future treatment strategies are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Ixazomib is an effective and welltolerated MM drug. It is also being studied in combination with other newer agents. It does not have long-term cumulative toxicities, and the most adverse events are mild and manageable. These findings, along with the ease of oral administration, make it a possible option for long-term treatment approaches for MM patients, as well as in the frail/elderly patient population.

Ixazomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in China-Compared with bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

To compare the response and safety of Ixazomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone (IRd) and Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone (VRd) treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis in Xiangtan Central Hospital. A total of 52 newly diagnosed MM patients from June 2019 to June 2021 were enrolled and divided into the IRd (n = 21) and VRd (n = 31) groups. After 4 cycles of chemotherapy, the best response and adverse events were recorded. Moreover, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients in IRd group and VRd group showed similar PFS (Log-rank p = 0.70), OS (Log-rank p = 0.61) and overall response rate (83.87% vs 90.48%, p = 0.803). In addition, patients in VRd group showed lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores (p = 0.047), and higher incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (0.00% vs 19.35%, p = 0.032) than that of patients in IRd group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to VRd regimen, IRd had the similar efficacy, better safety, and may be more convenient for patients with poor basic condition for newly diagnosed MM. This study provides an insight for physicians to use IRd as first-line treatment in MM.

Treatment Horizon in Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews current and emerging therapies for MM.

METHODS

Narrative review RESULTS: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a complex, heterogenous condition, and in recent years there has been an expansion in the number and range of treatments. Several new treatment approaches, including enhanced monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTE) and chimeric antigen-T-cell therapy (CAR-T) are under development.

CONCLUSIONS

The emergence of new treatments that aim to tackle MM-associated immune dysfunction has led to improvements in overall survival.

Gaps and opportunities in the treatment of relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma: Consensus recommendations of the NCI Multiple Myeloma Steering Committee

A wide variety of new therapeutic options for Multiple Myeloma (MM) have recently become available, extending progression-free and overall survival for patients in meaningful ways. However, these treatments are not curative, and patients eventually relapse, necessitating decisions on the appropriate choice of treatment(s) for the next phase of the disease. Additionally, an important subset of MM patients will prove to be refractory to the majority of the available treatments, requiring selection of effective therapies from the remaining options. Immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and alkylating agents are the major classes of MM therapies, with several options in each class. Patients who are refractory to one agent in a class may be responsive to a related compound or to a drug from a different class. However, rules for selection of alternative treatments in these situations are somewhat empirical and later phase clinical trials to inform those choices are ongoing. To address these issues the NCI Multiple Myeloma Steering Committee formed a relapsed/refractory working group to review optimal treatment choices, timing, and sequencing and provide recommendations. Additional issues considered include the role of salvage autologous stem cell transplantation, risk stratification, targeted approaches for genetic subsets of MM, appropriate clinical trial endpoints, and promising investigational agents. This report summarizes the deliberations of the working group and suggests potential avenues of research to improve the precision, timing, and durability of treatments for Myeloma.

Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma-cell disease that arises on the basis of a so-called monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). The median age at disease onset is over 70. In Germany, there are approximately eight new cases per 100 000 inhabitants per year, or about 6000 new patients nationwide each year.

METHODS

To prepare this clinical practice guideline, a systematic literature review was carried out in medical databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL), guideline databases (GIN), and the search portal of the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The recommendations to be issued were based on two international guidelines, 40 dossier evaluations and systematic reviews, 10 randomized controlled trials, and 37 observational studies and finalized in a structured consensus process.

RESULTS

Because of its prognostic relevance, the use of the International Staging System (ISS) is recommended to stage MM and related plasma-cell neoplasms. When symptomatic MM is diagnosed, it is recommended to determine the extent of skeletal involvement by whole-body computed tomography. The indications for treatment shall be determined on the basis of the SLiMCRAB criteria; in all patients with MM it is recommended to include the biological (rather than chronological) age in the decisionmaking process. In suitable patients, it is recommended that initial treatment includes high-dose therapy, followed by main - tenance treatment. Even without high-dose treatment, a median progression-free survival of more than three years can be achieved with combination therapies. For the treatment of relapse, combinations of three drugs are more effective than doublet regimens with a median progression-free survival ranging from 10 to 45 months, depending on the study and prior therapy. Following anti-myeloma therapy, it is recommended to promptly offer physical exercise adapted to individual abilities to all patients who have the potential for rehabilitation, so that their quality of life can be sustained and improved.

CONCLUSION

This new clinical practice guideline addresses, in particular, the modalities of care that can be offered in addition to systemic antineoplastic therapy. In view of the significant recent advances in the treatment of myeloma, affected patients' quality of life now largely depends on optimized interdisciplinary care.

How I Treat Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

Despite recent advances multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease for most of the patients and initial remission will be followed by relapses requiring therapy. For many, there will be several remissions and relapses until resistance develops to all available therapies. With the introduction of several new agents, myeloma treatment has changed drastically and there are new options for the management of relapsed or refractory disease, including new drug classes with distinct mechanisms of action and cellular therapies. However, resistance to major drug classes used in first line remain the most critical factor for the choice of treatment at relapse. Continuous lenalidomide-based therapy is used extensively at first line and resistance to lenalidomide has become the key factor for the choice of salvage therapy. Daratumumab is increasingly used in first line and soon patients that relapse while on daratumumab will become a common challenge. Three-drug regimens are standard approach to manage relapsed disease. Adding drugs with new mechanisms of activity can improves outcomes and overcomes class resistance but, until now, while the biology is important, can offer only limited guidance for the choice of therapy.

Stratification for RRMM and Risk-Adapted Therapy: Sequencing of Therapies in RRMM

The treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) has experienced an unprecedented wave of innovation. Implementation of numerous new substances and drug classes with different modes of action is made possible in routine clinical practice. Next generation proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, as well as first in class agents such as selinexor and venetoclax have widened the therapeutic spectrum. This has led to an increase in progression-free and overall survival. Consequently, new challenges for treating physicians in choosing the right treatment at the right stage of the disease have been generated. Several trials support the use of novel agents in the frontline treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The use of lenalidomide or bortezomib as a backbone in the first-line setting, requires strategies for treatment once these patients relapse and are refractory to these drugs. Despite the variety of options, selecting the optimal treatment strategy is difficult, since multiple factors have to be considered: patient-specific factors such as age and co-morbidities, as well as myeloma/tumor specific factors such as cytogenetics and relapse kinetics. This review intends to summarize the existing data and guidelines regarding the optimal sequencing of treatments of RRMM using already approved agents as well as agents under investigation.

Non-selective proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

: The ubiquitination system is the most important cascade of protein degradation independently of lysosomal function. The proteasome system is actively involved in cell cycle regulation. Therefore, proteasome inhibition can lead to inhibition of tumor cell proliferation, and therefore it constitutes a potential therapeutic anticancer approach especially in the therapeutic algorithm of patients with multiple myeloma.

AREAS COVERED

Three different proteasome inhibitors are currently approved, bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib, and they have been investigated in multiple myeloma and other hematological malignancies. Multiple myeloma cells are extremely sensitive to this inhibition which leads to accumulation of proteins and endoplasmic reticulum stress, leading finally to apoptosis. However, these agents lack specificity, since they target both the constitutive proteasome and the immunoproteasome. Targeting the constitutive proteasome is the main reason for side toxicity due to the effect on normal tissues. In contrary, immunoproteasome inhibition may reduce the adverse events while maintaining the therapeutic efficacy. In this review the authors present the role of the available proteasome inhibitors in myeloma therapeutics and future perspectives of both selective and non-selective proteasome inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

The available non-selective proteasome inhibitors have changed the therapeutics of multiple myeloma the last 10 years and have significantly improved the clinical outcomes of the patients. Furthermore, selective proteasome inhibitors are now under preclinical investigation and there is hope that their optimization will come with an improved safety profile with at least comparable efficacy.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Agents in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Simple Summary

New treatments in multiple myeloma are embraced by patients and physicians but are also associated with substantial higher costs. To ensure the affordability and accessibility of health care, an evaluation of the outcomes in relation to the costs is increasingly requested. However, an up-to-date summary and assessment of the cost-effectiveness evidence for multiple myeloma treatments is currently lacking. We identified the cost-effectiveness studies currently available and show that novel treatments could improve survival with almost 4 years compared to standard of care. However, additional costs compared to standard of care could increase up to USD 535,530 per patient. The ratio between outcomes and costs is above currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Our results show cost-effectiveness ratios should be either improved or less favorable ratios should be accepted to ensure accessibility to promising treatments.

Abstract

Background: Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of novel treatments is necessary, but a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the cost-effectiveness evidence of novel treatments is currently lacking. Methods: We searched Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and EconLIT ProQuest to identify all cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel pharmacological treatment of MM reporting cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year (LY) gained since 2005. Quality and completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Results: We identified 13 economic evaluations, comprising 32 comparisons. Our results show that novel agents generate additional LYs (range: 0.311–3.85) and QALYs (range: 0.1–2.85) compared to backbone regimens and 0.02 to 1.10 LYs and 0.01 to 0.91 QALYs for comparisons between regimens containing two novel agents. Lifetime healthcare costs ranged from USD 60,413 to 1,434,937 per patient. The cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained ranged from dominating to USD 1,369,062 for novel agents compared with backbone therapies and from dominating to USD 618,018 for comparisons between novel agents. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness ratios of novel agents were generally above current willingness-to-pay thresholds. To ensure access, cost-effectiveness should be improved or cost-effectiveness ratios above current thresholds should be accepted.