Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a multicenter, retrospective, real-world experience with 200 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

In the ELOQUENT-3 trial, the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EloPd) proved to have a superior clinical benefit over pomalidomide and dexamethasone with a manageable toxicity profile, leading to its approval for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. We report here a real-world experience of 200 cases of RRMM treated with EloPd in 35 Italian centers outside of clinical trials. In our dataset, the median number of prior lines of therapy was two, with 51% of cases undergoing autologous stem cell transplant and 73% having been exposed to daratumumab. After a median follow-up of 9 months, 126 patients had stopped EloPd, most of them (88.9%) because of disease progression. The overall response rate was 55.4%, a finding in line with the pivotal trial results. Regarding adverse events, the toxicity profile in our cohort was similar to that in the ELOQUENT-3 trial, with no significant differences between younger (<70 years) and older patients. The median progression-free survival was 7 months, which was shorter than that observed in ELOQUENT-3, probably because of the different clinical characteristics of the two cohorts. Interestingly, International Staging System stage III disease was associated with worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio=2.55). Finally, the median overall survival of our series was shorter than that observed in the ELOQUENT-3 trial (17.5 vs. 29.8 months). In conclusion, our real-world study confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for patients with RRMM who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective real-world experience with 321 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial demonstrated the superiority of the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloPd) in terms of efficacy and safety, compared to Pd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), who had received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. The present study is an 18-month follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloPd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, 213 patients (66.4%) experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7.5 and 19.2 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analysis showed a significant reduction of PFS benefit magnitude both in advanced International Staging System (ISS) (II and III) stages and previous exposure to daratumumab cases. Instead, advanced ISS (II and III) stages and more than 2 previous lines of therapy maintained an independent prognostic impact on OS. Major adverse events included grade three-fourths neutropenia (24.9%), anemia (13.4%), lymphocytopenia (15.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 19.3% and 8.7%, respectively. A slight increase in the incidence of neutropenia and lymphocytopenia was registered with longer follow-up. In conclusion, our real-world study still confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for RRMM. Nevertheless, novel strategies are desirable for those patients exposed to daratumumab.

Hepatic, gastric and bone marrow AL amyloidosis that began with Budd-Chiari syndrome: a case report.

Amyloid Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of protein misfolding and metabolism characterized by insoluble fibrils deposition in various tissues and organs, which could quickly progress and become fatal. The most frequently affected organ is heart being its involvement the most adverse prognostic feature. Kidney and liver could be other organ localizations, defining AL Amyloidosis as a multisystem disorder. Being Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) an uncommon congestive hepatopathy caused by blockage of hepatic veins in the absence of cardiac disorders, it could be rarely caused by a massive deposition of amyloid proteins into hepatic sinusoidal spaces, giving an uncommon clinical presentation of AL Amyloidosis.

Treatment of primary plasma cell leukaemia with carfilzomib and lenalidomide-based therapy (EMN12/HOVON-129): final analysis of a non-randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Primary plasma cell leukaemia is a rare and aggressive plasma cell disorder with a poor prognosis. The aim of the EMN12/HOVON-129 study was to improve the outcomes of patients with primary plasma cell leukaemia by incorporating carfilzomib and lenalidomide in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy. METHODS: The EMN12/HOVON-129 study is a non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study conducted at 19 academic centres and hospitals in seven European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Norway, The Netherlands, and the UK) for previously untreated patients with primary plasma cell leukaemia aged 18 years or older. Inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed primary plasma cell leukaemia (defined as >2 ×109 cells per L circulating monoclonal plasma cells or plasmacytosis >20% of the differential white cell count) and WHO performance status 0-3. Patients aged 18-65 years (younger patients) and 66 years or older (older patients) were treated in age-specific cohorts and were analysed separately. Younger patients were treated with four 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (36 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23). Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) induction was followed by double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), four cycles of KRd consolidation, and then maintenance with carfilzomib (27 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, 15, and 16 for the first 12 28-day cycles, and then 56 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 in all subsequent cycles) and lenalidomide (10 mg orally on days 1-21) until progression. Patients who were eligible for allogeneic HSCT, could also receive a single autologous HSCT followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic HSCT and then carfilzomib-lenalidomide maintenance. Older patients received eight cycles of KRd induction followed by maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and lenalidomide until progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The primary analysis population was the intention-to-treat population, irrespective of the actual treatment received. Data from all participants who received any study drug were included in the safety analyses. The trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl (until June 2022) and https://trialsearch.who.int/ as NTR5350; recruitment is complete and this is the final analysis. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2015, and Aug 5, 2021, 61 patients were enrolled and received KRd induction treatment (36 patients aged 18-65 years [20 (56%) were male and 16 (44%) female], and 25 aged ≥66 years [12 (48%) were male and 13 (52%) female]). With a median follow-up of 43·5 months (IQR 27·7-67·8), the median progression-free survival was 15·5 months (95% CI 9·4-38·4) for younger patients. For older patients, median follow-up was 32·0 months (IQR 24·7-34·6), and median progression-free survival was 13·8 months (95% CI 9·2-35·5). Adverse events were most frequently observed directly after treatment initiation, with infections (two of 36 (6%) younger patients and eight of 25 (32%) older patients) and respiratory events (two of 36 [6%] younger patients and four of 25 [16%] older patients) being the most common grade 3 or greater events during the first four KRd cycles. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 26 (72%) of 36 younger patients and in 19 (76%) of 25 older patients, with infections being the most common. Treatment-related deaths were reported in none of the younger patients and three (12%) of the older patients (two infections and one unknown cause of death). INTERPRETATION: Carfilzomib and lenalidomide-based therapy provides improved progression-free survival compared with previously published data. However, results remain inferior in primary plasma cell leukaemia compared with multiple myeloma, highlighting the need for new studies incorporating novel immunotherapies. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Celgene (a BMS company), and AMGEN.

Maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: Two is not always better than one.

In multiple myeloma (MM) long-term therapy aims to control disease and delay progression for as long as possible. In this issue Jenner et al. failed to demonstrate a benefit of maintenance with lenalidomide plus vorinostat compared with lenalidomide in both transplant eligible (TE) and ineligible (NTE) patients enrolled in the Myeloma XI trial. Commentary on: Jenner et al. The addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma of all ages: results from 'Myeloma XI', a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III trial. Br J Haematol. 2023;201:276-288.

Real-world assessment of treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma in an Italian haematological tertiary care centre.

Despite significant improvements in therapeutic options, multiple myeloma (MM) patients experience a series of remissions and relapses requiring further lines of therapy (LOTs). We analysed treatment pathways, attrition rates (ARs) and refractoriness patterns across LOTs in 413 MM patients treated from 2011 and 2021. Across LOT-2 to LOT-5 ARs were 26%, 27%, 34% and 37.5%, being 50% for subsequent LOTs. In univariate analysis age over 65 years, international staging system (ISS) II/III, more than two comorbidities, no transplant and no maintenance therapy were significantly associated with AR but regression analysis selected only age over 65 years and more than 2 comorbidities. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40.5, 19.5, 10.3, 6 and 4.7 months from LOT-1 to LOT-5. Lenalidomide-refractory patients, among those relapsed after LOT-1, were 26% and 64.5% respectively, in patients starting therapy before 2019 versus in or after 2021. In the two cohorts, 57.5% and 85.5% of patients relapsed after LOT-2 were lenalidomide-refractory. Among patients not relapsed from LOT-1, 80% are receiving continuous lenalidomide and could become lenalidomide-refractory, whereas 91% and 51.5% of patients in LOT-2 could become potential lenalidomide- and daratumumab-refractory respectively. In our analysis the rate of patients reaching subsequent LOTs was higher than previously reported and the increase in early refractoriness would require faster and more efficient treatment licensing processes.

Dose/schedule-adjusted Rd-R vs continuous Rd for elderly, intermediate-fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) is standard treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In this randomized phase 3 study, we investigated efficacy and feasibility of dose/schedule-adjusted Rd followed by maintenance at 10 mg per day without dexamethasone (Rd-R) vs continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit newly diagnosed patients with MM. Primary end point was event-free survival (EFS), defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, or hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AE). Of 199 evaluable patients, 101 received Rd-R and 98 continuous Rd. Median follow-up was 37 months. EFS was 10.4 vs 6.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.95; P = .02); median progression-free survival, 20.2 vs 18.3 months (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.10; P = .16); and 3-year overall survival, 74% vs 63% (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.03; P = .06) with Rd-R vs Rd, respectively. Rate of ≥1 nonhematologic grade ≥3 AE was 33% vs 43% (P = .14) in Rd-R vs Rd groups, with neutropenia (21% vs 18%), infections (10% vs 12%), and skin disorders (7% vs 3%) the most frequent; constitutional and central nervous system AEs mainly related to dexamethasone were more frequent with Rd. Lenalidomide was discontinued for AEs in 24% vs 30% and reduced in 45% vs 62% of patients receiving Rd-R vs Rd, respectively. In intermediate-fit patients, switching to reduced-dose lenalidomide maintenance without dexamethasone after 9 Rd cycles was feasible, with similar outcomes to standard continuous Rd. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02215980.

Thrombosis in multiple myeloma: risk stratification, antithrombotic prophylaxis, and management of acute events. A consensus-based position paper from an ad hoc expert panel.

The introduction of new therapeutic agents for multiple myeloma (MM), including proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies, has improved the outcomes of patients but, in parallel, has changed the frequency and epidemiology of thrombotic events. Thrombosis is now a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in MM patients, and optimal thromboprophylaxis is far from being reached. Moving from the recognition that the above issue represents an unmet clinical need, an expert panel assessed the scientific literature and composed a framework of recommendations for improving thrombosis control in patients who are candidates for active treatment for MM. The panel generated key clinical questions using the criterion of clinical relevance through a Delphi process. It explored four domains, i.e., thrombotic risk factors and risk stratification, primary thromboprophylaxis, management of acute thrombotic events, and secondary thromboprophylaxis. The recommendations issued may assist hematologists in minimizing the risk of thrombosis and guarantee adherence to treatment in patients with MM who are candidates for active treatment.

Adjusted comparison between elotuzumab and carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as salvage therapy for multiple myeloma patients.

The lack of a randomized trial comparing carfilzomib (K) versus elotuzumab (Elo) associated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) prompted us to assess the relative usefulness of one triplet over the other. Five independent retrospective cohorts of 883 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients, including 300 EloRd and 583 KRd cases, outside clinical trials, entered this non-randomized comparison. KRd cohort accounted for a higher incidence of younger patients, cases with ≥3 lines of therapy, already exposed to lenalidomide, International Staging System (ISS) stage III, and abnormal lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level compared with EloRd cohort. Moreover, cytogenetic risk categories, detected in roughly one-third of cases, were equally distributed between the two therapy arms. The probability of CR+VGPR response was significantly higher in KRd (n = 314, 53.9%) than in EloRd patients (n = 111, 37.0%). Likewise, the cumulative incidence function of CR+VGPR, taking into account the competitive risk of death, was significantly higher in KRd arm patients than those in the EloRd arm (p = .003). Moreover, KRd treatment significantly reduced the progression or death risk by 46% in an adjusted multivariate analysis (HR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, p < .0001). Finally, in an adjusted illness-progression/death model, the effect of KRd versus EloRd was of higher magnitude among those who achieved CR+VGPR (-39% hazard ratio reduction, p = .02) than among those who achieved < VGPR (-29% hazard ratio reduction, p = .007). With limitations characteristic to any retrospective analysis, this current clinical practice study's overall results demonstrated potential benefits of KRd therapy compared with EloRd. This observation may help the daily clinical practice.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. FUNDING: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone in patients with advanced multiple myeloma: The EMN09 phase 1/2 study of the European Myeloma Network.

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy with carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone was evaluated in this multicenter phase 1/2 trial conducted within the European Myeloma Network (EMN09 trial). METHODS: Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included. The phase 1 portion of the study determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib with bendamustine set at 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. After 8 cycles, responding patients received maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone until progression. RESULTS: On the basis of the phase 1 results, the recommended phase 2 dose for carfilzomib was 27 mg/m2 twice weekly in weeks 1, 2, and 3. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved a partial response or better, and 32% reached a very good partial response or better. The clinical benefit rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months, and the median overall survival was 30.4 months. The reported grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (29%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). The main nonhematologic grade ≥3 AEs were pneumonia, thromboembolic events (10%), cardiac AEs (8%), and hypertension (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients who have relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, combined carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone is an effective treatment option administered in the outpatient setting. Infection prophylaxis and attention to patients with cardiovascular predisposition are required.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: the real-life experience of Rete Ematologica Pugliese (REP).

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) have been approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on ASPIRE clinical trial. However, its effectiveness and safety profile in real clinical practice should be further assessed. We retrospectively evaluated 130 consecutive RRMM patients treated with KRd between December 2015 and August 2018, in 9 Hematology Departments of Rete Ematologica Pugliese (REP). The overall response rate (ORR) was 79%, with 37% complete response (CR). Treatment with KRd led to an improvement in response regardless of age, refractory disease, and number and type of previous therapies. After a median follow-up of 18 months, median PFS was 24 months and 2y-PFS was 54%. PFS was longer in patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) with median PFS of 32.4 months. The relapses after prior autologous transplant (ASCT) positively impact median PFS. Several baseline disease characteristics, such as III ISS scoring or elevated LDH, and prior exposure to lenalidomide were found to negatively impact PFS. Primary refractory or relapsed myeloma patients have been treated with KRd as bridge to ASCT with a great benefit. Thirty-four (83%) reached at least a partial response after KRd and 21 (61%) performed ASCT. In transplanted patients, median PFS was not reached and 2y-PFS was 100%. The treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events (AEs) was 18%, most commonly for lenalidomide (11%). Overall, in 10% of patients, a KRd dose reduction was necessary at least once (2.5% for carfilzomib and 8% for lenalidomide). The most frequent AE was neutropenia (44%) and anemia (41%). Infections occurred in 14% of patients. Cardiovascular events occurred in 11% of patients. Elderly patients have tolerated therapy very well, without additional side effects compared to younger patients, except for cardiac impairment. Our analysis confirmed that KRd is effective in RRMM patients. It is well tolerated and applicable to the majority of patients outside clinical trials. A longer PFS was shown in patients achieving VGPR, in those lenalidomide naïve and in patients relapsing after previous ASCT. Previous ASCT should not hamper the option for KRd therapy. Accordingly, KRd should be used as bridge regimen to ASCT with remarkable improvement in response and PFS rates. Further clinical studies are needed.

Outcome of paraosseous extra-medullary disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with new drugs.

Extramedullary disease is relatively frequent in multiple myeloma, but our knowledge on the subject is limited and mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Little is known regarding the role of new drugs in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis of eight trials focused on the description of extramedullary disease characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. A total of 2,332 newly diagnosed myeloma patients have been included; 267 (11.4%) had extramedullary disease, defined as paraosseous in 243 (10.4%), extramedullary plasmocytoma in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 25.3 months and 25.2 in extramedullary disease and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease did not impact on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.15, P=0.06), while other known prognostic factors retained their significance. Patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs, mainly lenalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors had similar progression-free survival and progression-free survival-2 regardless of extramedullary disease presence. Median overall survival was 63.5 months and 79.9 months (P=0.01) in extramedullary and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively, and in multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.41, P<0.001), in line with other prognostic factors. With the limits of the use of low sensitivity imaging techniques, that lead to an underestimation of extramedullary disease, we conclude that in patients treated with new drugs the detrimental effect of extramedullary disease at diagnosis is limited, that lenalidomide is effective as are proteasome inhibitors, and that these patients tend to acquire a more aggressive disease in later stages. (EUDRACT2005-004714-32, NCT01063179 NCT00551928, NCT01091831, NCT01093196, NCT01190787, NCT01346787, NCT01857115).

First-line therapy with either bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

Minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction in patients with myeloma receiving lenalidomide maintenance: A pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is one of the most relevant prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma (MM); however, the impact of maintenance therapy on MRD levels remains unclear. Among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) who received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed disease progression, the role of MRD status as a predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (ASO-RQ-PCR) analysis. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with NDMM enrolled in the RV-MM-EMN-441 (clinical trials.gov identifier, NCT01091831) and RV-MM-COOP-0556 (clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01208766; European Myeloma Network EMN02/HO95 MM Trial) phase 3 trials who achieved at least a very good partial response after intensification/consolidation were included. The median patient age was 57 years (interquartile range, 53-61 years), and all patients received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed progression. MRD was evaluated on bone marrow after intensification/consolidation, after 6 courses of maintenance, and every 6 months thereafter until clinical relapse using both ASO-RQ-PCR (sensitivity, 10-5 ) and MFC (sensitivity, from 10-4 to 10-5 ). RESULTS: After intensification/consolidation, 33 of 72 patients (46%) achieved a molecular complete response (m-CR), and 44 of 70 (63%) achieved a flow complete response (flow-CR). Almost 27% of patients who were MRD-positive after consolidation became MRD-negative during maintenance. After a median follow-up of 38 months, PFS was prolonged in patients who achieved negative MRD status during maintenance according to results from both ASO-RQ-PCR analysis (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.62; P = .0013) and MFC (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.41; P < .001). The impact of negative MRD status on PFS was similar in all subgroups (ASCT and no-ASCT; International Staging System stages I, II, and III; high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics), and the two techniques were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: MRD status is a stronger predictor of PFS than standard risk factors, and lenalidomide maintenance further increases the rate of negative MRD results.

'Real-life' analysis of the role of antifungal prophylaxis in preventing invasive aspergillosis in AML patients undergoing consolidation therapy: Sorveglianza Epidemiologica Infezioni nelle Emopatie (SEIFEM) 2016 study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the incidence of proven/probable invasive aspergillosis (IA) and the role of antifungal prophylaxis (AP) in a 'real-life' setting of patients with AML receiving intensive consolidation therapy. METHODS: Cases of IA, observed during consolidation in adult/paediatric patients with AML between 2011 and 2015, were retrospectively collected in a multicentre Italian study. RESULTS: Of 2588 patients, 56 (2.2%) developed IA [43 probable (1.7%) and 13 proven (0.5%)]. IA was diagnosed in 34 of 1137 (2.9%) patients receiving no AP and in 22 of 1451 (1.5%) who were given AP (P = 0.01). Number-needed-to-treat calculation indicates that, on average, 71 patients should have received AP (instead of no AP) for one additional patient to not have IA. Initial antifungal therapy was 'pre-emptive' in 36 (64%) patients and 'targeted' in 20 (36%) patients. A good response to first-line therapy was observed in 26 (46%) patients, mainly those who received AP [16 of 22 (73%) versus 10 of 34 (29%); P = 0.001]. The overall mortality rate and the mortality rate attributable to IA by day 120 were 16% and 9%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age ≥60 years (OR = 12.46, 95% CI = 1.13-136.73; P = 0.03) and high-dose cytarabine treatment (OR = 10.56, 95% CI = 1.95-116.74; P = 0.04) independently affected outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, AP appears to prevent IA from occurring during consolidation. However, although the incidence of IA was low, mortality was not negligible among older patients. Further prospective studies should be carried out particularly in elderly patients treated with high-dose cytarabine to confirm our data and to identify subsets of individuals who may require AP.

Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase I/II studies.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Randomized phase 2 study: elotuzumab plus bortezomib/dexamethasone vs bortezomib/dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory MM.

In this proof-of-concept, open-label, phase 2 study, patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) received elotuzumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone (EBd) or bortezomib and dexamethasone (Bd) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Two-sided 0.30 significance level was specified (80% power, 103 events) to detect hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69. Efficacy and safety analyses were performed on all randomized patients and all treated patients, respectively. Of 152 randomized patients (77 EBd, 75 Bd), 150 were treated (75 EBd, 75 Bd). PFS was greater with EBd vs Bd (HR, 0.72; 70% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.88; stratified log-rank P = .09); median PFS was longer with EBd (9.7 months) vs Bd (6.9 months). In an updated analysis, EBd-treated patients homozygous for the high-affinity FcγRIIIa allele had median PFS of 22.3 months vs 9.8 months in EBd-treated patients homozygous for the low-affinity allele. ORR was 66% (EBd) vs 63% (Bd). Very good partial response or better occurred in 36% of patients (EBd) vs 27% (Bd). Early OS results, based on 40 deaths, revealed an HR of 0.61 (70% CI, 0.43-0.85). To date, 60 deaths have occurred (28 EBd, 32 Bd). No additional clinically significant adverse events occurred with EBd vs Bd. Grade 1/2 infusion reaction rate was low (5% EBd) and mitigated with premedication. In patients with RRMM, elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory antibody, appears to provide clinical benefit without added clinically significant toxicity when combined with Bd vs Bd alone. Registered to ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01478048.

Triplet vs doublet lenalidomide-containing regimens for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196.

A prospective observational study to assess clinical decision-making, prognosis, quality of life and satisfaction with care in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: the CLARITY study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is challenging for a number of reasons including, the heterogeneity of disease at relapse and the number of possible therapeutic approaches. This study broadly aims to generate new evidence-based data to facilitate clinical decision-making in RRMM patients. The primary objective is to investigate the prognostic value of patient self-reported fatigue severity for overall survival. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study will consecutively enroll 312 patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least 1 prior line of therapy and are considered as RRMM according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Eligible RRMM participants will be adults (≥ 18 years old) patients and will be enrolled irrespective of comorbidities and performance status. At the time of study inclusion, data to calculate the frailty score are to be available. Patients will be followed up for 30 months and patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment is planned at baseline and thereafter at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The following PRO validated questionnaires will be used: the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ-MY20 and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. Satisfaction with care and preference for involvement in treatment decisions will also be evaluated. Clinical, laboratory and treatment related information will be prospectively collected in conjunction with pre scheduled PRO assessments. Cox regression analyses will be used to assess the prognostic value of baseline fatigue severity (EORTC QLQ-C30) and other patient-reported health-related quality of life parameters. DISCUSSION: Clinical decision-making in RRMM is a challenge and outcome prediction is also an important aspect to enhance personalized treatment planning. Given the paucity of PRO data in this population, this prospective observational study aims to provide novel information that may facilitate patients' management in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as identifier NCT03190525 .