Comprehensive molecular profiling of multiple myeloma identifies refined copy number and expression subtypes.

Multiple myeloma is a treatable, but currently incurable, hematological malignancy of plasma cells characterized by diverse and complex tumor genetics for which precision medicine approaches to treatment are lacking. The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation's Relating Clinical Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma to Personal Assessment of Genetic Profile study ( NCT01454297 ) is a longitudinal, observational clinical study of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (n = 1,143) where tumor samples are characterized using whole-genome sequencing, whole-exome sequencing and RNA sequencing at diagnosis and progression, and clinical data are collected every 3 months. Analyses of the baseline cohort identified genes that are the target of recurrent gain-of-function and loss-of-function events. Consensus clustering identified 8 and 12 unique copy number and expression subtypes of myeloma, respectively, identifying high-risk genetic subtypes and elucidating many of the molecular underpinnings of these unique biological groups. Analysis of serial samples showed that 25.5% of patients transition to a high-risk expression subtype at progression. We observed robust expression of immunotherapy targets in this subtype, suggesting a potential therapeutic option.

Nivolumab, Pomalidomide, and Elotuzumab Combination Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Phase 3 CheckMate 602 Study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that combining nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) with or without elotuzumab, an antisignaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 monoclonal antibody, may improve multiple myeloma (MM) treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase 3 CheckMate 602 study (NCT02726581) assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone (NPd) and NPd plus elotuzumab (NE-Pd). Eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years) had measurable MM after ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, that included an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI), each for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles, alone or combined, and were refractory to their last line of therapy. Patients were randomized 3:3:1 to receive NPd, Pd, or NE-Pd. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.8 months, PFS was similar between treatment arms (Pd, 7.3 months [95% CI, 6.5-8.4]; NPd, 8.4 months [95% CI, 5.8-12.1]; NE-Pd, 6.3 months [95% CI, 2.4-11.1]). ORR was similar in the Pd (55%), NPd (48%), and NE-Pd (42%) arms. Nivolumab-containing arms were associated with a less favorable safety profile versus Pd, including a higher rate of thrombocytopenia (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 15.7%), any-grade immune-mediated adverse events (NPd, 13.9%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 2.9%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 33.3%; Pd, 18.6%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 602 did not demonstrate clinical benefit of nivolumab (+/- elotuzumab) plus Pd versus Pd for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).

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.

A phase 3b study of venetoclax and azacitidine or decitabine in an outpatient setting in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Venetoclax, a highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor, combined with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine or decitabine, is approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) in patients who are ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. Previous clinical studies initiated venetoclax plus HMA in an inpatient setting owing to concerns of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This study (NCT03941964) evaluated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus HMA in a United States community-based outpatient setting in patients with ND AML (N = 60) who were treatment naïve for AML, ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy, had no evidence of spontaneous TLS at screening, and were deemed as appropriate candidates for outpatient initiation of venetoclax plus HMA by the investigator. Patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (75 mg/m2) or decitabine (20 mg/m2) for up to 6 cycles during the study. With a median time on study of 18.3 weeks, the best response rate of composite complete remission was 66.7%, and the overall post-baseline red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion independence rate was 55.0%, consistent with results of studies in which treatment was initiated in an inpatient setting. Key adverse events included nausea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and white blood cell count decrease of any grade (≥50% of patients). The observed safety profile was generally consistent with that of venetoclax plus HMA observed in inpatient AML studies. With close monitoring, 2 cases of TLS were identified, appropriately managed, and the patients were able to continue study treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration identification number is NCT03941964.

Patient perspectives on BCMA-targeted therapies for multiple myeloma: a survey conducted in a patient advocacy group.

Background: Advances in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment have shifted the therapeutic landscape. Understanding patients' perspectives can assist physicians in helping patients make informed decisions. This study aimed to understand the patient decision-making process and gain insights into patient perspectives on B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapies for MM. Methods: An 18-question survey was completed by patients with MM enrolled in HealthTree® Cure Hub, an online portal helping patients with plasma cell dyscrasias navigate their disease. Results: From October 28, 2022, to January 12, 2023, 325 patients with MM participated in the survey. The mean age (standard deviation) of the respondents was 66 (8) years; 54% were female and 90% were White. Among 218 patients with complete clinical records in the database, the median (min, max) lines of therapy (LOT) was 2 (1,16). Among 61 (28%) patients who had received ≥4 LOTs, 55 (90%) were triple-class exposed. Of the 290 patients who responded to the question about openness to new therapies, 76 (26%) were open to trying a new therapy immediately and 125 (43%) wanted more information on safety and efficacy. Most respondents reported likely or very likely to try a BCMA CAR T-cell therapy (60%) or a bispecific antibody (74%) and some needed more information to decide (16% for CAR T-cell therapy and 13% for bispecific antibody). The most requested information included efficacy, side effects (SEs), eligibility, and administration process for both CAR T-cell and bispecific therapies. When 2 therapies with the same efficacy and duration of response were offered, 69% of respondents would prefer the therapy with a lower risk of severe SEs but requires continuous dosing with no treatment-free interval, and 31% preferred a therapy given once followed by a treatment-free interval but with a potentially higher risk of severe SEs. To receive an effective therapy, the top acceptable trade-offs included frequent monitoring of SEs and initiating a new therapy in a hospital setting, and the least acceptable compromise was caregiver burden. Conclusions: This study found a high level of openness in patients with MM to try BCMA-targeted therapies. Information on efficacy, safety, availability, and eligibility may assist patients on decision-making.

Plain language summary of the KarMMa-3 study of ide-cel or standard of care regimens in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

What is this summary about? This plain language summary describes the results of a Phase 3 study called KarMMa-3. In this ongoing study, researchers looked at a relatively new treatment for people with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, whose cancer got worse despite treatment (refractory) or had cancer that at first improved with treatment, but eventually stopped responding (relapsed).How was this study conducted? In the KarMMa-3 study, people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either a one-time infusion of a new treatment, named ide-cel, or one of the standard of care regimens currently available for patients with this cancer. People were treated with the standard of care regimens in weekly or monthly cycles until the cancer got worse, there were unacceptable side effects, or the person withdrew from the study.What were the results? The results of this study showed that people receiving the one-time infusion of ide-cel lived longer without the cancer getting worse and had a greater reduction in cancer cells than patients receiving the standard of care regimen. A higher percentage of patients receiving ide-cel responded to treatment than patients receiving the standard of care regimen, and the response to treatment was better with idecel. These results show that ide-cel is a promising treatment for this challenging disease.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03651128 (KarMMa-3 study).

Management of Adverse Events Associated with Pomalidomide-Based Combinations in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Multi-agent regimens incorporating immunomodulatory (IMiD®) agents such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide have become the preferred standard of care for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), resulting in improved survival outcomes. Currently, there are three IMiD agents approved for the treatment of MM: thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide. Lenalidomide is commonly used to treat patients with newly diagnosed MM and as maintenance therapy following stem cell transplant or after disease relapse. Pomalidomide, the focus of this review, is approved in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Despite survival benefits, IMiD agents each have different safety profiles requiring consideration both prior to starting therapy and during treatment. Adverse event (AE) management is essential, not only to ensure treatment adherence and thus ensure optimal efficacy but also to maintain patient quality of life. Here, we discuss AEs associated with pomalidomide and present five clinically relevant hypothetical case studies in patients with RRMM to provide scenario-driven guidance regarding treatment selection and AE prevention and management in the clinical setting. Lastly, as new treatment approaches continue to be explored in MM, we also discuss novel cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD™) agents including iberdomide (CC-220) and mezigdomide (CC-92480).