Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

Isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone and bortezomib in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: the randomized phase 3 BENEFIT trial.

CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10-5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10-5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10-5 and 10-6, and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10-5, the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 .

Twice-weekly induction with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) combination followed by extended IRd consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Results of the phase 2 study IFM2014-03.

Therapeutic strategies for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) have considerably improved during the last 10 years. The IFM2014-03 trial proposed an all-oral triplet induction/consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible NDMM patients, followed by lenalidomide maintenance. Induction consisted of three 21-day cycles of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd), before high-dose Melphalan with transplant followed by eight 28-day cycles of IRd consolidation before 13 cycles of lenalidomide maintenance. Forty-six patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of therapy, and 39 entered the maintenance phase. The primary end-point was stringent complete response after consolidation, and was achieved in nine patients (20.9%, 90% CI 11.4-33.7; p = 0.998). Ten patients (24.4%) had an undetectable minimal residual disease. The overall response rate was 95.7%. The 3-year progression-free survival was 66.3%. No unexpected toxicities were recorded, and only eight patients suspended from any study drug. Of note, 21 (45.7%) patients reported peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grades 1-2 with no serious adverse events). IRd induction and consolidation with transplant before lenalidomide maintenance shows lower response rates compared to other triplet therapies. It could be an alternative for patients who require an all-oral regimen and/or with pre-existent PN, especially if quadruplet regimens including anti-CD38 antibody are not available.

Effectiveness and safety of belantamab mafodotin in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in real-world setting: The ALFA study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this noninterventional, retrospective ALFA study was to describe belantamab mafodotin effectiveness and safety in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a real-world setting in France. METHODS: Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 184 patients initiating belantamab mafodotin treatment, the overall response rate was 32.7% (≥very good partial response [VGPR] 20.4%, partial response [PR] 12.3%). The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 3.3), and median OS (mOS) was 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.3, 11.6). According to best response, mPFS was 20.6 months (95% CI: 12.1, not reached [NR]) in patients with ≥VGPR and 7.1 months (95% CI: 4.6, 9.4) in patients with PR; mOS was NR in patients with ≥VGPR and 17.5 months (95% CI: 7.7, NR) in patients with PR. For both OS and PFS, no differences were found in subgroups of interest. The adverse events (AEs) reported in 159 patients (86.4%) were mostly ocular AEs. CONCLUSIONS: ALFA, the largest real-world cohort conducted so far, confirms the results of belantamab mafodotin as reported in the DREAMM-2 clinical trial. The clinical benefit is significant as long as the patient is a responder.

RAS/RAF landscape in monoclonal plasma cell conditions.

ABSTRACT: Multiple myeloma is characterized by a huge heterogeneity at the molecular level. The RAS/RAF pathway is the most frequently mutated, in ∼50% of the patients. However, these mutations are frequently subclonal, suggesting a secondary event. Because these genes are part of our routine next-generation sequencing panel, we analyzed >10 000 patients with different plasma cell disorders to describe the RAS/RAF landscape. In this large cohort of patients, almost 61% of the patients presented a RAS/RAF mutation at diagnosis or relapse, but much lower frequencies occurred in presymptomatic cases. Of note, the mutations were different from that observed in solid tumors (higher proportions of Q61 mutations). In 29 patients with 2 different mutations, we were able to perform single-cell sequencing, showing that in most cases, mutations occurred in different subclones, suggesting an ongoing mutational process. These findings suggest that the RAS/RAF pathway is not an attractive target, both on therapeutic and residual disease assessment points of view.

Pomalidomide and dexamethasone until progression after first salvage therapy in multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide maintenance in myeloma is well established. Nevertheless, pomalidomide could provide an alternative. Myeloma patients in first relapse, initially treated in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial, and subsequently in the IFM 2013-01 phase 2 trial, received four cycles of salvage therapy with pomalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (PCD) with transplantation plus 2 PCD consolidation or without transplantation but with 5 PCD and for all patients pomalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance therapy. This consisted of 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly until progression. The primary endpoint was an improved response to treatment. A total of 75/100 patients reached therapy. The median follow-up time was 73 months. The median duration of treatment was 23.7 months. One third of patients improved their response from the initiation of treatment: 11%, 19% and 4% to a very good partial response, complete response or stringent complete response respectively. The median progression-free survival time was 33.2 months and the median overall survival time was not reached. Among the 75 patients, the reasons for pomalidomide discontinuation were progressive disease (54%), adverse events (AEs) (30%), investigator discretion (11%) and consent withdrawal (5%). Grade (G) 3/4 haematological AEs included neutropenia (51%) and lymphopenia (35%); G3/4 drug-related non-haematological AEs (>5%) comprised 13% infections. Long-term administration of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is feasible and one third of the patients improved their response.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of 318 families with familial monoclonal gammopathy: A multicenter Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome study.

Familial forms of monoclonal gammopathy, defined as multiple myeloma (MM) or Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS), are relatively infrequent and most series reported in the literature describe a limited number of families. MM rarely occurs in a familial context. MGUS is observed much more commonly, which can in some cases evolve toward full-blown MM. Although recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities have been described in tumor cells of sporadic cases of MM, the pathogenesis of familial MM remains largely unexplained. In order to identify genetic factors predisposing to familial monoclonal gammopathy, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome identified 318 families with at least two confirmed cases of monoclonal gammopathy. There were 169 families with parent/child pairs and 164 families with cases in at least two siblings, compatible with an autosomal transmission. These familial cases were compared with sporadic cases who were matched for age at diagnosis, sex and immunoglobulin isotype, with 10 sporadic cases for each familial case. The gender distribution, age and immunoglobulin subtypes of familial cases were unremarkable in comparison to sporadic cases. With a median follow-up of 7.4 years after diagnosis, the percentage of MGUS cases having evolved to MM was 3%. The median overall survival of the 148 familial MM cases was longer than that of matched sporadic cases, with projected values of 7.6 and 16.1 years in patients older and younger than 65 years, respectively. These data suggest that familial cases of monoclonal gammopathy are similar to sporadic cases in terms of clinical presentation and carry a better prognosis.

Heterogeneity in long-term outcomes for patients with Revised International Staging System stage II, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

In the era of personalized treatment in multiple myeloma, high-risk patients must be accurately identified. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends using the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) to pick out high-risk patients. The main purpose of our work was to explore the heterogeneity of outcome among R-ISS stage II patients assessing the impact of International Staging System (ISS) stage, chromosomal abnormalities and lactate dehydrogenase level in this subgroup. Data were collected from 1,343 patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed myeloma, enrolled in three clinical trials implemented by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. All patients were eligible for intensive treatment. Patients in R-ISS stage II but ISS stage I had 1.6 times higher risk of death than patients in R-ISS stage I (adjusted hazard ratio=1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.2; P=0.01) and patients in R-ISS stage II but with ISS stage III had a better overall survival than patients in R-ISS stage III (adjusted hazard ratio=0.7; 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.9, P=0.02). However, among patients classified in R-ISS II, ISS stage and chromosomal abnormalities (del[17p] and t[4;14]) were still relevant prognostic factors for death. Dividing R-ISS stage II into three subgroups: ISS I with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities, ISS II or III with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities and patients with high-risk chromosomal abnormalities, median overall survival times were, respectively, not reached, 112 months and 71 months (P<0.001). In conclusion, stratification of patients in the R-ISS stage II group can be improved by taking into account chromosomal abnormalities and ISS. However, this does not improve predictive performance of survival models.

Efficacy and safety of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: pooled analysis of four single-arm studies.

Pooled analyses of four single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies (NCT01816971, NCT02405364, NCT01029054, NCT01402284) investigated the clinical effectiveness of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients who did (Cohort 1; n = 122) and did not (Cohort 2; n = 99) undergo autologous stem cell transplant (high-dose melphalan [HDM]-ASCT) were included. Patients received a 28-day cycle of induction KRd. The rate of very good partial response or better, the primary endpoint, was 93% in Cohort 1 and 90% in Cohort 2. Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 88% and 96% for Cohort 1, and 85% and 97% for Cohort 2. At least 90% of patients in each cohort reported ≥1 grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events. Subgroup analyses by age, International Staging System stage, and cytogenetic risk were consistent with the overall population. KRd is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with NDMM regardless of HDM-ASCT eligibility.

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

High-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221.

New Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin K Antagonists Among Patients With Cardiac Amyloidosis: Prognostic Impact.

Background: Atrial arrhythmia (AA) is common among patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA), who have an increased risk of intracardiac thrombus. The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic impact of vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in patients with CA. Methods and Results: 273 patients with CA and history of AA with long term anticoagulation-69 (25%) light chain amyloidosis (AL), 179 (66%) wild-type transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRwt) and 25 (9%) variant transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRv)-were retrospectively included between January 2012 and July 2020. 147 (54%) and 126 (46%) patients received VKA and DOAC, respectively. Patient receiving VKA were more likely to have AL with renal dysfunction, higher NT-proBNP and troponin levels. Patients with ATTRwt were more likely to receive DOAC therapy. There were more bleeding complications among patients with VKA (20 versus 10%; P = 0.013) but no difference for stroke events (4 vs. 2%; P = 0.223), as compared to patients with DOAC. A total of 124 (45%) patients met the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality: 96 (65%) and 28 (22%) among patients with VKAs and DOACs, respectively (P < 0.001). After multivariate analysis including age and renal function, VKA was no longer associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Among patients with CA and history of AA receiving oral anticoagulant, DOACs appear to be at least as effective and safe as VKAs.

Epidemiological landscape of young patients with multiple myeloma diagnosed before 40 years of age: the French experience.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is rare in young patients, especially before age 40 years at diagnosis, representing <2% of all patients with MM. Little is known about the disease characteristics and prognosis of these patients. In this study, we examined 214 patients diagnosed with MM at age ≤40 years over 15 years, in the era of modern treatments. Among them, 189 patients had symptomatic MM. Disease characteristics were similar to older patients: 35% had anemia, 17% had renal impairment, and 13% had hypercalcemia. The staging was ISS-1 in 52.4%, ISS-2 in 27.5%, and ISS-3 in 20.1%. Overall, 18% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics [del 17p and/or t(4;14)]. Ninety percent of patients received intensive chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant, and 25% of patients had allogeneic stem cell transplant predominantly at time of relapse. The median follow-up was 76 months, the estimated median overall survival was 14.5 years, and the median progression free-survival was 41 months. In multivariate analysis, bone lesions (hazard ratio [HR], 3.95; P = .01), high ISS score (HR, 2.14; P = .03), and high-risk cytogenetics (HR, 4.54; P < .0001) were significant risk factors for poor outcomes. Among predefined time-dependent covariables, onset of progression (HR, 13.2; P < .0001) significantly shortened overall survival. At 5 years, relative survival compared with same age- and sex-matched individuals was 83.5%, and estimated standardized mortality ratio was 69.9 (95% confidence interval, 52.7-91.1), confirming that MM dramatically shortens the survival of young patients despite an extended survival after diagnosis.

Maintenance with daratumumab or observation following treatment with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.

Real-world analysis of patient characteristics, treatment outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization across Europe in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for stem cell transplantation who received lenalidomide- or bortezomib-based regimens.

We aimed to compare real-world outcomes, resource use, and costs for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with continuous first-line (1 L) lenalidomide or fixed bortezomib in Europe. We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational chart review of transplant-ineligible NDMM patients across 7 countries. Of 453 eligible patients, 220 received 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens; 105 (47.7%) received second-line (2 L) treatment, of which 50 (47.6%) received 2 L bortezomib. 233 patients received 1 L bortezomib-based regimens; 142 (60.9%) had 2 L treatment, of which 104 (73.2%) received 2 L lenalidomide. Patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens had better progression-free survival than patients receiving 1 L bortezomib-based regimens (p = .002) and a longer time to 2 L or third-line treatment (both p < .05). Total treatment-associated monthly costs for patients receiving 1 L lenalidomide-based regimens (n = 171, €2,268.55) were significantly greater than for 1 L bortezomib-based regimens (n = 188, €1,724.77) (p < .001) over the follow-up period (median, 38.7 months).

Up-front carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with transplant for patients with multiple myeloma: the IFM KRd final results.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone plus transplant is a standard of care for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Because responses can deepen with time, regimens with longer and more potent induction/consolidation phases are needed. In this phase 2 study, patients received eight 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (K) 20/36 mg/m2 (days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16), lenalidomide (R) 25 mg (days 1-21), and dexamethasone (d) 20 mg (days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23). All patients proceeded to transplant after 4 cycles and received 1 year of lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg, days 1-21). The primary objective was stringent complete response at the completion of consolidation. Overall, 48 patients were screened and 46 enrolled; 21% had adverse cytogenetics. Among 42 evaluable patients after consolidation, 26 were in stringent complete response (CR; 61.9%), 27 were at least in CR (64.3%): 92.6% had undetectable minimal residual disease according to flow cytometry (≥2.5 × 10-5) and 63.0% according to next-generation sequencing (10-6). Median time to CR was 10.6 months. According to multiparametric flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing, 69.0% and 66.7% of patients, respectively, had undetectable minimal residual disease at some point. With a median follow-up of 60.5 months, 21 patients progressed, and 10 died (7 of multiple myeloma). Median progression-free survival was 56.4 months. There were no KRd-related deaths. Four patients discontinued the program due to toxicities; 56 serious adverse events were reported in 31 patients, including 8 cardiovascular events (2 heart failures, 5 pulmonary embolisms or deep vein thrombosis). Common grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic (74%) and infectious (22%). In summary, 8 cycles of KRd produce fast and deep responses in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The safety profile is acceptable, but cardiovascular adverse events should be closely monitored. This clinical trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02405364.