Predictors of unsustained measurable residual disease negativity in patients with multiple myeloma.

ABSTRACT: The prognostic impact of achieving and in particular maintaining measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity in multiple myeloma is now established; therefore, identifying among MRD-negative patients the ones at higher risk of losing MRD negativity is of importance. We analyzed predictors of unsustained MRD negativity in patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). MRD was performed by multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity of 10-5) at premaintenance and every 6 months thereafter. The cumulative incidence (CI) of MRD resurgence and/or progression was analyzed in MRD-negative patients. A total of 306 of 474 (65%) MRD-negative patients were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months from MRD negativity, 185 of 306 (60%) patients were still MRD negative and progression free, 118 (39%) lost their MRD-negative status, and 3 patients (1%) died without progression. Amp1q vs normal (4-year CI, 63% vs 34), ≥2 concomitant high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities vs 0 (4-year CI, 59% vs 33%), circulating tumor cells at baseline (high vs low at 4-year CI, 62% vs 32%), and time-to-reach MRD negativity postconsolidation vs preconsolidation (4-year CI, 46% vs 35%) were associated with a higher risk of unsustained MRD negativity in a multivariate Fine-Gray model. During the first 2 years of maintenance, patients receiving carfilzomib-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide alone had a lower risk of unsustained MRD negativity (4-year CI, 20% vs 33%).

Carfilzomib induction, consolidation, and maintenance with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: pre-planned cytogenetic subgroup analysis of the randomised, phase 2 FORTE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk. METHODS: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, 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 autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and 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. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA. INTERPRETATION: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need. FUNDING: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

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.

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.

Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial.

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

Outcome of a Salvage Third Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma.

To evaluate the outcomes of salvage third autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. We analyzed 570 patients who had undergone a third ASCT between 1997 and 2010 (European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation data), of whom 482 patients underwent tandem ASCT and a third ASCT at first relapse (AARA group) and 88 patients underwent an upfront ASCT with second and third transplantations after subsequent relapses (ARARA group). With a median follow-up after salvage third ASCT of 61 months in the AARA group and 48 months in the ARARA group, the day +100 nonrelapse mortality in the 2 groups was 4% and 7%, the incidence of second primary malignancy was 6% and 7%, the median progression-free survival was 13 and 8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 33 and 15 months. In the AARA group, according to the relapse-free interval (RFI) from the second ASCT, the median OS after the third ASCT was 17 months if the RFI was <18 months, 37 months if the RFI was between 18 and 36 months, and 64 months if the RFI was ≥36 months (P < .001). In the ARARA group, the median OS after the third ASCT was 7 months if the RFI was <6 months, 13 months if the RFI was between 6 and 18 months, and 27 months if the RFI was ≥18 months (P < .001). In a multivariate analysis of the AARA group, the favorable prognostic factor was an RFI after second ASCT of ≥18 months. Progressive disease and a Karnofsky Performance Status score of <70 at third ASCT were unfavorable factors. A salvage third ASCT is of value for patients with relapsed myeloma, particularly for those with a long duration of response and chemosensitive disease at the time of transplantation.

Peripheral blood CD34+ percentage at hematological recovery after chemotherapy is a good early predictor of harvest: a single-center experience.

Several algorithms for early prediction of poor-mobilizing patients after chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration have been proposed. They generally define peripheral blood cut-off levels of CD34+ cells at a fixed day after starting chemotherapy, mostly with cyclophosphamide. To define an algorithm for early addition of plerixafor regardless of the chemotherapy regimen used, we retrospectively analyzed 280 chemomobilization attempts in 236 patients treated at our institution between 2002 and 2012. In multivariate analysis, CD34+ absolute count and CD34+ percentage upon total leukocyte count at day 1 (defined as the first day in which leukocytes reached a value > 1 × 10(9)/L) were the only factors able to predict a total harvest ≥ 2 × 10(6) CD34+/kg. In patients with day 1 CD34+ lower than 20/µL, the CD34+ percentage was a more reliable predictor of stem cell harvest in the following days than CD34+ absolute count. Upon definition of the best CD34+ cut-off value for identification of poor-mobilizing patients, an algorithm was set up to guide plerixafor administration. It was prospectively validated in 20 patients in 2013 with encouraging results in terms of low incidences of both mobilization failure and plerixafor use. Large prospective trials that define the most cost-effective strategy for just-in-time rescue plerixafor are warranted.

Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone is superior to thalidomide-dexamethasone as consolidation therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

In a randomized, phase 3 study, superior complete/near-complete response (CR/nCR) rates and extended progression-free survival were demonstrated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma patients (intention-to-treat analysis; VTD, n = 236; TD, n = 238). This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specifically assessed the efficacy and safety of consolidation with VTD or TD. Before starting consolidation, CR/nCR rates were not significantly different in the VTD (63.1%) and TD arms (54.7%). After consolidation, CR (60.6% vs 46.6%) and CR/nCR (73.1% vs 60.9%) rates were significantly higher for VTD-treated versus TD-treated patients. VTD consolidation significantly increased CR and CR/nCR rates, but TD did not (McNemar test). With a median follow-up of 30.4 months from start of consolidation, 3-year progression-free survival was significantly longer for the VTD group (60% vs 48% for TD). Grade 2 or 3 peripheral neuropathy (8.1% vs 2.4%) was more frequent with VTD (grade 3, 0.6%) versus TD consolidation. The superior efficacy of VTD versus TD as induction was retained despite readministration as consolidation therapy after double autologous transplantation. VTD consolidation therapy significantly contributed to improved clinical outcomes observed for patients randomly assigned to the VTD arm of the study. The study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01134484.

Safety and efficacy of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in untreated multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment.

We assessed efficacy, safety, and reversal of renal impairment (RI) in untreated patients with multiple myeloma given bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) maintenance or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP). Exclusion criteria included serum creatinine ≥ 2.5 mg/dL. In the VMPT-VT/VMP arms, severe RI (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≤ 30 mL/min), moderate RI (eGFR 31-50 mL/min), and normal renal function (eGFR > 50 mL/min), were 6%/7.9%, 24.1%/24.9%, and 69.8%/67.2%, respectively. Statistically significant improvements in overall response rates and progression-free survival were observed in VMPT-VT versus VMP arms across renal cohorts, except in severe RI patients. In the VMPT group, severe RI reduced overall survival (OS). RI was reversed in 16/63 (25.4%) patients receiving VMPT-VT versus 31/77 (40.3%) receiving VMP. Multivariate analysis showed male sex (P = .022) and moderate RI (P = .003) significantly predicted RI recovery. VMP patients achieving renal response showed longer OS. In both arms, greater rates of severe hematologic adverse events were associated with RI (eGFR < 50 mL/min), however, therapy discontinuation rates were unaffected. VMPT-VT was superior to VMP for cases with normal renal function and moderate RI, whereas VMPT-VT failed to outperform VMP in patients with severe RI, although the relatively low number of cases analyzed preclude drawing definitive conclusions. VMPT-VT had no advantage in terms of RI reversal over VMP.

Impact of minimal residual disease standardised assessment by FDG-PET/CT in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the imaging sub-study of the FORTE trial.

Background: 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the current standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) outside the bone marrow (BM) in multiple myeloma (MM), recently standardised applying the Deauville scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) and defining the complete metabolic response (CMR) as uptake below the liver background (DS <4). Methods: In this analysis, we aimed at confirming the role of CMR, and complementarity with BM multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) at 10-5, in an independent cohort of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM patients previously enrolled in the phase II randomised FORTE trial. 109 of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial between February 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, who had paired PET/CT (performed at baseline [B] and preceding maintenance therapy [PM]) and MFC evaluation, were included in this analysis. Findings: At B, 93% of patients had focal lesions within the bones (FS ≥4 in 89%) and 99% increased BM uptake (BMS ≥4 in 61%). At PM, CMR was achieved in 63% of patients, which was a strong predictor for prolonged PFS in univariate analysis at landmark time PM (HR 0.40, P = 0.0065) and in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.31, P = 0.0023). Regarding OS, a trend in favour of CMR was present in univariate (HR 0.44, P = 0.094), and Cox multivariate model (HR 0.17, P = 0.0037). Patients achieving both PET/CT CMR and MFC negativity at PM showed significantly extended PFS in univariate (HR 0.45, P = 0.020) and multivariate analysis (HR 0.41, P = 0.015). Interpretation: We herein confirm the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define CMR and its prognostic relevance and complementarity with MFC at the BM level. Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Italian Ministry of Health (RC-2022-2773423).

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly bortezomib in multiple myeloma patients.

In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib-thalidomide demonstrated superior efficacy compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of the schedule change on clinical outcomes and safety. Long-term outcomes appeared similar: 3-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P > .999), and 3-year overall survival rate was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). The complete response rate was 30% in the once-weekly and 35% in the twice-weekly group (P = .27). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 35% of once-weekly patients and 51% of twice-weekly patients (P = .003). The incidence of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was 8% in the once-weekly and 28% in the twice-weekly group (P < .001); 5% of patients in the once-weekly and 15% in the twice-weekly group discontinued therapy because of peripheral neuropathy (P < .001). This improvement in safety did not appear to affect efficacy. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01063179.

Melphalan 200 mg/m(2) versus melphalan 100 mg/m(2) in newly diagnosed myeloma patients: a prospective, multicenter phase 3 study.

High-dose (200 mg/m(2), MEL200) and intermediate-dose melphalan (100 mg/m(2), MEL100) showed significant activity in myeloma. In a phase 3 study, 298 patients were randomly assigned to receive 2 autologous transplantations after conditioning with MEL200 or MEL100. Ninety-six of 149 (64%) completed MEL200 and 103 of 149 (69%) MEL100. Best response to MEL200 was: complete remission 22 of 149 (15%); partial remission 95 of 149 (64%), for an overall response rate of 79%. Best response to MEL100 was: complete remission 12 of 149 (8%); partial remission 95 of 149 (64%), for an overall response rate of 72%. Overall survival did not differ (P = .13); median progression-free survival (31.4 vs 26.2 months, P = .01), median time to progression (34.4 vs 27.0 months, P = .014) were longer in the MEL200. Treatment-related mortality was 3.1% in the MEL200 and 2.9% in the MEL100 group. Severe neutropenia and infections were marginally superior, whereas severe thrombocytopenia, mucositis, gastrointestinal adverse events, and the overall occurrence of at least 1 nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse event were significantly higher in the MEL200 cohort. We conclude that MEL200 leads to longer remission duration and should be considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous transplantation. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00950768.

Immune dysfunctions affecting bone marrow Vγ9Vδ2 T cells in multiple myeloma: Role of immune checkpoints and disease status.

Introduction: Bone marrow (BM) Vγ9Vδ2 T cells are intrinsically predisposed to sense the immune fitness of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in multiple myeloma (MM) and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Methods: In this work, we have used BM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells to interrogate the role of the immune checkpoint/immune checkpoint-ligand (ICP/ICP-L) network in the immune suppressive TME of MM patients. Results: PD-1+ BM MM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells combine phenotypic, functional, and TCR-associated alterations consistent with chronic exhaustion and immune senescence. When challenged by zoledronic acid (ZA) as a surrogate assay to interrogate the reactivity to their natural ligands, BM MM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells further up-regulate PD-1 and TIM-3 and worsen TCR-associated alterations. BM MM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells up-regulate TIM-3 after stimulation with ZA in combination with αPD-1, whereas PD-1 is not up-regulated after ZA stimulation with αTIM-3, indicating a hierarchical regulation of inducible ICP expression. Dual αPD-1/αTIM-3 blockade improves the immune functions of BM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells in MM at diagnosis (MM-dia), whereas single PD-1 blockade is sufficient to rescue BM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells in MM in remission (MM-rem). By contrast, ZA stimulation induces LAG-3 up-regulation in BM Vγ9Vδ2 T cells from MM in relapse (MM-rel) and dual PD-1/LAG-3 blockade is the most effective combination in this setting. Discussion: These data indicate that: 1) inappropriate immune interventions can exacerbate Vγ9Vδ2 T-cell dysfunction 2) ICP blockade should be tailored to the disease status to get the most of its beneficial effect.

Diagnosis of maternal Hodgkin lymphoma following abnormal findings at noninvasive prenatal screening test (NIPT): Report of two cases.

Abnormal NIPT results, contrasting with normal fetus development, could disclose maternal malignancy, and this possibility should always be explained during pretest counseling. In this case, a complete diagnostic assessment is recommended and should be managed by a multidisciplinary team to define the best timing for diagnostic procedures, delivery, and treatment.

The Role of Monoclonal Antibodies in the First-Line Treatment of Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Elderly transplant-ineligible (NTE) patients represent the majority of patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). Elderly patients are a highly heterogeneous population, with large variability in health and functional status. Thus, choosing their optimal treatment is challenging. A wide range of first-line treatments is available, and novel-agent combinations, including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), have recently entered clinical practice. The combination of the anti-CD38 mAb daratumumab with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (Dara-VMP) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) demonstrated impressive advantages in terms of progression-free survival and minimal residual disease negativity, as compared to VMP and Rd, without safety concerns. Another anti-CD38 mAb, isatuximab, is showing encouraging results, and new isatuximab-based combinations might enter clinical practice in the future. Nevertheless, available data come from clinical trials with selected patient populations and, to date, the manageability of these regimens in real-life patients or in frail patients remains unknown. Frailty-tailored treatments, including mAbs, are under evaluation in preliminary studies. In this review, we analyze recently approved mAb-based treatments for NTE newly diagnosed MM patients and new combinations under evaluation, focusing on the efficacy and safety of these regimens and on open issues regarding the choice of therapy for elderly patients.

Immunoglobulin M (IgM) multiple myeloma versus Waldenström macroglobulinemia: diagnostic challenges and therapeutic options: two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia are two different hematological diseases with the common finding of an immunoglobulin M monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance. However, clinical characteristics of the two entities can overlap. CASE PRESENTATION: In this report, we describe two cases of immunoglobulin M neoplasm with the same histological bone marrow presentation but with different clinical behavior, cytogenetics, and biological assessment. On the basis of comprehensive diagnostic workup, these patients were considered to have different diseases and treated accordingly with different approaches. Patient 1 (Caucasian man) presented with increased serum protein and immunoglobulin M (7665 mg/L) with an M-spike electrophoresis of 4600 mg/L. His bone marrow biopsy revealed a small-cell immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma. The result of testing for the MYD88 L265P mutation was negative, while fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis showed translocation t(11,14). A diagnosis of immunoglobulin M-κ multiple myeloma was made. Patient 1 was a candidate for bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by autologous stem cell transplant consolidation. Patient 2 (Caucasian man) showed an M-spike by protein electrophoresis (300 mg/L, 4.9%), with serum immunoglobulin M level of 327 mg/L. His bone marrow biopsy revealed immunoglobulin M-κ multiple myeloma. Computed tomography showed many enlarged lymph nodes and splenomegaly. Patient 2's clinical features were suggestive of Waldenström macroglobulinemia, in contrast to the bone marrow biopsy results. The result of testing for the MYD88 L265P mutation was positive. Patient 2 was diagnosed with Waldenström macroglobulinemia and received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: A correct differential diagnosis between immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia is a critical point in the setting of a new immunoglobulin M monoclonal gammopathy onset. These patients should undergo a complete diagnostic workup with pathological, radiological, and serological examinations to establish the diagnosis and plan the most appropriate treatment in order to improve the prognosis.

Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2-67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3-64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5-46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62-0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3-49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0-not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5-58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63-0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]). INTERPRETATION: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. FUNDING: Janssen and Celgene.

Prognostic or predictive value of circulating cytokines and angiogenic factors for initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Several new drugs are approved for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but no validated biomarkers are available for the prediction of a clinical outcome. We aimed to establish whether pretreatment blood and bone marrow plasma concentrations of major cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) of patients from a phase 3 trial of a MM treatment could have a prognostic and predictive value in terms of response to therapy and progression-free and overall survival and whether these patients could be stratified for their prognosis. METHODS: Blood and bone marrow plasma levels of Ang-2, FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, PDGF-ß, IL-8, TNF-α, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 were determined at diagnosis in MM patients enrolled in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These levels were correlated both reciprocally and with the type of therapy and patients' characteristics and with a group of non-MM patients as controls. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the blood and bone marrow plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines. A cutoff for each CAF was established. The therapeutic response of patients with blood plasma levels of CAFs lower than the cutoff was better than the response of those with higher levels in terms of percentage of responding patients and quality of response. CONCLUSION: FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, and PDGF-ß plasma levels at diagnosis have predictive significance for response to treatment. The stratification of patients based on the levels of CAFs at diagnosis and their variations after therapy is useful to characterize different risk groups concerning outcome and response to therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial information can be found at the following link: NCT01063179.

Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Since 1960, oral melphalan and prednisone (MP) has been regarded as the standard of care in elderly multiple myeloma patients. This multicentre randomised trial compared oral MP plus thalidomide (MPT) with MP alone in patients aged 60-85 years. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to receive oral MP for six 4-week cycles plus thalidomide (n=129; 100 mg per day continuously until any sign of relapse or progressive disease) or MP alone (n=126). Analysis was intention-to-treat. This study is registered at , number NCT00232934. RESULTS: Patients treated with thalidomide had higher response rates and longer event-free survival (primary endpoints) than patients who were not. Combined complete or partial response rates were 76.0% for MPT and 47.6% for MP alone (absolute difference 28.3%, 95% CI 16.5-39.1), and the near-complete or complete response rates were 27.9% and 7.2%, respectively. 2-year event-free survival rates were 54% for MPT and 27% for MP (hazard ratio [HR] for MPT 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.75, p=0.0006). 3-year survival rates were 80% for MPT and 64% for MP (HR for MPT 0.68, 95% CI 0.38-1.22, p=0.19). Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 48% in MPT patients and 25% in MP patients (p=0.0002). Introduction of enoxaparin prophylaxis reduced rate of thromboembolism from 20% to 3% (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Oral MPT is an effective first-line treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Anticoagulant prophylaxis reduces frequency of thrombosis. Longer follow-up is needed to assess effect on overall survival.