Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group. CONCLUSIONS: Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-004354-21.).

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P = 0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.).

Mezigdomide plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent progress, multiple myeloma remains incurable. Mezigdomide is a novel cereblon E3 ubiquitin ligase modulator with potent antiproliferative and tumoricidal activity in preclinical models of multiple myeloma, including those resistant to lenalidomide and pomalidomide. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we administered oral mezigdomide in combination with dexamethasone to patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. The primary objectives of phase 1 (dose-escalation cohort) were to assess safety and pharmacokinetics and to identify the dose and schedule for phase 2. In phase 2 (dose-expansion cohort), objectives included the assessment of the overall response (partial response or better), safety, and efficacy of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone at the dose and schedule determined in phase 1. RESULTS: In phase 1, a total of 77 patients were enrolled in the study. The most common dose-limiting toxic effects were neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. On the basis of the phase 1 findings, investigators determined the recommended phase 2 dose of mezigdomide to be 1.0 mg, given once daily in combination with dexamethasone for 21 days, followed by 7 days off, in each 28-day cycle. In phase 2, a total of 101 patients received the dose identified in phase 1 in the same schedule. All patients in the dose-expansion cohort had triple-class-refractory multiple myeloma, 30 patients (30%) had received previous anti-B-cell maturation antigen (anti-BCMA) therapy, and 40 (40%) had plasmacytomas. The most common adverse events, almost all of which proved to be reversible, included neutropenia (in 77% of the patients) and infection (in 65%; grade 3, 29%; grade 4, 6%). No unexpected toxic effects were encountered. An overall response occurred in 41% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 31 to 51), the median duration of response was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.5; data not mature), and the median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 5.5), with a median follow-up of 7.5 months (range, 0.5 to 21.9). CONCLUSIONS: The all-oral combination of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone showed promising efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, with treatment-related adverse events consisting mainly of myelotoxic effects. (Funded by Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CC-92480-MM-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374085; EudraCT number, 2017-001236-19.).

The impact of biomarkers of malignancy (IMWG SLiM criteria) in myeloma in a real-world population: Clinical characteristics, therapy and outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (ANZ MRDR).

A decade after International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) biomarkers (SLiM criteria) were introduced, this real-world study examined their impact on diagnosis, therapy and outcomes in myeloma. Using the ANZ MRDR, 3489 newly diagnosed patients from 2013 to 2023, comprising 3232 diagnosed by CRAB ('CRAB patients', including 1758 who also satisfied ≥1 SLiM criteria) and 257 by SLiM ('SLiM patients') criteria were analysed. CRAB patients had higher R-ISS and lower performance status, with no difference in cytogenetic risk. SLiM patients had improved progression-free survival (PFS, 37.5 vs. 32.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.31 [1.08-1.59], p = 0.003), overall survival (80.9 vs. 73.2 months, HR 1.64 [1.26-2.13], p < 0.001) and PFS2 (54.6 vs. 40.3 months, HR 1.51 [1.22-1.86], p < 0.001) compared with CRAB patients, partially explained by earlier diagnosis, with no differential impact between the plasma cell and light-chain criteria on PFS. However, 34% of CRAB patients did not manifest SLiM characteristics, raising the possibility that SLiM features are associated with different biological behaviours contributing to a better prognosis, for example, improved PFS2 in SLiM patients suggested less disease resistance at first relapse. These data support earlier initiation of therapy by SLiM. The superior survival outcomes of SLiM versus CRAB patients highlight the importance of defining these subgroups when interpreting therapeutic outcomes at induction and first relapse.

Biomarker-directed therapy in multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multiple myeloma is currently treated with a one-size-fits-all approach despite significant heterogeneity in patient outcomes and disease molecular constitution. A personalised approach would tailor therapy to unique patient or disease characteristics. RECENT FINDINGS: Well established prognostic biomarkers such as cytogenetic risk and patient frailty status are being evaluated as potential predictive biomarkers. Specifically, treatment intensity can be augmented in high-risk patients or conversely attenuated in those at lower risk or lower ability to withstand treatment toxicities. Alternatively, targeted therapy can be rationally designed to exploit vulnerable pathways in myeloma cells as identified using predictive biomarkers. The t(11;14) translocation, found in approximately 15-20% of myeloma cases, is a leading biomarker for response to BCL-2 inhibitors such as venetoclax. SUMMARY: Active research efforts exploring venetoclax combination therapies, as well as new generation BCL-2 inhibitors are underway. Following the development of venetoclax, numerous other cellular pathways are under investigation as candidate predictive biomarkers to rationally inform newer targeted therapies in myeloma.

Sustained minimal residual disease negativity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and the impact of daratumumab in MAIA and ALCYONE.

In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10-5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

A multi-center, phase Ib study of subcutaneous administration of isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Not available.

Carfilzomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone are safe and effective in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: final report of the single-arm, multicenter, phase II ALLG MM018/AMN002 study.

This multicenter, phase II study of the Australasian Lymphoma and Leukemia Group and the Asian Myeloma Network investigated fixed-duration (18-month) treatment with carfilzomib (K), thalidomide (T), and dexamethasone (d) (KTd) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one to three prior lines of therapy. Patients received induction with up to 12 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 intravenously in cycle 1 on days 1 and 2, then 56 mg/m2 [36 mg/m2 for patients ≥75 years] from day 8 onwards), thalidomide 100 mg orally in the evening and weekly dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients ≥75 years). During maintenance, thalidomide was omitted, while carfilzomib was continued on days 1, 2, 15, and 16 with fortnightly dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, duration of response, safety, and tolerability. Ninety-three patients (median age 66.3 years [range, 41.9-84.5]) were enrolled and followed up for a median of 26.4 months (range, 1.6-54.6). The median progression-free survival was 22.3 months (95% confidence interval: 15.7-25.6) and the 2-year progression-free survival was 46.3% (95% confidence interval: 35.1-52.8). The median overall survival was not reached and the 2-year overall survival was 73.8% (95% confidence interval: 62.9-81.9). The overall response rate was 88% (73% had a very good partial response or better). There was no difference in the depth of response, progression-free survival or overall survival comparing Asian and non-Asian cohorts (P=0.61). The safety profile of KTd was consistent with that of each individual drug. KTd is well tolerated and effective in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma irrespective of Asian or non-Asian ethnicity and provides an alternative treatment option, particularly in circumstances in which the use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) is limited by access, cost, or renal impairment.

A plain language summary of the PERSEUS study of daratumumab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for treating newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

What is this summary about?: This summary describes the first analysis of the PERSEUS study, which looked at adults with multiple myeloma that had never been treated before, also called newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a type of cancer in the blood, specifically in plasma cells within the soft, spongy tissue in the center of most bones, called the bone marrow. Researchers wanted to see if adding daratumumab (D) to a standard treatment of three other medicines called VRd, which stands for bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (d), could stop the multiple myeloma from getting worse and help participants live longer without multiple myeloma. Half of the participants were assigned to the treatment plan with daratumumab; they received D-VRd during initial treatment phases (induction and consolidation), followed by daratumumab as well as lenalidomide (D-R) in the maintenance phase. The other half of participants received treatment without daratumumab; they received VRd induction and consolidation followed by lenalidomide alone (R) maintenance. In addition, all participants were able to receive an autologous stem cell transplant, a procedure used to further help reduce multiple myeloma. What were the results?: At the time of this analysis of PERSEUS, about 4 years after participants started the study, participants who received D-VRd treatment followed by D-R maintenance had a better response to treatment (as measured by specific markers of multiple myeloma) and were more likely to be alive and free from their multiple myeloma getting worse in comparison to participants who received VRd followed by R maintenance. Side effects (unwanted or undesirable effects of treatment) in both treatment groups were in line with the known side effects of daratumumab and VRd. What do the results mean?: The results of the PERSEUS study showed that including daratumumab in D-VRd induction/consolidation and D-R maintenance was better for treating multiple myeloma than the current standard VRd treatment followed by R maintenance alone in adults with a new diagnosis of multiple myeloma who were also able to receive an autologous stem cell transplant. Of importance, there were no unexpected side effects in either group. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02874742 (GRIFFIN) (ClinicalTrials.gov).^ieng

Peripheral blood stem cell mobilisation following bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone induction for multiple myeloma: a real-world single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is now the standard-of-care induction therapy for newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients, replacing bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) therapy. Lenalidomide can negatively impact stem cell yield because of its myelosuppressive effects, although studies have shown that the latter can be overcome with the use of cyclophosphamide for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilisation. AIMS AND METHODS: To investigate whether lenalidomide impacts on PBSC mobilisation and to evaluate the optimal mobilisation strategy post VRd induction, we performed a retrospective review of 56 myeloma patients at a single centre who had PBSC mobilisation between January 2019 and March 2021 and compared three cohorts: (i) VCD induction; mobilisation with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone (n = 23); (ii) four cycles VRd induction; mobilisation with G-CSF and cyclophosphamide (G-CSF + Cyclo) (n = 20); and (iii) three cycles VRd induction; mobilisation with G-CSF alone (n = 13). RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean total CD34 count between VCD and VRd patients who had G-CSF mobilisation (6.27 × 106 /kg vs 5.50 × 106 /kg, P > 0.99). VRd patients mobilised with G-CSF + Cyclo achieved higher mean total CD34 counts compared with G-CSF alone (8.89 × 106 /kg vs 5.50 × 106 /kg, P = 0.04). The majority of VRd patients who had G-CSF + Cyclo (19 of 20; 95%) collected sufficient cells for two or more autologous stem cell transplants (ASCTs), regardless of whether this was required, compared with eight of 13 (62%) VRd patients who had G-CSF alone. CONCLUSION: We conclude that successful PBSC mobilisation for at least one ASCT is possible after three cycles of VRd induction using G-CSF alone. The upfront use of a cyclophosphamide-based mobilisation strategy has a role in patients who have had VRd induction, where the aim is to collect enough stem cells for two or more ASCTs.

Australia and New Zealand consensus position statement: use of COVID-19 therapeutics in patients with haematological malignancies.

Despite widespread vaccination rates, we are living with high transmission rates of SARS-CoV-2. Although overall hospitalisation rates are falling, the risk of serious infection remains high for patients who are immunocompromised because of haematological malignancies. In light of the ongoing pandemic and the development of multiple agents for treatment, representatives from the Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand and infectious diseases specialists have collaborated on this consensus position statement regarding COVID-19 management in patients with haematological disorders. It is our recommendation that both patients with haematological malignancies and treating specialists be educated regarding the preventive and treatment options available and that patients continue to receive adequate vaccinations, keeping in mind the suboptimal vaccine responses that occur in haematology patients, in particular, those with B-cell malignancies and on B-cell-targeting or depleting therapy. Patients with haematological malignancies should receive treatment for COVID-19 in accordance with the severity of their symptoms, but even mild infections should prompt early treatment with antiviral agents. The issue of de-isolation following COVID-19 infection and optimal time to treatment for haematological malignancies is discussed but remains an area with evolving data. This position statement is to be used in conjunction with advice from infectious disease, respiratory and intensive care specialists, and current guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce and the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Cancer Agency Te Aho o Te Kahu COVID-19 Guidelines.

A sequential cohort study evaluating single-agent KappaMab and KappaMab combined with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory kappa light chain-restricted multiple myeloma (AMaRC 01-16).

KappaMab (KM; formerly MDX-1097) is a monoclonal antibody specific for the kappa myeloma antigen (KMA), a cell-surface antigen expressed on malignant plasma cells in kappa-restricted multiple myeloma (κMM), some lymphomas, occasional tonsillar B cells and in vitro activated B cells, but not on normal B cells in bone marrow. Phase I/IIa studies of single-agent KM confirmed a favourable toxicity profile and evidence of anti-myeloma activity. Ex-vivo studies demonstrating upregulation of KMA by lenalidomide, and enhanced effector-cell cytotoxicity provided the rationale for this phase IIb study where KM or KM in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KM-Rd) was administered in relapsed, refractory κMM patients. In addition, outcomes for a real-world matched case-control cohort from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (MRDR) who received Rd were compared to the KM-Rd cohort. KM-Rd demonstrated an overall response rate of 82.5% which compared favourably to the Rd-MRDR cohort of 45.1%. Both single-agent KM and KM-Rd regimens were well tolerated, with the KM-Rd safety profile similar to patients given only Rd in other clinical settings. Based on the excellent safety profile and significant efficacy, further clinical trials escalating the KM dose and pairing KM with other standard-of-care treatments are planned.

Multiplex immunohistochemistry elucidates increased distance between cytotoxic T cells and plasma cells in relapsed myeloma, and identifies Lag-3 as the most common checkpoint receptor on cytotoxic T cells of myeloma patients.

A dysfunctional immune tumour microenvironment facilitates disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM). Using multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC), we described the quantitative and qualitative changes in CD3+ CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells and assess their proximity to malignant plasma cells (PCs) in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (RR) MM. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded trephine sections from patients with MGUS (n=32), NDMM (n=65) and RRMM (n=59) were sequentially stained for CD138, CD3, CD8, and checkpoint receptors (CPR) Tim-3, Lag-3, and PD-1. Halo® image analysis platform was used for cell segmentation and phenotyping, facilitating enumeration of cytotoxic T-cells and analysis of proximity to PCs. The percentage of CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells in proximity to PCs is greater in patients with NDMM than patients with RRMM (at 50gm distance 90.8% vs. 81.5%, p=0.038). There is a trend for more CD3+ T-cells in MGUS (p=0.08) but no difference was observed in the prevalence of CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells (p=0.48). Lag-3 is the most common CPR expressed on cytotoxic T-cells in myeloma (p.

The efficacy of combination treatment with elotuzumab and lenalidomide is dependent on crosstalk between natural killer cells, monocytes and myeloma cells.

Patients with refractory relapsed multiple myeloma respond to combination treatment with elotuzumab and lenalidomide. The mechanisms underlying this observation are not fully understood. Furthermore, biomarkers predictive of response have not been identified to date. To address these issues, we used a humanized myeloma mouse model and adoptive transfer of human natural killer (NK) cells to show that elotuzumab and lenalidomide treatment controlled myeloma growth, and this was mediated through CD16 on NK cells. In co-culture studies, we showed that peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a subset of patients with refractory relapsed multiple myeloma were effective killers of OPM2 myeloma cells when treated with elotuzumab and lenalidomide, and this was associated with significantly increased expression of CD54 on OPM2 cells. Furthermore, elotuzumab- and lenalidomide-induced OPM2 cell killing and increased OPM2 CD54 expression were dependent on both monocytes and NK cells, and these effects were not mediated by soluble factors alone. At the transcript level, elotuzumab and lenalidomide treatment significantly increased OPM2 myeloma cell expression of genes for trafficking and adhesion molecules, NK cell activation ligands and antigen presentation molecules. In conclusion, our findings suggest that multiple myeloma patients require elotuzumab- and lenalidomide-mediated upregulation of CD54 on autologous myeloma cells, in combination with NK cells and monocytes to mediate an effective anti-tumor response. Furthermore, our data suggest that increased myeloma cell CD54 expression levels could be a powerful predictive biomarker for response to elotuzumab and lenalidomide treatment.

Plain language summary of the MAIA study of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a clinical trial called MAIA. The trial tested 2 combinations of cancer drugs (daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) in people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. None of the participants who took part in the study had been treated before or were eligible to receive stem-cell transplants. HOW WAS THE STUDY IN THIS SUMMARY CONDUCTED?: A total of 737 participants took part. Half of the participants took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, while the other half of the participants took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Once participants started taking the drugs, the cancer was monitored for improvement (response to treatment), worsening (disease progression), or no change. Participants' blood and urine were tested for myeloma protein to measure response to the treatment. Participants were also monitored for side effects. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: After approximately 56 months of follow-up, more participants who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone were alive and had decreased myeloma protein levels (indicating improvement of cancer) than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The most common side effects were abnormally low white and red blood cell counts and increased lung infections. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In the MAIA study, participants with multiple myeloma who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone lived longer and had decreased myeloma protein levels than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone, indicating survival could be more likely with daratumumab added. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02252172 (Phase 3 MAIA study).

Treatment of patients with Waldenström macroglobulinaemia: clinical practice update from the Myeloma Foundation of Australia Medical and Scientific Advisory Group.

Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell malignancy characterised by the presence of IgM paraprotein, bone marrow infiltration by clonal small B lymphocytes with plasmacytic differentiation and the MYD88 L265P mutation in >90% of cases. Traditionally, WM has been treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Recent trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in WM, both as monotherapy and in combination with other drugs. There is emerging evidence on the use of other agents including B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors and on the treatment of rare presentations of WM. In this update, the Medical and Scientific Advisory Group of Myeloma Australia reviews the available evidence on the treatment of WM since the last publication in 2017 and provides specific recommendations to assist Australian clinicians in the management of this disease.

The importance of frailty assessment in multiple myeloma: a position statement from the Myeloma Scientific Advisory Group to Myeloma Australia.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disease of older people, yet factors relating to comorbidity and frailty may threaten treatment tolerability for many of this heterogenous group. There has been increasing interest in defining specific and clinically relevant frailty assessment tools within the MM population, with the goal of using these frailty scores, not just as a prognostic instrument, but also as a predictive tool to allow for a frailty-adapted treatment approach. This paper reviews the various frailty assessment frameworks used in the evaluation of patients with MM, including the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Index (IMWG-FI), the Mayo Frailty Index and the simplified frailty scale. While the IMWG-FI remains the most widely accepted tool, the simplified frailty scale is the most user-friendly in busy day-to-day clinics based on its ease of use. This paper summarises the recommendations from the Myeloma Scientific Advisory Group (MSAG) of Myeloma Australia, on the use of frailty assessment tools in clinical practice and proposes a frailty-stratified treatment algorithm to aid clinicians in tailoring therapy for this highly heterogeneous patient population.

Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): updated outcomes from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in therapeutic options, there remains an unmet need for treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, especially in those previously exposed or refractory to lenalidomide. This updated efficacy and safety analysis from the phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this updated analysis of the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 CANDOR study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, at least a partial response to between one and three previous therapies, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 102 medical centres globally and randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive voice or web response software to receive KdD or Kd. Participants were stratified by disease stage, previous proteasome inhibitor or anti-CD38 antibody exposure, and number of previous therapies. All patients received intravenous infusions of carfilzomib twice per week at 56 mg/m2 (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 during cycle 1) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients >75 years old). This analysis was a preplanned interim analysis for overall survival; however, at the time of data cutoff, overall survival data were not mature. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Here, we provide updated progression-free survival data, assessed centrally by Onyx Response Computer Algorithm in the intention-to-treat population, with 11 months additional follow-up. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of trial treatment. CANDOR is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients were enrolled, of whom 312 received KdD and 154 received Kd. At data cutoff (June 15, 2020), median follow-up was 27·8 months (IQR 25·6-29·5) for KdD and 27·0 months (13·2-28·6) for Kd. Median progression-free survival was 28·6 months (95% CI 22·7-not estimable [NE]) in the KdD group and 15·2 months (11·1-19·9) in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·45-0·78], log-rank p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events in the safety population were consistent with the primary analysis. Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 268 (87%) patients in the KdD group and 116 (76%) in the Kd group; most commonly thrombocytopenia (76 [25%] vs 25 [16%], respectively), hypertension (65 [21%] vs 23 [15%]), pneumonia (54 [18%] vs 14 [9%]), and anaemia (53 [17%] vs 23 [15%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 194 (63%) patients with KdD and 76 (50%) with Kd. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 27 (9%) patients in the KdD group and seven (5%) in the Kd group; most commonly septic shock (five [2%] vs one (1%]) and pneumonia (four [1%] vs none). No new treatment-related deaths have occurred since the primary analysis. INTERPRETATION: A clear, maintained progression-free survival benefit of KdD over Kd with longer follow-up was confirmed, making KdD an emerging standard-of-care for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Amgen and Janssen.

Predictors of early mortality in multiple myeloma: Results from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (MRDR).

The frequency and causes of early mortality in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) have not been well described in the era of novel agents. We investigated early mortality in a prospective cohort study of all patients with NDMM registered on the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (MRDR) at 36 institutions between July 2011 and March 2020. Early mortality was defined as death from any cause within the first 12 months after diagnosis. A total of 2377 patients with NDMM were included in the analysis, with a median (interquartile range) age of 67.4 (58.9-74.60 years, and 60% were male. Overall, 216 (9.1%) patients died within 12 months, with 119 (4.5%) having died within 6 months. Variables that were independent predictors of early mortality after adjustment in multivariable regression included age (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.08; p < 0.001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.26-1.79; p < 0.001), serum albumin (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.98; p < 0.001), cardiac disease (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.35-2.86; p < 0.001) and International Staging System (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.82; p = 0.01). For those with a primary cause of death available, it was reported as disease-related in 151 (78%), infection 13 (7%), other 29 (15%). Infection was listed as a contributing factor for death in 38% of patients.

Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.).