ANCHOR: melflufen plus dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final results of a phase I/IIa study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals.

Daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients - real world evidence analysis.

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients' data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1-3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients.

Identification of patients at high risk of secondary extramedullary multiple myeloma development.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by malignant plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. In extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD), a subclone of these cells migrates out of the bone marrow. Out of 4 985 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 in the Czech Republic, we analyzed 234 secondary EMD patients to clarify risk factors of secondary EMD development. We found younger age [<65 years; odds ratio (OR) 4·38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·46-7·80, P < 0·0001], high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (>5 µkat/l; OR 2·07, 95% CI: 1·51-2·84, P < 0·0001), extensive osteolytic activity (OR 2·21, 95% CI: 1·54-3·15, P < 0·001), and immunoglobulin A (IgA; OR 1·53, 95% CI: 1·11-2·11, P = 0·009) or the non-secretory type of MM (OR 2·83; 95% CI: 1·32-6·04, P = 0·007) at the time of MM diagnosis to be the main risk factors for secondary EMD development. Newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with subsequent EMD had inferior median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival when compared to NDMM patients without future EMD [mPFS: 13·8 months (95% CI: 11·4-16·3) vs 18·8 months (95% CI: 17·7-19·9), P = 0·006; mOS: 26·7 months (95% CI: 18·1-35·4) vs 58·7 months (95% CI: 54·8-62·6), P < 0·001]. We found that NDMM patients with specific risk factors associated with secondary EMD development have a more aggressive disease course before secondary EMD develops.

Real-world evidence of efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: Czech registry data.

We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.

Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: Czech Registry Data.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%). RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P = .275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice.

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lay abstract Proteasome inhibitors are drugs used in multiple myeloma (MM), a blood cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved for use in MM, when given in combination with two other oral drugs, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, to adult patients who have received one prior therapy. Our study, which was conducted in routine clinical practice, found that the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone in previously treated MM patients were similar to those seen in the Phase III clinical trial on which approval was based. These findings are important because they suggest that MM patients in everyday practice can achieve the same benefits from this treatment as patients in clinical trials, despite often being in poorer health.

Identification of patients with smouldering multiple myeloma at ultra-high risk of progression using serum parameters: the Czech Myeloma Group model.

Smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM) presents without MM defining symptoms. We aimed to identify patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression within 2 years using only serum parameters. In total, 527 patients with SMM were included and divided into a training group (287 patients from the Czech Myeloma Group [CMG]) and an independent validation group (240 patients from Heidelberg). The median follow-up was 2·4 and 2·5 years, respectively. Progression to MM occurred in 51·9% of the CMG and 38·8% of the Heidelberg patients, respectively. The median risk of progression was 11·0% (CMG) and 9·7% (Heidelberg) per year, during the 5 years after diagnosis. A serum involved/uninvolved free light-chain ratio of >30, immunoparesis, and serum monoclonal (M) protein of ≥2·3 g/dl emerged as powerful predictors of 2-year progression rate with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2·49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1·49-4·17), HR of 2·01 (95% CI 1·36-2·96) and HR of 2·00 (95% CI 1·44-2·79) (P < 0·001) in univariate Cox regression analysis, respectively. Based on this, the CMG model identified patients with SMM with a 2-year risk of progression of 78·7% (95% CI 53·1-95·7; HR 6·8; P < 0·001, CMG) and 81·3% (95% CI 47·1-98·8; HR 38·63; P < 0·001, Heidelberg). Serum parameters in the CMG model allow identification of patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression to symptomatic MM within 2 years.

[Heart transplantation and follow-up treatment with AL-amyloidosis in 5 patients]. / Transplantace srdce a následující lécba AL-amyloidózy u 5 pacientu.

The prognosis for patients with cardiac impairment due to AL-amyloid deposition and severe cardiac insufficiency is poor, with a survival median in the order of months. The classical treatment of AL-amyloidosis in combination with cardiac insufficiency is very poorly tolerated and the treatment of such patients is associated with considerably higher mortality than among other patients with AL-amyloidosis. If, however, patients with an isolated or another dominating cardiac impairment, without severe damage to other organs and tissues, have a heart transplant performed, their cardiovascular condition will significantly improve as a result, along with their ability to tolerate any kind of treatment for AL-amyloidosis including that using high-dose chemotherapy with a transplant of autologous hematopoietic stem cells. The achievement of complete remission of AL-amyloidosis is a precondition for long-term survival, since when not achieved, amyloid deposition also arises in the transplanted heart. At the Centre for Cardiovascular and Transplantation Surgery, Brno, the first heart transplant due to its impairment by AL-amyloidosis was performed in 2010. By the year 2017 the number of patients with AL-amyloidosis, who had first undergone a heart transplant with subsequent treatment for AL-amyloidosis, increased to 5. The median age at which a heart transplant was performed is 60 (48-65) years. Four patients were men, one was a woman. The median monitoring equals 65 (88-15) months. Complete remission of AL-amyloidosis was achieved in all the patients. There were 5 lines of treatment needed for the first patient to attain it, of that twice high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation, for the second patient a second-line treatment, high-dose melphalan and bortezomib-based therapy. No specific therapy was needed for the third patient, as immunosuppressive therapy following the heart transplant containing prednison led to complete remission of AL-amyloidosis. In the fourth case, sustainable complete remission was reached by high-dose melphalan and in the fifth case by one line of bortezomib-based therapy. The aforementioned data illustrate that a heart transplant is the first step which makes the patients with a severe heart failure, not tolerating any efficient therapy of AL-amyloidosis, capable of undergoing intense treatment of AL-amyloidosis. Sometimes one high-dose chemotherapy is sufficient, while at other times multiple treatment lines are needed to reach complete remission of AL-amyloidosis.Key words: AL-amyloidosis - autologous hematopoietic stem cells transplantation - bortezomib - cardiomyopathy - lenalidomide - thalidomide - heart transplantation.

A first Czech analysis of 1887 cases with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant condition with a risk of malignant conversion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With the aim to estimate the cumulative risk MGUS progression to hematologic malignancies, we analyzed a nationwide population-based cohort of 1887 MGUS patients from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) between 2007 and 2013. RESULTS: During the follow-up period (median 4 years; range 0.6-34.8), progression to hematologic malignancies was observed in 8.6% (162 of 1887) of patients. Factors associated with progression were as follows: M-protein concentration ≥1.5 g/dL, pathological sFLC (<0.26 or >1.65) ratio, bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) in cytology >5%, immunoparesis, age ≥69 years, and the level of serum hemoglobin at baseline <12.0 g/dL. Combining these factors, we propose a new risk model (CMG model). The risk of progression at 10 years was 1.6%, 16.9%, 22.9%, 39.4%, and 52.3%, respectively, if 0 (reference group), one, two, three, or four to five risk factors are present (P<.001) with HR 63 times higher compared to the reference MGUS group. CONCLUSION: The new CMG model was established with an advantage for better identification of MGUS patients at low risk.

[Osteoprotective therapy with bisphosphonates or denosumab in patients with multiple myeloma: benefit and risks]. / Osteoprotektivní lécba bisfosfonáty nebo denosumabem u nemocných s mnohocetným myelomem: prínos a rizika.

Bisphosphonates have been used during the complete treatment of multiple myeloma for more than twenty years. They slow osteolysis and thereby contribute to the improvement of quality of life. Their long-term use, however, is related to 2 serious, usually later appearing complications: osteonecrosis of the jaw, occurring in 6-9 % of patients, and rarer atypical bone fractures. Both these complications are very difficult to heal, and all the more emphasis is therefore laid on prevention. This first of all includes discussion about the risk with the patient, followed by a dental checkup before the commencement of therapy and then repeated during its course, as well as reduced use of these drugs for a necessary period of time. However osteonecrosis of the jaw does not only develop as a consequence of bisphosphonate therapy. The complication is also caused by some new drugs (denosumab and others) used in cancer therapies. The text includes an overview of the drugs currently used in cancer treatment, which also increase the risk of appearance of osteonecrosis of the jaw. For patients with multiple myeloma, who achieve the complete or very good partial remission after chemotherapy, it is recommended to administer these drugs for more than 1 year after achieving the positive treatment response, but not longer than for 2 years. Only regarding those who do not reach the good treatment response, bisphosphonates are administered over the long term, as long as osteolytic activity of the disease lasts.Key words: atypical bone fractures - bisphosphonates - drug induced osteonecrosis of the jaw - multiple myeloma.

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. FUNDING: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary.

Multicentered patient-based evidence of the role of free light chain ratio normalization in multiple myeloma disease relapse.

INTRODUCTION: The normalization of free light chain ratio (FLCr) has been introduced as a marker of stringent complete remission (CR) of multiple myeloma (MM). There is currently a lack of literature assessing the role of FLCr on MM disease progression and remission status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentered retrospective review of 125 patients with MM in CR and various FLCr values was completed. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, FLCr values, complete remission (CR)/relapse status, and time to progression (TTP). The FLCr values were recorded to provide time-dependent findings on the role of FLCr on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The mean follow-up time of 125 patients from five hospitals in the Czech Republic was 31 months. A total of 47.2% of patients relapsed (54 of 125) during the follow-up period. The median TTP of patients with normal FLCr (n = 66) was 54.4 and 40.2 months for patients with abnormal FLCr (n = 59) (P = 0.217). None of the patients reached median overall survival regardless of FLCr values (P = 0.821). In the subgroup of newly diagnosed patients after upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), there were 55.6% of patients (35 of 63) with normal FLCr and 44.4% (28 of 64) with abnormal FLCr. A total of 34.9% of patients (22 of 63) relapsed in this subgroup. Within the abnormal FLCr patients, a median TTP was 56.3 months, but no median TTP was reached among the normal FLCr patients (P = 0.746). Median OS in patients with normal (nFLCr) and abnormal FLCr (aFLCr) was not reached (P = 0.787). CONCLUSION: We did not observe any benefit from FLCr normalization in CR in myeloma patients in terms of progression-free survival or overall survival.

Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients, a Retrospective Observational Study Using Czech Registry Data.

BACKGROUND: Although novel therapies improved prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, clinical outcomes in the multi-refractory population are still poor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, identified and characterized triple-class exposed (3CE) relapsed/refractory MM patients, treatment patterns after 3CE, assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), explored cohorts with and without triple- and penta-refractoriness. RESULTS: In 83 3CE patients who started subsequent therapies, the median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 8.5-19.9), PFS 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.5), and TTNT 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.8). Triple- and penta-class refractory patients had a significantly worse prognosis in all outcomes. Their life expectancy was shorter, the disease progression started earlier, and the TTNT was shorter, which increased likelihood of becoming refractory to more therapies. Time-to-event results from the first index date and all index dates analyses were very similar. CONCLUSION: Similar to previous studies from the US and Europe, our results show a high disease burden. Introduction of novel therapies, such as CAR-T cells, new bispecific and trispecific monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs, is expected to bring significant benefits to these patients.

Unexpected Heterogeneity of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Plasmacytomas.

In multiple myeloma (MM), malignant plasma cells infiltrate the bone marrow. In some cases, plasma cells migrate out of the bone marrow creating either para-skeletal plasmacytomas (PS) or infiltrating soft tissues as extramedullary plasmacytomas (EMD). The aim of this study was to define risk groups in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with PS and EMD plasmacytomas. In total, 523 NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas and 196 NDMM patients with EMD plasmacytomas were diagnosed in the Czech Republic between 2004 and 2021 using modern imaging methods. Patients' data were analyzed from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. In NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas, we found a subgroup with <5% of bone-marrow plasma cells to have the best prognosis (mPFS: 58.3 months (95% CI: 33.0−NA); mOS: not reached). The subgroup with >5% of bone-marrow plasma cells and ≥3 plasmacytomas had the worst prognosis (mPFS: 19.3 months (95% CI: 13.4−28.8), p < 0.001; mOS: 27.9 months (95% CI: 19.3−67.8), p < 0.001). Our results show association between tumor burden and prognosis of NDMM patients with plasmacytomas. In the case of PS plasmacytomas, NDMM patients with low BM PC infiltration have an excellent prognosis.

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy.

BACKGROUND: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. METHODS: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. RESULTS: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1-3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab-16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

Similar efficacy of thalidomide- and bortezomib-based regimens for first relapse of multiple myeloma.

Many regimens containing novel drugs have been developed for multiple myeloma (MM). It is not yet clear whether some of the novel agents are better than others. In a retrospective study, we have analyzed the outcomes of patients with first relapse of MM treated with thalidomide-based (T) regimens (n=105) or bortezomib-based (B) regimens (n=106). Both T and B groups were comparable regarding basic clinical parameters and first-line therapies. Combination of thalidomide with an alkylating drug (A) and dexamethasone (D) was used in 91 cases, T with D in five cases, and T alone in nine cases. A combination of bortezomib with A and D was used in 58 patients, B with D or A in 40 patients, and B alone in eight patients. In the T group, ORR was 51%, median TTP from the start of treatment for relapse of 13.1 months, and median OS of 30.4 months. In the B group, ORR was 50% with median TTP of 16.7 months and median OS of 37.2 months. No significant differences in ORR (p=0.774), TTP (p=0.207), or OS (p=0.889) were observed between the two groups. In conclusion, T- and B-based regimens appear to be equally effective in the treatment of first MM relapse.

Characterisation of trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatases from bacterial pathogens.

The trehalose biosynthesis pathway has recently received attention for therapeutic intervention combating infectious diseases caused by bacteria, helminths or fungi. Trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase (TPP) is a key enzyme of the most common trehalose biosynthesis pathway and a particularly attractive target owing to the toxicity of accumulated trehalose-6-phosphate in pathogens. Here, we characterised TPP-like proteins from bacterial pathogens implicated in nosocomial infections in terms of their steady-state kinetics as well as pH- and metal-dependency of their enzymatic activity. Analysis of the steady-state kinetics of recombinantly expressed enzymes from Acinetobacter baumannii, Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Pseudomonas stutzeri yielded similar kinetic parameters as those of other reported bacterial TPPs. In contrast to nematode TPPs, the divalent metal ion appears to be bound only weakly in the active site of bacterial TPPs, allowing the exchange of the resident magnesium ion with other metal ions. Enzymatic activity comparable to the wild-type enzyme was observed for the TPP from P. stutzeri with manganese, cobalt and nickel. Analysis of the enzymatic activity of S. maltophilia TPP active site mutants provides evidence for the involvement of four canonical aspartate residues as well as a strictly conserved histidine residue of TPP-like proteins from bacteria in the enzyme mechanism. That histidine residue is a member of an interconnected network of five conserved residues in the active site of bacterial TPPs which likely constitute one or more functional units, directly or indirectly cooperating to enhance different aspects of the catalytic activity.

Systematic functional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 proteins uncovers viral innate immune antagonists and remaining vulnerabilities.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) evades most innate immune responses but may still be vulnerable to some. Here, we systematically analyze the impact of SARS-CoV-2 proteins on interferon (IFN) responses and autophagy. We show that SARS-CoV-2 proteins synergize to counteract anti-viral immune responses. For example, Nsp14 targets the type I IFN receptor for lysosomal degradation, ORF3a prevents fusion of autophagosomes and lysosomes, and ORF7a interferes with autophagosome acidification. Most activities are evolutionarily conserved. However, SARS-CoV-2 Nsp15 antagonizes IFN signaling less efficiently than the orthologs of closely related RaTG13-CoV and SARS-CoV-1. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 proteins counteract autophagy and type I IFN more efficiently than type II or III IFN signaling, and infection experiments confirm potent inhibition by IFN-γ and -λ1. Our results define the repertoire and selected mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 innate immune antagonists but also reveal vulnerability to type II and III IFN that may help to develop safe and effective anti-viral approaches.