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

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

Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Progression-Free Survival with D-Rd and VRd Based on MAIA and SWOG S0777 Individual Patient-Level Data.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777. METHODS: Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd. RESULTS: PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results. CONCLUSION: This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population.

Multiple drug combinations can be used to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant. Two of these combinations­daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd)­have each been studied in clinical trials (MAIA and SWOG S0777) against the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd), but D-Rd and VRd have not been compared directly in a head-to-head clinical trial. Our study used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials to indirectly compare outcomes observed with D-Rd and VRd. For this indirect comparison between D-Rd and VRd, we first made adjustments to the patient populations of each trial to make them more similar to each other; this helped to make sure any differences we saw in treatment outcomes between D-Rd and VRd would not be because of differences in the characteristics of the patients who participated in the trials. After we made these adjustments to the patient populations of each trial, both D-Rd and VRd lowered the risk of disease progression or death compared with Rd alone. However, when indirectly compared in our study, D-Rd lowered the risk of disease progression or death by 41% compared with VRd. As data directly comparing treatment outcomes for D-Rd and VRd are not available, this indirect comparison can contribute to the information used to make treatment decisions for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant.

Isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone in 1q21+ patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Long-term outcomes in the Phase 3 IKEMA study.

Gain/amplification of 1q21 (≥3 copies), a chromosomal abnormality frequently observed in multiple myeloma, can negatively affect prognosis, due to its involvement in resistance to anti-myeloma therapy and disease progression. In this updated subgroup analysis of the randomized, Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), we evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and depth of response with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) versus Kd, in 1q21+ patients and related subgroups, at long-term follow-up (44.2 months). Our analysis included patients with 1q21+ (≥3 copies, with/without high-risk chromosomal abnormality [HRCA]), isolated 1q21+ (≥3 copies, without HRCA), gain(1q21) (3 copies, with/without HRCA), and amp(1q21) (≥4 copies, with/without HRCA). PFS benefit was achieved with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+ (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92), with isolated 1q21+ (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.92), with gain(1q21), or amp(1q21), consistent with the overall population and prior interim 1q21+ subgroup analyses. Median PFS with Isa-Kd versus Kd was 25.8 versus 16.2 months in 1q21+ patients and 38.2 versus 16.2 months in patients with isolated 1q21+. Clinically meaningful, higher rates of very good partial response or better, complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and MRD negativity and ≥CR were reached with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+, isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), or amp(1q21). In Isa-Kd and Kd, the MRD negativity and ≥CR rate was 29.3% versus 15.4% in 1q21+ patients, 36.2% versus 12.9% in patients with isolated 1q21+, 27.9% versus 13.5% in patients with gain(1q21), and 31.3% versus 20.0% in patients with amp(1q21), respectively. In conclusion, addition of Isa to Kd in triplet combination therapy has shown PFS benefit and deeper responses, compared with Kd, in 1q21+ patients at higher risk of progression, including patients with isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), and amp(1q21), thus supporting Isa-Kd an effective treatment option for patients with RRMM.

How I treat multiple myeloma in geriatric patients.

ABSTRACT: Multiple myeloma (MM) is primarily a disease of older patients. Until recently, geriatric aspects in the context of MM have been poorly investigated. Treatment outcomes for geriatric patients with MM are often compromised by comorbidities and an enhanced susceptibility to adverse events from therapy. Assessment of patient frailty has become more frequent and will be useful in the context of significant and continuous advances in therapy. The recent emergence of immunotherapy with CD38 monoclonal antibodies and upcoming immunooncology drugs, such as bispecific antibodies, will lead to additional therapeutic progress. The applicability of these new molecules to older and frail patients is a key clinical question. Here, we present 2 patient cases derived from clinical practice. We review current frailty scores and standards of care for older, newly diagnosed patients with MM, including frail subgroups, and discuss ways to tailor treatment, as well as treatment perspectives in this population.

Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Lenalidomide-Pretreated Multiple Myeloma: A Subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by Frailty and Bortezomib Dose Adjustment.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are older and/or have comorbidities, requiring dose adjustments. Data from OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928) supported the use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) for treating relapsed/refractory MM. This subanalysis of OPTIMISMM assessed outcome by frailty and/or bortezomib dose adjustment. METHODS: Patient frailty (nonfrail vs. frail) was classified using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data from patients requiring a bortezomib dose reduction, interruption, and/or withdrawal during PVd treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Among 559 patients, 93 of 281 (33.1%) and 93 of 278 (33.5%) patients who received PVd and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), respectively, were frail. Overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were higher in nonfrail vs. frail with PVd treatment (ORR, 82.8% vs. 79.6%; PFS, 14.7 vs. 9.7 months); significantly higher than with Vd regardless of frailty. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher with PVd vs. Vd, regardless of frailty. Discontinuations of PVd were lower in nonfrail vs. frail patients (19.2% vs. 30.1%); the median duration of treatment was similar (DoT; 8.8 vs. 8.9 months, respectively). Patients who received PVd with a bortezomib dose adjustment (n = 240) had a longer median DoT (9.3 vs. 4.5 months) and PFS (12.1 vs. 8.4 months) vs. those without. CONCLUSION: Frail patients treated with PVd demonstrated a higher ORR and a longer PFS and DoT vs. Vd, despite a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs leading to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and/or dexamethasone discontinuation. Therefore, PVd treatment may improve patient outcomes, regardless of frailty.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with early versus late relapsed multiple myeloma: IKEMA subgroup analysis.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who experience early relapse within 12 months of therapy initiation are considered functional high-risk and represent an unmet need, needing better therapies to improve outcomes. The final IKEMA (clinicaltrials gov. identifier: NCT03275285) progression-free survival (PFS) analysis confirmed the significant PFS improvement reported at interim analysis with isatuximab (Isa) plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd; Isa-Kd) versus Kd in patients with relapsed MM (updated median PFS: 35.7 vs. 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] =0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42- 0.79). This IKEMA subgroup analysis examined efficacy and safety of Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients who experienced early (n=61 [Isa-Kd], n=46 [Kd]) vs. late relapse (n=104 [Isa-Kd], n=72 [Kd]). As expected, more aggressive features in baseline characteristics were observed in early relapse patients. Consistent with IKEMA overall population results, median PFS (early relapse: 24.7 vs. 17.2 months, HR=0.662, 95% CI: 0.407-1.077; late relapse: 42.7 vs. 21.9 months, HR=0.542, 95% CI: 0.355- 0.826), minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) (early relapse: 24.6% vs. 15.2%; late relapse: 37.5% vs. 16.7%), and MRD- complete response (≥CR) rates (early relapse: 18.0% vs. 10.9%; late relapse: 30.8% vs. 13.9%) were higher with Isa-Kd versus Kd, respectively, in both early and late relapse patients. Grade ≥3, serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and death rates were higher in the late relapse Isa-Kd arm. However, the numbers of deaths were low and treatment exposure was significantly longer in Isa-Kd versus Kd late relapse patients. These results support the addition of Isa to Kd as standardof- care therapy for relapsed and/or refractory MM regardless of relapse timing.

Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Clinical perspectives on the optimal use of lenalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

To improve the outcomes of patients with the otherwise incurable hematologic malignancy of multiple myeloma (MM), a key paradigm includes initial treatment to establish disease control rapidly followed by maintenance therapy to ensure durability of response with manageable toxicity. However, patients' prognosis worsens after relapse, and the disease burden and drug toxicities are generally more challenging with subsequent lines of therapy. It is therefore particularly important that patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) receive optimal frontline therapy. The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has consistently demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with significant and clinically relevant benefit, including deep and durable responses with improved survival in patients with NDMM regardless of their transplant eligibility. Furthermore, comparative studies evaluating this triplet regimen against both doublet and other triplet regimens have established RVd as a standard of care in this setting based upon its remarkable and concordant efficacy. Given the breadth of clinical data, physician familiarity, inclusion in treatment guidelines, and the emerging potential of RVd-containing quadruplet regimens, RVd will likely continue as a key cornerstone of the treatment of NDMM, and its role will therefore likely continue to grow as a therapeutic backbone in the initial treatment of MM.

Predictors of Lenalidomide Refractory Relapse Timing With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A FIRST Trial Subanalysis.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered an incurable cancer. Patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) are at risk for relapse within 1 year of frontline therapy. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Rd) may be used as treatment for NDMM or relapsed MM, including in patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. PATIENTS: This subanalysis of the phase III FIRST trial characterized patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM who experienced relapse while receiving Rd therapy by relapse timing (early [<12 months] versus late [≥12 months]) and type (CRAB vs. non-CRAB). METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate time-to-event endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Factors associated with the odds of late relapse were identified by logistic regression with univariate and multivariate analyses using a binary outcome (relapse at <12 vs. ≥12 months) in patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific baseline variables. RESULTS: Patients with early refractory relapse had functionally high-risk disease and inferior outcomes. In patients with early relapse versus those with late relapse, median OS (95% CI) was 26.8 months (21.9-32.8) versus 63.9 months (57.0-78.0), median OS from disease progression to death was 19.9 months (16.0-25.5) versus 36.4 months (27.9-47.0), and median PFS from randomization to second progression was 19.1 months (17.3-22.5) versus 42.1 months (37.4-44.9). Lactate dehydrogenase, baseline ß2 microglobulin, and myeloma subtype were shown to predict time to relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians could use these factors to consider more aggressive treatment regimens for those at highest risk of early relapse.

Selinexor-Based Triplet Regimens in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated With Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (αCD38 mAbs) for newly diagnosed or early relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), especially in non-transplant eligible patients, may lead to more patients developing αCD38 mAb-refractory disease earlier in the treatment course with fewer treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the efficacy and safety of selinexor-based triplets (selinexor+dexamethasone [Sd] plus pomalidomide [SPd, n = 23], bortezomib [SVd, n = 16] or carfilzomib (SKd, n = 23]) in a subset of STOMP (NCT02343042) and BOSTON (NCT03110562) study patients treated previously with αCD38 mAbs. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (median 4 prior therapies, range 1 to 11, 90.3% refractory to αCD38 mAb) were included. Overall response rates (ORR) in the SPd, SVd and SKd cohorts were 52.2%, 56.3%, and 65.2%, respectively. Overall response rate was 47.4% among patients who had MM refractory to the third drug reintroduced in the Sd-based triplet. Median progression-free survival in the SPd, SVd, and SKd cohorts was 8.7, 6.7, and 15.0 months, respectively, and median overall survival was 9.6, 16.9, and 33.0 months, respectively. Median time to discontinuation in the SPd, SVd, and SKd cohorts was 4.4, 5.9, and 10.6 months, respectively. The most common hematological adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea were primarily grade 1/2. Adverse events were generally manageable with standard supportive care and dose modifications. CONCLUSION: Selinexor-based regimens may offer effective and well-tolerated therapy to patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM who had disease previously exposed or refractory to αCD38 mAb therapy and could help address the unmet clinical need in these high-risk patients.

Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: updated results from IKEMA, a randomized Phase 3 study.

Longer-term outcomes with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) were evaluated in the randomized Phase 3 trial IKEMA (NCT03275285), in a prespecified, follow-up analysis of progression-free survival (PFS, primary study endpoint), final complete response (CR) using Hydrashift Isa immunofixation assay, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and safety. Enrolled patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (1-3 prior treatment lines). Isa 10 mg/kg was administered intravenously weekly in cycle 1 then biweekly. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intent-to-treat population (Isa-Kd: n = 179, Kd: n = 123) and safety evaluated in treated patients (Isa-Kd: n = 177, Kd: n = 122). Consistent with the primary interim analysis, the addition of Isa to Kd prolonged PFS (HR 0.58, 95.4% CI: 0.42-0.79; median PFS 35.7 [95% CI: 25.8-44.0] vs 19.2 [95% CI: 15.8-25.0] months). PFS benefit was observed with Isa-Kd across subgroups, including patients with poor prognosis. The stringent CR/CR rate was 44.1% vs 28.5% (odds-ratio: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.26-3.48), the MRD negativity rate 33.5% vs 15.4% (odds-ratio: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.55-4.99) and the MRD negativity CR rate 26.3% vs 12.2%, with Isa-Kd vs Kd. The safety profile of Isa-Kd was similar to that reported in the prior interim analysis. These findings further support Isa-Kd as a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma patients.Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285.

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).

Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Overall Survival in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial. RESULTS: Using D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: Our simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.

Current Advances in Multiple Myeloma: A Post International Myeloma Society (IMS 2022) Round Table Debate by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH).

This round table discussion organized by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH) was dedicated to the 19th annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS), which was held in Los Angeles between the 25th and 27th August 2022. After some key meetings of the discipline of the field of clinical hematology, the IACH organizes regular round table discussion in order to summarize the flow of information and get the opinion of a panel of experts and the key take-home messages. As part of this discussion, the panellists debated 6 key topics: disease monitoring, management of high-risk multiple myeloma (MM), induction for newly-diagnosed MM, management of relapsed MM, immune reconstitution, and vaccination and cellular therapy in MM.

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

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

Non-interventional Study Evaluating the Mobilization of Stem Cells by Plerixafor Before Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (IFM-2015-03).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the implementation of new therapeutic agents, management of relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenge. Salvage autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) remains a valid therapeutic option for eligible patients who achieve prolonged response after a first AHCT. However, a second graft is not always available, and these patients may need a second mobilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study aimed to collect data on the feasibility of salvage AHCT using a plerixafor-based hematopoietic cell mobilization in relapsed MM, according to the plerixafor label in France. Adult patients with relapsed MM eligible for a second AHCT and mobilized using granulocyte- colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor were included. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients, 17 achieved a successful hematopoietic cell mobilization and 13 were able to proceed to a second AHCT. Median age was 62.9 years (min-max 51-71). Ten patients (77%) were male. Eleven (85%) received AHCT as a third-line treatment or more. Median time between first and second AHCT was 5.4 years (range, 2.6-16.3). Among 18 evaluable patients, mobilization was successful for 17 (94%) of them [95% CI 84-100], with no reported side effects. Among the 13 patients who underwent salvage AHCT, the median time to engraftment was 14 days (min-max 11-29). One-year progression-free and overall survival were 88.9% [95% CI 43.3-98.4] and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that plerixafor allows safe and efficient mobilization in relapsed MM patients who are candidates for a salvage AHCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02439476 Registered 8 May 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02439476 .

The prevalence and outcomes of frail older adults in clinical trials in multiple myeloma: A systematic review.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable blood cancer that primarily affects older adults. Several frailty tools have been developed to address the heterogeneity of aging in this population. Uptake of these measures has been variable, leading to a gap in knowledge regarding the proportion of enrolled trial participants considered frail and uncertainty in the treatment-related effects and outcomes among this high-risk population. We performed a systematic review of therapeutic interventional MM clinical trials reporting on frailty. We included 43 clinical trials (24 randomized controlled trials and 19 non-randomized trials) which met eligibility criteria. Frailty was increasingly incorporated in studies in more recent years with 41.9% of included studies being reported in the last two years. Commonly used frailty tools included the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty index (41.8%), and the simplified frailty score (39.5%). Frailty status was categorized with 3 levels as (frail, intermediate fit, or fit) in 51.2% of the studies and dichotomized (frail, non-frail) in 18.6% of studies. Frailty prevalence greatly varied across trials ranging from 17.2% to 73.6% of the cohort. Of the included studies, 72.0% conducted subgroup analysis (planned or post-hoc) based on frailty status. Most studies demonstrated a consistent benefit of MM interventions among the frail and non-frail populations, however in general, frail patients had worse outcomes compared to the fit. Although frailty is increasingly being incorporated in MM clinical trials, due to the variation in both the definition and categorization of frailty, there remains heterogeneity in the prevalence of frailty and its potential associated impact on outcomes.