Consensus guidelines and recommendations for the management and response assessment of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in clinical practice for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a report from the International Myeloma Working Group Immunotherapy Committee.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown promise in patients with late-line refractory multiple myeloma, with response rates ranging from 73 to 98%. To date, three products have been approved: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada (ide-cel only), and Brazil ANVISA (cilta-cel only); and equecabtagene autoleucel (eque-cel), which was approved by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration. CAR T-cell therapy is different from previous anti-myeloma therapeutics with unique toxic effects that require distinct mitigation strategies. Thus, a panel of experts from the International Myeloma Working Group was assembled to provide guidance for clinical use of CAR T-cell therapy in myeloma. This consensus opinion is from experts in the field of haematopoietic cell transplantation, cell therapy, and multiple myeloma therapeutics.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Reaching beyond maximum grade: progress and future directions for modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies.

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is incorporated in an increasing number of multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials as a correlative analysis, an endpoint or even as a determinant of subsequent therapy. There is substantial heterogeneity across clinical trials in how MRD is assessed and reported, creating challenges for data interpretation and for the design of subsequent studies. We convened an international panel of MM investigators to harmonize how MRD should be assessed and reported in MM clinical trials. The panel provides consensus on which MM trials should include MRD, the recommended time points for MRD assessment, and expected analytical validation for MRD assays. We subsequently outlined parameters for reporting MRD results implementing the intention-to-treat principle. The panel provides guidance regarding the incorporation of newer peripheral blood-based and imaging-based approaches to detection of residual disease. Recommendations are summarized in 13 consensus statements that should be followed by sponsors, investigators, editors, and reviewers engaged in designing, performing, and interpreting MM trials.

A validated composite organ and hematologic response model for early assessment of treatment outcomes in light chain amyloidosis.

Newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients were evaluated to develop a model for early assessment of treatment benefit at 6 months, integrating both hematologic (HR) and organ response (OR) assessment (testing cohort, Mayo: n = 473; validation cohort, Pavia: n = 575). Multiple OR were assessed as follows: All OR (AOR): response in all organs, mixed OR (MOR): response in some organs, no OR (NOR)]. AOR rates at 6 months improved with deepening HR; complete response (CR; 38%, 35%), very good partial response (VGPR; 30%, 26%), and partial response (PR; 16%, 21%), respectively. A composite HR/OR (CHOR) model was developed using incremental scoring based on hazard ratios with scores of 0-3 for HR (0-CR, 1-VGPR, 2-PR, 3-no response) and 0-2 for OR (0-AOR, 1-MOR, 2-NOR). Patients could be divided into two distinct CHOR groups (scores 0-3 and 4-5), with median OS in group 1 and group 2: Not reached vs. 34 months, p < 0.001 [Mayo] and 87 vs. 23 months, p < 0.001 [Pavia]. In conclusion, we developed a model that can assess multiple organs concurrently, and integrate both HR and OR assessments to determine early clinical benefit with treatment, which may be used as a surrogate end-point in trials and to compare outcomes with different therapies.

Rapid assessment of hyperdiploidy in plasma cell disorders using a novel multi-parametric flow cytometry method.

Trisomies of odd numbered chromosomes are seen in nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and typically correlate with a hyperdiploid state and better overall survival (OS). We compared DNA ploidy of monoclonal plasma cells (as a surrogate for the presence of trisomies) assessed simultaneously by PCPRO (plasma cell proliferative index), a novel method that estimates DNA index by multi-parametric flow cytometry to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 1703 patients with plasma cell disorders. The distribution of ploidy was hyperdiploid: 759 (45%), diploid 765 (45%), hypodiploid: 71 (4%), tetraploid/near-tetraploid: 108 (6%). FISH identified trisomies in 82% (621/756) of patients with hyperdiploidy by PCPRO and no trisomy by FISH was observed in 88% (730/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy. 95% (795/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy on PCPRO had one or less trisomy by FISH. Sensitivity and specificity of PCPRO for detecting hyperdiploidy was 86% (621/725) and 84% (730/865), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 94% (579/618) for patients with more than one trisomy. Newly diagnosed MM patients with hyperdiploidy on PCPRO (147/275) had better OS compared to nonhyperdiploid patients (median not reached vs 59 months, P = 0.008) and better progression free survival (median: 33 vs 23 months, P = 0.03). Within the hyperdiploidy group, patients with high-hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.19-1.50) versus those with low-hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.05-1.18) had superior OS (3 year OS of 88% vs 68% P = 0.03). Ploidy assessment by flow cytometry can provide rapid, valuable prognostic information and also reduces the number of copy number FISH probes required and hence the cost of FISH.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an important tool to assess the impact of a new therapy on symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapies have been approved for use in relapsed or refractory leukemia and lymphoma based on promising efficacy in clinical trials. However, data are lacking on patient-reported toxicity and impact on HRQoL. This review provides an overview of the incorporation of PROs in CAR-T cell therapy and the specific challenges in this context. The first step is to demonstrate feasibility of PRO monitoring in the acute phase after CAR-T cell infusion. Apart from core PRO domains like physical functioning, disease-related symptoms, and symptomatic adverse effects, important measures to consider are cognitive functioning and financial toxicity. Because there are no validated PRO instruments in the setting of CAR-T cell therapy, universally validated measures like Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) could be considered, which is also recommended in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Given the timeline of toxicities with CAR-T cell therapy, PRO instruments should be administered at baseline and at least weekly in the first 30 days. Subsequently, frequent monitoring of PROs in the first year might be helpful in identifying short- and intermediate-term toxicities, functional limitations, and neuropsychiatric effects. The major potential challenge in acute phase would be missing data when patients develop severe cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity. Designing a strategy for handling missing data is crucial. The long-term safety of CAR-T cell therapy is not well characterized because of short follow-up in most studies reported thus far. PROs should be measured at least yearly after the first year to identify potential late effects like cognitive deficit or autoimmune manifestations. Collaboration between institutions performing cellular therapy and engagement with patients, clinicians, and statisticians with expertise in PROs are crucial for setting a comprehensive agenda on integration of PROs with CAR-T cell therapy.