A real-life study of daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (D-VD) in lenalidomide exposed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: a report from the Triveneto Myeloma Working Group.

Treatment of lenalidomide refractory (Len-R) multiple myeloma (MM) patients still represents an unmet clinical need. In the last years, daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (D-VD) combination was extensively used in this setting, even though only a small fraction of Len-R patients was included in the pivotal trial. This real-life study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the D-VD regimen in a cohort that exclusively enrolled Len exposed or refractory MM patients. The study cohort included 57 patients affected by relapsed/refractory MM. All patients were previously exposed to Len, with 77.2% being refractory. The overall response rate (ORR) was 79.6% with 43% of cases obtaining at least a very good partial response (VGPR). The D-VD regimen showed a favorable safety profile, with low frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events, except for thrombocytopenia observed in 21.4% of patients. With a median follow-up of 13 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17 months. No significant PFS differences were observed according to age, ISS, LDH levels, type of relapse, and high-risk FISH. Len exposed patients displayed a PFS advantage as compared to Len refractory patients (29 vs 16 months, p = 0.2876). Similarly, patients treated after Len maintenance showed a better outcome as compared to patients who had received a full-dose Len treatment (23 vs 13 months, p = 0.1728). In conclusion, our real-world data on D-VD combination showed remarkable efficacy in Len-R patients, placing this regimen as one of the standards of care to be properly taken into account in this MM setting.

Stem Cells mobilization and collection in allogeneic related and unrelated donors: a single center experience with focus on plerixafor.

INTRODUCTION: Poor CD34 + cells mobilization in allogeneic donors could affect transplant outcome. In a subgroup of patient mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone is unsatisfactory, and Plerixafor could be used to enhance CD34 + cells release from bone marrow niche. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center, cohort study on healthy allogeneic donors both related and unrelated, treated by Udine Transfusion Center over the last 10 years (2012-2022). In the 195 allogeneic donors treated we analyzed age, sex, body weight, BMI, comorbidities, G-CSF dosage and even baseline white blood cell count as possible predictor of insufficient CD34 + cells mobilization on day 5. In the subgroup of related donors we evaluated even baseline CD34 + cells (measured before mobilization start). Processed donor blood volume, collection efficiency and apheresis product were examined. Additionally a comparative analysis was conducted between G-CSF alone treated donors and poor mobilizing ones, in which Plerixafor was administered at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg as a pre-emptive or rescue agent. RESULTS: In 9 donors, due to poor mobilization (defined as CD34 + < 20/µL or estimated yield < 1 ×106 kg/recipient body weight), the use of plerixafor was necessary. PLX at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg was administered 5 h before collection, inducing an average increase of 5.1 (1.7-12.6) in CD34 + circulating cells. In this subgroup of patients, BMI and weight were significantly lower (p = 0.03). Interestingly, baseline CD34 + cells (measured before the onset of mobilization) also seems to predict poor mobilization (p = 0.003). In donors additionally treated with Plerixafor compared to those who received G-CSF alone, collection efficiency was higher (p = 0.02) and CD34 + cells collected were comparable (p = 0.2). Side effects related to the administration of plerixafor, if they occurred, were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Plerixafor is a safe and effective drug in the rescue and prevention of poor mobilization. New prospective studies on allogeneic donors should be performed to increase the treatable population to avoid inadequate collection and mobilization. New laboratory predictors such as baseline CD34 + cells should be investigated in larger cohorts and then used as early screening.

Antibody, cell-mediated response and infection susceptibility in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell recipients after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) have reduced responses to vaccines due to immunosuppressive status linked to GvHD prophylaxis and treatment. In our study, we compared humoral responses to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, and infection onset, according to patients and transplant features; we also evaluated cellular response in patients without seroconversion. METHODS: We tested antibodies titer after second and third vaccine doses. Antibodies were detected through an immune-enzymatic assay. In a patients' subgroup without seroconversion, we tested cell-mediated responses evaluating interferon-gamma release by T-lymphocytes exposed to virus spike protein. RESULTS: Seroconversion rate increased from 66% at 30 days to 81% at 90 days after the second dose; it was 97% at 150 days after the third dose. We found a significant association between seroconversion after the second dose and two variables: shorter interval between allo-SCT and vaccination; ongoing immunosuppression. Twelve of 19 patients (63%) without antibodies after the second dose did not show cellular responses. Nineteen percent of patients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third dose, with favorable outcome in all cases. Patients within 12 months after allo-SCT showed a significantly higher infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that an interval shorter than 12 months between allo-SCT and first vaccine dose and/or ongoing immunosuppression were associated with humoral and cellular response deficiency after two doses. Third dose induced an increased and sustained humoral response in the majority of patients. However, patients within 1 year after allo-SCT remained at higher infection risk and may be candidate for prophylaxis with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.

Experts' consensus on the definition and management of high risk multiple myeloma.

High risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) at diagnosis is currently recognized according to the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) which was set up in 2015. Since then, new clinical and biological prognostic factors have been developed, which could implement the definition of High Risk (HR) category. We conducted a survey in order to identify which additional parameters, both clinical and biological, are considered more useful for the clinical practice and to evaluate if the management of Multiple Myeloma (MM) should change on the basis of the risk category. A questionnaire, consisting of 8 statements, was submitted to 6 Italian experts, from the European Myeloma Network (EMN) Research Italy, using the Delphi method. The colleagues were asked to answer each question using a scale between 0 and 100. If a statement did not reach at least 75 out of 100 points from all the participants, it was rephrased on the basis of the proposal of the experts and resubmitted in a second or further round, until a consensus was reached among all. From the first round of the survey a strong consensus was reached regarding the opportunity to revise the R-ISS including chromosome 1 abnormality, TP53 mutation or deletion, circulating plasma cells by next generation flow and extramedullary plasmacytomas. No consensus was reached for the definition of "double hit" MM and for the application in clinical practice of treatment strategies based on the risk category. In the second round of the Delphi questionnaire, "double-hit" MM was recognized by the association of at least two high-risk cytogenetic or molecular abnormalities. Moreover, the experts agreed to reserve an intensified treatment only to specific conditions, such as plasma cell leukaemia or patients with multiple extramedullary plasmacytomas, while they admitted that there are not sufficient real word data in order to modify treatment on the basis of MRD assessment in clinical practice. This survey suggests that the definition of HRMM should be implemented by additional clinical and biological risk factors, that will be useful to guide treatment in the future.