Submission to Stem Cells Reviews and Reports.

The use of allogeneic induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived cell therapies for regenerative medicine offers an affordable and realistic alternative to producing individual iPSC lines for each patient in need. Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA)-homozygous iPSCs matched in hemi-similarity could provide cell therapies with reduced immune rejection covering a wide range of the population with a few iPSC lines. Several banks of HLA-homozygous iPSCs (haplobanks) have been established worldwide or are underway, to provide clinical grade starting material for cell therapies covering the most frequent HLA haplotypes for certain populations. Harmonizing quality standards among haplobanks and creating a global registry could minimize the collective effort and provide a much wider access to HLA-compatible cell therapies for patients with less frequent haplotypes. In this review we present all the current haplobank initiatives and their potential benefits for the global population.

VCd versus VRd in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Matched Real-World Analysis from the Balkan Myeloma Study Group (BMSG).

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide (VCd) remains a popular regimen, due to its activity and low toxicity, while bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is widely used in US and Europe; both are combined with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies but VCd and VRd have not been compared directly in adequately powered prospective trials. AIM: We compared the outcomes of 1216 patients treated with VCd (N = 690) or VRd (N = 526) in a real-world setting. RESULTS: Patients treated with VCd had more often severe renal dysfunction, ISS-3 disease, hypercalcemia, elevated LDH, anemia, thrombocytopenia, poor performance while VRd-treated were older and received less often autologous transplant but more frequently maintenance but the duration of induction was similar. VRd was associated with substantially higher overall response and CR/VGPR rates to induction(P < .001) and improved PFS and OS in univariate analysis, especially among patients with standard risk disease, without renal dysfunction and in the elderly; however, in multivariate analysis there was no significant difference in either PFS or OS. In patients strictly matched 1:1 for major prognostic variables (188 in each group, total N = 376), the superiority of VRd in terms of responses rates and depth of response was confirmed, but without significant PFS or OS difference. CONCLUSION: VRd is a more active induction regimen than VCd, although use of maintenance with lenalidomide may dilute the PFS or OS benefit. VCd induction remains an option in special circumstances. With the implementation of monoclonal antibodies, VCd backbone can be considered for patients without access to or who do not tolerate VRd.

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).

A.R.R.O.W.2: Once- vs twice-weekly carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib (27 mg/m2) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd27) is a standard-of-care in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Once-weekly carfilzomib regimens have shown clinical benefits with improved patient convenience. This open-label, phase 3, multicenter, randomized study aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of the overall response rate (ORR) for once-weekly carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) plus Rd (KRd56) vs twice-weekly KRd27 in RRMM. A total of 454 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib as once-weekly 30-minute infusions of 56 mg/m2 (KRd56; n=228) or twice-weekly 10-minute infusions of 27 mg/m2 (KRd27; n=226). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. ORR was 82.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.9‒87.2) in the once-weekly group vs 86.3% (95% CI, 81.1‒90.5) in the twice-weekly group (risk ratio, 0.954 [95% CI, 0.882‒1.032]) and did not meet the threshold for statistical significance of noninferiority (P=0.0666). Complete response or better was obtained in 46.9% of patients in the once-weekly arm and 36.3% in the twice-weekly arm. The proportions of patients who achieved complete response and were also assessed negative for minimal residual disease were 21.5% and 18.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.235 [95% CI, 0.775‒1.970]). Progression-free survival was comparable between groups (hazard ratio, 0.945 [95% CI, 0.617‒1.447]). The safety profile was similar for both groups. In conclusion, although statistical significance for noninferiority of ORR was not achieved, the efficacy and safety of once-weekly KRd56 were similar to those of twice-weekly KRd27 and once-weekly KRd56 may be an effective and convenient treatment option for patients with RRMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03859427.

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.).

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

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. METHODS: In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

In vivo and in vitro effects of cord blood hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) expansion using valproic acid and/or nicotinamide.

BACKGROUND: High self-renewal capacity and most permissive nature of umbilical cord blood (CB) results with successful transplant outcomes but low hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) counts limits wider use. In order to overcome this problem ex vivo expansion with small molecules such as Valproic acid (VPA) or Nicotinamide (NAM) have been shown to be effective. To the best of our knowledge, the combinatory effects of VPA and NAM on HSPC expansion has not been studied earlier. The aim of this study was to analyze ex vivo and in vivo efficacy of VPA and NAM either alone or in combination in terms of expansion and engraftment. METHODS: A total of 44 CB units were included in this study. To determine the ex vivo and in vivo efficacy, human CB CD34+ cells were expanded with VPA and/or NAM and colony forming unit (CFU) assay was performed on expanded HSPC. Xenotransplantation was performed simultaneously by intravenous injection of expanded HSPC to NOD-SCID gamma (NSG) mice (n = 22). Significance of the difference between the expansion groups or xenotransplantation models was analyzed using t-test, Mann-Whitney, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate considering the normality of distributions and the number of groups analyzed. RESULTS: In vitro CD34+ HSPC expansion fold relative to cytokines-only was significantly higher with VPA compared to NAM [2.23 (1.07-5.59) vs 1.48 (1.00-4.40); p < 0.05]. Synergistic effect of VPA+NAM has achieved a maximum relative expansion fold at 21 days (D21) of incubation [2.95 (1.00-11.94)]. There was no significant difference between VPA and VPA+NAM D21 (p = 0.44). Fold number of colony-forming unit granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM) colonies relative to the cytokine-only group was in favor of NAM compared to VPA [1.87 (1.00-3.59) vs 1.00 (1.00-1.81); p < 0.01]. VPA+NAM D21 [1.62 (1.00-2.77)] was also superior against VPA (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between NAM and VPA+NAM D21. Following human CB34+ CB transplantation (CBT) in the mouse model, fastest in vivo leukocyte recovery was observed with VPA+NAM expanded cells (6 ± 2 days) and the highest levels of human CD45 chimerism was detectable with VPA-expanded CBT (VPA: 5.42 % at day 28; NAM: 2.45 % at day 31; VPA+NAM 1.8 % at day 31). CONCLUSION: Our study results suggest using VPA alone, rather than in combination with NAM or NAM alone, to achieve better and faster expansion and engraftment of CB HSPC.

Long-term outcomes and renal responses following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for light chain deposition disease: a retrospective study on behalf of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

There is little long-term outcome data on the efficacy of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in light chain deposition disease (LCDD). We identified 51 LCDD patients in the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow transplantation registry who had undergone upfront ASCT between 1995 and 2021. The median serum creatinine was 280 µmol/L and 45% required renal replacement therapy (RRT) at time of transplant. The melphalan dose was 100 mg/m2 in 23%, 140 mg/m2 in 55% and 200 mg/m2 in 21%. The rate of very good partial response or better improved from 41% pretransplant to 66% at day +100 post- ASCT. In RRT-independent patients, there was a modest improvement in renal function within the first 3 months; the median estimated glomerular filtration rate increased from 44 to 51 mL/min/1.73 m2. There was no further change between 3 and 12 months post-ASCT. No patient who was RRT-independent at ASCT became RRT dependent by day + 100 post-ASCT. Median follow- up post-ASCT was 84 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 46-122). At 6-years post ASCT, overall survival was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78-98) and PFS was 44% (95% CI: 28-60). The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality was 17% (95% CI: 6-27) and 2% (95% CI: 0-6), respectively. The cumulative incidence of renal transplantation at 4 years after ASCT was 27% (95% CI: 13-41) with renal transplantation performed between 6.3 and 52.9 months post-ASCT (median 24.7 months). ASCT represents a feasible option for LCDD patients even if RRT dependent at time of transplant. Outcomes are favorable with low non-relapse mortality and good long-term overall survival.

Carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) vs. lenalidomide-sparing pomalidomide-containing triplet regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: an indirect treatment comparison.

Nearly all patients with multiple myeloma eventually relapse or become refractory to treatment. Lenalidomide is increasingly administered in the frontline until disease progression or intolerance to therapy, resulting in the need for highly effective, lenalidomide-sparing options. In this study, carfilzomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone were evaluated against lenalidomide-sparing, pomalidomide-containing triplets using matching-adjusted indirect comparison in the absence of head-to-head data. The analyses utilized long-term follow-up data from the CANDOR study (NCT03158688). Treatment with carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.88])vs. pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone, and numerically longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.50, 1.08]) vs. daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and previous lenalidomide exposure, the majority of whom were lenalidomide refractory. Carfilzomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone offers a highly effective, lenalidomide-sparing treatment option for this population.

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis.

The primary and prespecified updated analyses of ICARIA-MM (clinicaltrial gov. Identifier: NCT02990338) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a benefit in overall survival (OS) was reported with the addition of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the final OS analysis. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study included patients who had received and failed ≥2 previous therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Between January 10, 2017, and February 2, 2018, 307 patients were randomized (1:1) to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; N=154) or Pd (N=153), stratified based on age (<75 vs. ≥75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2-3 vs. >3). At data cutoff for the final OS analysis after 220 OS events (January 27, 2022), median follow-up duration was 52.4 months. Median OS was 24.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.3) with Isa-Pd and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.4- 26.2) with Pd (hazard ratio=0.78; 95% CI: 0.59-1.02; 1-sided P=0.0319). Despite subsequent daratumumab use in the Pd group and its potential benefit on PFS in the first subsequent therapy line, median PFS2 was significantly longer with Isa-Pd versus Pd (17.5 vs. 12.9 months; log-rank 1-sided P=0.0091). In this analysis, Isa-Pd continued to be efficacious and well tolerated after follow-up of approximately 52 months, contributing to a clinically meaningful, 6.9-month improvement in median OS in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Current barriers and recommendations on the diagnosis of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: a Delphi study.

Objectives: This study has been conducted to investigate the non-invasive diagnostic journey of patients with a transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (aTTR-CM) in Turkey, identify the challenges and uncertainties encountered on the path to diagnosis from the perspectives of expert physicians, and develop recommendations that can be applied in such cases. Methods: This study employed a three-round modified Delphi method and included 10 cardiologists and five nuclear medicine specialists. Two hematologists also shared their expert opinions on the survey results related to hematological tests during a final face-to-face discussion. A consensus was reached when 80% or more of the panel members marked the "agree/strongly agree" or "disagree/strongly disagree" option. Results: The panelists unanimously agreed that the aTTR-CM diagnosis could be established through scintigraphy (using either 99mTc-PYP, 99mTc-DPD, or 99mTc-HMPD) in a patient with suspected cardiac amyloidosis (CA) without a further investigation if AL amyloidosis is ruled out (by sFLC, SPIE and UPIE). In addition, scintigraphy imaging performed by SPECT or SPECT-CT should reveal a myocardial uptake of Grade ≥2 with a heart-to-contralateral (H/CL) ratio of ≥1.5. The cardiology panelists recommended using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and a detailed echocardiographic scoring as a last resort before considering an endomyocardial biopsy in patients with suspected CA whose scintigraphy results were discordant/inconclusive or negative but still carried a high clinical suspicion of aTTR-CM. Conclusion: The diagnostic approach for aTTR-CM should be customized based on the availability of diagnostic tools/methods in each expert clinic to achieve a timely and definitive diagnosis.

In the era of Bortezomib-based Induction, intensification of Melphalan-based conditioning with Bortezomib does not improve Survival Outcomes in newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: a study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.

Bortezomib (Vel)- Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200) (Vel-Mel) has been utilised to intensify conditioning in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). This EBMT registry-based study compared Vel-Mel with Mel200 during upfront AHCT. Between 2010 and 2017, MM patients who received Vel-Mel (n = 292) conditioning were compared with 4,096 Mel200 patients in the same 58 centres. Pre-AHCT, compared to Mel200 patients, Vel-Mel patients had similar International Staging System (ISS) scores and cytogenetic risk profiles; a similar proportion had received bortezomib-based induction (85% and 87.3%, respectively) though they were younger with a better performance status. Vel-Mel patients were more likely to achieve CR post-induction (40.6% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001) and by day 100 of AHCT (CR/VGPR: 70.2 % vs. 57.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in 3-year PFS (49% vs 46%, p = 0.06) or early post-AHCT mortality. In multivariable analysis, Vel-Mel associated with inferior PFS (HR: 1.69 (1.27-2.25, p < 0.001) and OS (HR:1.46 (1.14-1.86,p = 0.002), similar to negative effects on PFS of advanced ISS (HR:1.56 (1.33-1.83, p < 0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR:1.43(1.18-1.74, p < 0.001) and poor post-induction response(<=PR)(HR: 1.43(1.25-1.62, p < 0.001) Overall, despite superior pre- and post-AHCT responses, there was no improvement in PFS or OS following Vel-Mel. This data supports the findings of the smaller prospective IFM study.

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.

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.).

Predictors of early morbidity and mortality in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: data from five randomized, controlled, phase III trials in 3700 patients.

Early morbidity and mortality affect patient outcomes in multiple myeloma. Thus, we dissected the incidence and causes of morbidity/mortality during induction therapy (IT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and developed/validated a predictive risk score. We evaluated 3700 transplant-eligible NDMM patients treated in 2005-2020 with novel agent-based triplet/quadruplet IT. Primary endpoints were severe infections, death, or a combination of both. Patients were divided in a training (n = 1333) and three validation cohorts (n = 2367). During IT, 11.8%, 1.8%, and 12.5% of patients in the training cohort experienced severe infections, death, or both, respectively. Four major, baseline risk factors for severe infection/death were identified: low platelet count (<150/nL), ISS III, higher WHO performance status (>1), and age (>60 years). A risk score (1 risk factor=1 point) stratified patients in low (39.5%; 0 points), intermediate (41.9%; 1 point), and high (18.6%; ≥2 points) risk. The risk for severe infection/death increased from 7.7% vs. 11.5% vs. 23.3% in the low- vs. intermediate- vs. high-risk groups (p < 0.001). The risk score was independently validated in three trials incorporating quadruplet IT with an anti-CD38 antibody. Our analyses established a robust and easy-to-use score to identify NDMM patients at risk of severe infection/death, covering the latest quadruplet induction therapies. Trial registrations: HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4: EudraCT No. 2004-000944-26. GMMG-MM5: EudraCT No. 2010-019173-16. GMMG-HD6: NCT02495922. EMN02/HOVON-95: NCT01208766. GMMG-HD7: NCT03617731.

Germline genetic variants in Turkish familial multiple myeloma/monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance cases.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy primarily affecting the elderly, with a striking male predilection and ethnic disparities in incidence. Familial predisposition to MM has long been recognized, but the genetic underpinnings remain elusive. This study aimed to investigate germline variants in Turkish families with recurrent MM cases. A total of 37 MM-affected families, comprising 77 individuals, were included. Targeted next-generation sequencing analysis yielded no previously reported rare variants. Whole exome sequencing analysis in 11 families identified rare disease-causing variants in various genes, some previously linked to familial MM and others not previously associated. Notably, genes involved in ubiquitination, V(D)J recombination and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway were among those identified. Furthermore, a specific variant in BNIP1 (rs28199) was found in 13 patients across nine families, indicating its potential significance in MM pathogenesis. While this study sheds light on genetic variations in familial MM in Turkey, its limitations include sample size and the absence of in vivo investigations. In conclusion, familial MM likely involves a polygenic inheritance pattern with rare, disease-causing variants in various genes, emphasizing the need for international collaborative efforts to unravel the intricate genetic basis of MM and develop targeted therapies.

Subcutaneous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (APOLLO): extended follow up of an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the APOLLO trial, done after a median follow-up of 16·9 months, showed that daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Here, we report the final overall survival and updated safety results from APOLLO. METHODS: APOLLO was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 countries in Europe, that included adults aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had an ECOG performance status score of 0-2, had received at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if they had received only one previous line of therapy. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) to receive daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone or pomalidomide and dexamethasone; patients were stratified by the number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. Oral pomalidomide (4 mg once daily; days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once daily; days 1, 8, 15, and 22) were given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival, which has previously been reported, and the pre-planned secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03180736) and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients were randomly assigned: 151 to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and 153 to the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. The median age was 67 years (IQR 60-72); 143 (47%) patients were female and 161 (53%) were male, and 272 (89%) were White. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 37·1-43·7), median overall survival was 34·4 months (95% CI 23·7-40·3) in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 23·7 months (19·6-29·4) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·61-1·11]; p=0·20). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (103 [69%] of 149 with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone vs 76 [51%] of 150 with pomalidomide and dexamethasone), anaemia (27 [18%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (27 [18%] vs 28 [19%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 80 (54%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 60 (40%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, the most common of which was pneumonia (23 [15%] of 149 vs 13 [9%] of 150). Treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in death occurred in 13 (9%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 13 (9%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, with 4 (3%) of 151 adverse events leading to death within 30 days of the last treatment dose thought to be related to study treatment in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (septic shock [n=1]; sepsis [n=1]; bone marrow failure, campylobacter infection, and liver disorder [n=1]; and pneumonia [n=1]) and none in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: Although the difference in overall survival observed between treatment groups was not significant, the safety profile results with long-term follow-up reported here continue to support the use of daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research & Development.