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.).

Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a multicenter, retrospective, real-world experience with 200 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

In the ELOQUENT-3 trial, the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EloPd) proved to have a superior clinical benefit over pomalidomide and dexamethasone with a manageable toxicity profile, leading to its approval for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. We report here a real-world experience of 200 cases of RRMM treated with EloPd in 35 Italian centers outside of clinical trials. In our dataset, the median number of prior lines of therapy was two, with 51% of cases undergoing autologous stem cell transplant and 73% having been exposed to daratumumab. After a median follow-up of 9 months, 126 patients had stopped EloPd, most of them (88.9%) because of disease progression. The overall response rate was 55.4%, a finding in line with the pivotal trial results. Regarding adverse events, the toxicity profile in our cohort was similar to that in the ELOQUENT-3 trial, with no significant differences between younger (<70 years) and older patients. The median progression-free survival was 7 months, which was shorter than that observed in ELOQUENT-3, probably because of the different clinical characteristics of the two cohorts. Interestingly, International Staging System stage III disease was associated with worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio=2.55). Finally, the median overall survival of our series was shorter than that observed in the ELOQUENT-3 trial (17.5 vs. 29.8 months). In conclusion, our real-world study confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for patients with RRMM who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

A real-life study of daratumumab combinations in newly diagnosed patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Daratumumab-based regimens are the new standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with AL amyloidosis based on the results of the ANDROMEDA study. However, real-world data on daratumumab efficacy in upfront therapy in unselected patients are scanty. In the framework of a prospective observational study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of daratumumab in 88 newly diagnosed patients, including subjects with IIIb cardiac stage (26%) or myeloma defining events (29%). Daratumumab was administered with bortezomib in 50 (56%) patients, lenalidomide in 31 (35%), and monotherapy in 7 (8%). The rate of serious adverse events was low (16%). The overall hematologic response rate was 75% with 52 (59%) patients attaining at least a very good partial response (VGPR) at six months. Amongst patients evaluable for organ response, the rate of cardiac and renal responses at 6 months was 31% and 21%, respectively. Comparing stage IIIb patients with the remaining ones, the rate of profound hematologic response was not significantly different (≥VGPR 57% vs. 59%, p 0.955) likewise the rate of cardiac (33% vs. 30%, p 0.340) and renal (40% vs. 16%, p 0.908) responses. Daratumumab-based regimens demonstrated to be safe and effective in treatment-naïve AL amyloidosis even in advanced stage disease.

Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective real-world experience with 321 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial demonstrated the superiority of the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloPd) in terms of efficacy and safety, compared to Pd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), who had received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. The present study is an 18-month follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloPd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, 213 patients (66.4%) experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7.5 and 19.2 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analysis showed a significant reduction of PFS benefit magnitude both in advanced International Staging System (ISS) (II and III) stages and previous exposure to daratumumab cases. Instead, advanced ISS (II and III) stages and more than 2 previous lines of therapy maintained an independent prognostic impact on OS. Major adverse events included grade three-fourths neutropenia (24.9%), anemia (13.4%), lymphocytopenia (15.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 19.3% and 8.7%, respectively. A slight increase in the incidence of neutropenia and lymphocytopenia was registered with longer follow-up. In conclusion, our real-world study still confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for RRMM. Nevertheless, novel strategies are desirable for those patients exposed to daratumumab.

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).^ieng

Carfilzomib induction, consolidation, and maintenance with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: pre-planned cytogenetic subgroup analysis of the randomised, phase 2 FORTE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk. METHODS: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA. INTERPRETATION: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need. FUNDING: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Prevention and management of adverse events during treatment with bispecific antibodies and CAR T cells in multiple myeloma: a consensus report of the European Myeloma Network.

T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) have revolutionised multiple myeloma therapy, but adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and infections are common. This Policy Review presents a consensus from the European Myeloma Network on the prevention and management of these adverse events. Recommended measures include premedication, frequent assessing for symptoms and severity of cytokine release syndrome, step-up dosing for several BsAbs and some CAR T-cell therapies; corticosteroids; and tocilizumab in the case of cytokine release syndrome. Other anti-IL-6 drugs, high-dose corticosteroids, and anakinra might be considered in refractory cases. ICANS often arises concomitantly with cytokine release syndrome. Glucocorticosteroids in increasing doses are recommended if needed, as well as anakinra if the response is inadequate, and anticonvulsants if convulsions occur. Preventive measures against infections include antiviral and antibacterial drugs and administration of immunoglobulins. Treatment of infections and other complications is also addressed.

A prospective, multicenter study on hematopoietic stem-cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and 'on-demand' plerixafor in multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents.

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and adequate hematopoietic stem-cell (HSC) collection is crucial to ensure hematologic recovery after ASCT. In this prospective, observational study we evaluated HSC mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), cyclophosphamide, and 'on-demand' plerixafor (in patients with.

Lenalidomide-based triplet regimens in first relapsed multiple myeloma patients: real-world evidence from a propensity score matched analysis.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based triplets, in particular carfilzomib-Rd (KRd) and daratumumab-Rd (DaraRd), represent a standard of care in lenalidomide-sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) patients in first relapse. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT), suggested better outcome with DaraRd. Trying to address this issue in clinical practice, we collected data of 430 consecutive MM patients addressed to Rd-based triplets in first relapse between January 2017 and March 2021. Overall, the most common used regimen was DaraRd, chosen in almost half of the cases (54.4%), followed by KRd (34.6%). Different triplets were used much less commonly. In an attempt to limit the imbalance of a retrospective analysis, we conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between DaraRd and KRd. After PSM, efficacy of DaraRd versus KRd was similar in terms of overall-response rate (ORR) (OR: 0.9, P=0.685) as well as of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (OR: 0.9, P=0.582). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for DaraRd (29.8 vs. 22.5 months; P=0.028). DaraRd was tolerated better, registering a lower rate of grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity (OR: 0.4, P<0.001). With the limitations of any retrospective analysis, our real-life PSM comparison between DaraRd and KRd, in first-relapse MM patients, showed better tolerability and prolonged PFS of DaraRd, although with some gaps of performance, in particular of DaraRd, with respect to RCT. Carfilzomib-containing regimens, like KRd, still remain a valid second-line option in the emerging scenario of first-line daratumumab-based therapy.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: The Italian Hematology Alliance on COVID-19 cohort.

COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, is still afflicting thousands of people across the globe. Few studies on COVID-19 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are available. Here, we analyzed data from the CLL cohort of the Italian Hematology Alliance on COVID-19 (NCT04352556), which included 256 CLL patients enrolled between 25 February 2020 and 1 February 2021. Median age was 70 years (range 38-94) with male preponderance (60.1%). Approximately half of patients (n = 127) had received at least one line of therapy for CLL, including 108 (83.7%) who were on active treatment at the time of COVID-19 or received their last therapy within 12 months. Most patients (230/256, 89.9%) were symptomatic at COVID-19 diagnosis and the majority required hospitalization (n = 176). Overall, after a median follow-up of 42 days (IQR 24-96), case fatality rate was 30.1%, and it was 37.5% and 24.4% in the first (25 February 2020-22 June 2020) and second wave (23 June 2020-1 February 2021), respectively (p = 0.03). At multivariate analysis, male sex (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.24, p = 0.04), age over than 70 years (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.23-4.05, p = 0.01), any treatment for CLL given in the last 12 months (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.84, p = 0.04) and COVID-19 severity (severe: HR 5.66, 95% CI 2.62-12.33, p < 0.0001; critical: HR 15.99, 95% CI 6.93-36.90, p < 0.0001) were independently associated with poor survival. In summary, we report a dismal COVID-related outcome in a significant fraction of CLL patients, that can be nicely predicted by clinical parameters.

Secondary infections worsen the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies: A report from the ITA-HEMA-COV.

The impact of secondary infections (SI) on COVID-19 outcome in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) is scarcely documented. To evaluate incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of SI, we analyzed the microbiologically documented SI in a large multicenter cohort of adult HM patients with COVID-19. Among 1741 HM patients with COVID-19, 134 (7.7%) had 185 SI, with a 1-month cumulative incidence of 5%. Median time between COVID-19 diagnosis and SI was 16 days (IQR: 5-36). Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and lymphoma/plasma cell neoplasms (PCN) were more frequent diagnoses in SI patients compared to patients without SI (AML: 14.9% vs. 7.1%; lymphoma/PCN 71.7% vs. 65.3%). Patients with SI were older (median age 70 vs. 66 years, p = 0.002), with more comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 vs. 4, p < 0.001), higher frequency of critical COVID-19 (19.5% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.046), and more frequently not in complete remission (75% vs. 64.7% p = 0.024). Blood and bronchoalveolar lavage were the main sites of isolation for SI. Etiology of infections was bacterial in 80% (n = 148) of cases, mycotic in 9.7% (n = 18) and viral in 10.3% (n = 19); polymicrobial infections were observed in 24 patients (18%). Escherichia coli represented most of Gram-negative isolates (18.9%), while coagulase-negative Staphylococci were the most frequent among Gram-positive (14.2%). The 30-day mortality of patients with SI was higher when compared to patients without SI (69% vs. 15%, p < 0.001). The occurrence of SI worsened COVID-19 outcome in HM patients. Timely diagnosis and adequate management should be considered to improve their prognosis.

COVID-19 elicits an impaired antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with haematological malignancies.

COVID-19 is associated with high mortality in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) and rate of seroconversion is unknown. The ITA-HEMA-COV project (NCT04352556) investigated patterns of seroconversion for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in patients with HMs. A total of 237 patients, SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive with at least one SARS-CoV-2 IgG test performed during their care, entered the analysis. Among these, 62 (26·2%) had myeloid, 121 (51·1%) lymphoid and 54 (22·8%) plasma cell neoplasms. Overall, 69% of patients (164 of 237) had detectable IgG SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies. Serologically negative patients (31%, 73 of 237) were evenly distributed across patients with myeloid, lymphoid and plasma cell neoplasms. In the multivariable logistic regression, chemoimmunotherapy [odds ratio (OR), 3·42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·04-11·21; P = 0·04] was associated with a lower rate of seroconversion. This effect did not decline after 180 days from treatment withdrawal (OR, 0·35; 95% CI: 0·11-1·13; P = 0·08). This study demonstrates a low rate of seroconversion in HM patients and indicates that treatment-mediated immune dysfunction is the main driver. As a consequence, we expect a low rate of seroconversion after vaccination and thus we suggest testing the efficacy of seroconversion in HM patients.

The role of autologous stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma in 2021.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we discuss the most important aspects of the role of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). RECENT FINDINGS: Almost 40 years after the publication of the first study on safety and efficacy of HDM and ASCT in MM patients, and despite the introduction of several drugs and combinations with various targets on the plasma cell and the surrounding microenvironment, HDM-ASCT still stands as a standard of care for the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed MM patients. Indeed, all attempts to replace HDM-ASCT with novel-agent-based, non-transplant strategies have failed to demonstrate their efficacy, at least in terms of progression-free survival. SUMMARY: Despite such a long history in MM, a number of open issues regarding HDM-ASCT still exist, from the choice between using transplant in first-line therapy or at relapse to the use of tandem HDM-ASCT in high-risk patients. With the introduction of more and more effective multidrug regimens and of novel immunotherapeutic approaches, the challenge between transplant and non-transplant is not over yet.

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies.

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

A longitudinal analysis of chromosomal abnormalities in disease progression from MGUS/SMM to newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma.

We analyzed variations in terms of chromosomal abnormalities (CA) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis on purified bone marrow plasma cells throughout the progression from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance/smoldering multiple myeloma (MGUS/SMM) to newly diagnosed MM/plasma cell leukemia (NDMM/PCL) at diagnosis and from diagnostic samples to progressive disease. High risk was defined by the presence of at least del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). 1p/1q detection (in the standard FISH panel from 2012 onward) was not available for all patients. We analyzed 139 MM/PCL diagnostic samples from 144 patients, with a median follow-up of 71 months: high-risk CA at diagnosis (MGUS/SMM or NDMM) was present in 28% of samples, whereas 37-39% showed high-risk CA at relapse. In 115 patients with NDMM who evolved to relapsed/refractory MM, we identified 3 different populations: (1) 31/115 patients (27%) with gain of new CA (del13, del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16) or 1q CA when available); (2) 10/115 (9%) patients with loss of a previously identified CA; and (3) 74 patients with no changes. The CA gain group showed a median overall survival of 66 months vs. 84 months in the third group (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92, p = 0.023). Clonal evolution occurs as disease progresses after different chemotherapy lines. Patients who acquired high-risk CA had the poorest prognosis. Our findings highlight the importance of performing FISH analysis both at diagnosis and at relapse.

First-line therapy with either bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

Is there still a role for stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma?

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents, which range from immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors to monoclonal antibodies and have now been integrated into both induction and salvage regimens, has dramatically revolutionized the treatment landscape of MM and challenged the role of high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in treating MM. These advances have led to a number of provocative questions. First, what is the current role of stem cell transplantation (SCT) in comparison with standard-dose therapy incorporating novel agents? Second, should ASCT be performed upfront ("early") or later ("delayed") in the course of the disease? Third, should single or double ASCT be performed? Fourth, is allogeneic SCT still an option for patients with MM? This article provides an overview of available data and evidence-based responses regarding the role of SCT in MM.

Survival outcomes of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) treated with novel agents.

BACKGROUND: Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is an aggressive plasma cell disorder characterized by circulating plasma cells and a poor prognosis. Although patients who have pPCL benefit from the use of stem cell transplantation (SCT) and novel agents, their prognosis remains inferior to that of patients who have myeloma. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 38 consecutive patients with pPCL who were diagnosed between October 2005 and July 2016 and were registered in the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University database. Baseline characteristics as well as data about treatment and survival outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The median patient age at diagnosis was 58 years. All patients received a bortezomib-based induction regimen, and 92% received both bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug (thalidomide or lenalidomide); in addition, 74% of patients underwent autologous SCT (ASCT), and 61% received maintenance therapy. The best response to first-line therapy was a partial response or better in 87% of patients, and 45% had a complete response (CR). The achievement of ≥CR was a predictor for prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The median PFS was 20 months, and the median OS was 33 months. PFS was prolonged in patients who underwent ASCT compared with those who did not undergo ASCT (25 vs 6 months; P = .004), and patients who received maintenance therapy after ASCT had prolonged median PFS (27 vs 11 months; P = .03) and a trend toward prolonged OS (median, 38 vs 22 months; P = .06) compared with those who did not receive maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The current data support the use of regimens combining novel agents in the upfront treatment of patients with pPCL as well as the role of ASCT and maintenance therapy for long-term disease control.

Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase I/II studies.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Triplet vs doublet lenalidomide-containing regimens for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196.