[A multicenter, prospective, phaseâ ¡, single-arm study on the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with domestic bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone].

Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of domestic bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) . Methods: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm clinical study included 126 patients with NDMM admitted to seven hospitals between December 2019 and January 2022. All patients received domestic bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (BLD regimen), and the efficacy, prognostic factors, and safety were analyzed. Results: Among the 126 patients with NDMM, 118 completed four cycles of treatment, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 93.22% (110/118) and a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate of 68.64% (81/118). Ultimately, 114 patients completed at least eight cycles of treatment, with an ORR of 92.98% (106/114) and a ≥VGPR rate of 77.19% (88/114). Eighteen patients underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after completing 6-8 cycles of the BLD regimen, with an ORR of 100% (18/18) and a ≥VGPR rate of 88.9% (16/18). The proportion of patients achieving ≥VGPR increased with the treatment duration, and factors such as staging and age did not significantly affect efficacy. Single-factor analysis showed that R2-ISS stage Ⅲ/Ⅳ, blood calcium >2.27 mmol/L, and failure to achieve VGPR after six cycles were adverse prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) (P<0.05), whereas failure to achieve VGPR after six cycles was an adverse prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) (P<0.001). Multifactor analysis demonstrated that failure to achieve VGPR after six cycles is an independent adverse prognostic factor for PFS (P=0.002). The incidence of hematologic adverse reactions was 16.7% (19/114), and nonhematologic adverse reactions were mainly mild to moderate, with no significant cardiac or renal adverse reactions observed. Conclusion: The BLD regimen is effective in treating NDMM, in which patients with high-risk genetic features are still achieving a high ≥VGPR rate, and the overall safety is good.

Multiple myeloma with secondary amyloidosis: Dysphagia as the first symptom: A case report.

RATIONALE: Multiple myeloma (MM) with secondary amyloidosis (AL) is a rare clonal plasma cell proliferation disease, which causes dysfunction of multiple organs and tissues. We report a case of dysphagia as the first symptom in a patient with MM and secondary AL. PATIENT CONCERNS: The patient was a 73-year-old female, was admitted to our hospital, because of progressive dysphagia for 4 months and limb weakness for 1 month. DIAGNOSES: The bone marrow smear and pathology diagnosis revealed the presence of MM, while the biceps myopathy diagnosis indicated AL. INTERVENTIONS: The VCD regimen consisted of bortezomib at a dosage of 1.9 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cyclophosphamide 0.4 g on days 1, 8, and 15, and dexamethasone at a dosage of 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The patient simultaneously received comprehensive treatment including anti-infective therapy, enhanced cardiac function, and nutritional support. OUTCOMES: The M protein in the blood and urine protein were negative, indicating a reduction in bone marrow plasma cells to 2%. Flow cytometric analysis revealed a minimal percentage 0.04%. As a result, complete remission was achieved. LESSONS: The clinical manifestations of MM exhibit a wide range, with the symptoms of secondary injury causing significant disturbing, while the atypical symptoms of extramedullary manifestations pose challenges in diagnosing the disease.

Daratumumab in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of clinically relevant subgroups in GRIFFIN.

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract.

Gastrointestinal toxicities of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

PURPOSE: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs), which cause cell death via tumor suppressor and pro-apoptotic proteins, are integral to treatment of many hematologic malignancies but are limited by their gastrointestinal adverse effects. Evidence regarding these PI-related adverse effects is scant. In this study, we evaluated gastrointestinal adverse events caused by PIs and compared gastrointestinal toxicities between bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of cancer patients treated with PIs at a tertiary care cancer center to investigate the clinical characteristics of PI-related gastrointestinal adverse events. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 973 patients with PI exposure and stool studies ordered between January 2017 and December 2022. Of these, 193 patients (20%) had PI-related gastrointestinal toxicity based on clinical symptoms and stool study results. The most common symptom was diarrhea, present in 169 (88% of those with gastrointestinal toxicity). Twenty-two (11%) required hospitalization, and 71 (37%) developed recurrence of symptoms. Compared to bortezomib or carfilzomib, ixazomib had a longer interval from PI initiation to the onset of gastrointestinal symptoms (313 days vs 58 days vs 89 days, p = 0.002) and a significantly lower percentage of diarrhea-predominant presentation of gastrointestinal toxicity (71% vs 96% vs 91%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: While PI-related gastrointestinal toxicities have various presentations and courses based on different regimens, the vast majority of patients presented with milder disease behavior. Despite a considerably high rate of hospitalization and recurrence after treatment necessitating optimization of clinical management, our cohort demonstrates favorable outcomes without long-term consequences.

Response rates to second-line treatment with daratumumab bortezomib dexamethasone (DVD) in relapsed/refractory light chain amyloidosis (AL) after initial Bortezomib-based regime.

Bortezomib is regularly used as frontline therapy for systemic AL amyloidosis. We assess the efficacy of second-line daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (DVD) in AL amyloidosis in bortezomib-exposed patients. A total of 116 patients treated with second-line DVD were identified from a prospective observational study of newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis (ALchemy). DVD was initiated in both the relapsed setting or where there was an inadequate response defined as very good partial response (VGPR) or VGPR with organ progression/lack of organ improvement. A complete response (CR)/VGPR to second-line DVD was achieved in 81 (69.8%) patients. A CR/VGPR was achieved in 67 (79.7%) in those who achieved a VGPR/CR to first line versus 14/32 (43.8%) in those who did not. Where DVD was initiated due to an inadequate response to first line (vs. at relapse), the median event-free survival (EFS) was 18 vs. 34 months (p = 0.002). If a CR/VGPR was achieved to DVD, the 2-year EFS was still lower in those with prior inadequate response 54% vs. 66% (p = 0.062). DVD is an efficacious second-line treatment in systemic AL amyloidosis in a bortezomib-exposed population. However, the response to DVD is poorer in those with an inadequate response to first-line bortezomib.

Response matters in light chain amyloidosis, whatever it takes.

Access to upfront daratumumab for AL amyloidosis is expanding, but it is not universal. Bomsztyk et al. show that patients who do not receive front-line daratumumab can be effectively rescued with this agent, indicating that deep haematological response should be pursued tenaciously. Commentary on: Bomsztyk et al. Response rates to second-line treatment with daratumumab bortezomib dexamethasone (DVD) in relapsed/refractory light chain (AL) amyloidosis after initial bortezomib-based regime. Br J Haematol 2024;205:138-145.

Quality of life gains in frail and intermediate-fit patients with multiple Myeloma: Findings from the prospective HOVON123 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients is associated with treatment-related toxicity, which negatively affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Currently, data on changes in HRQoL of frail and intermediate-fit MM patients during active treatment and post-treatment follow-up are absent. METHODS: The HOVON123 study (NTR4244) was a phase II trial in which NDMM patients ≥ 75 years were treated with nine dose-adjusted cycles of Melphalan-Prednisone-Bortezomib (MPV). Two HRQoL instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -MY20) were obtained before start of treatment, after 3 and 9 months of treatment and 6 and 12 months after treatment for patients who did not yet start second-line treatment. HRQoL changes and/or differences in frail and intermediate-fit patients (IMWG frailty score) were reported only when both statistically significant (p < 0.005) and clinically relevant (>MID). RESULTS: 137 frail and 71 intermediate-fit patients were included in the analysis. Compliance was high and comparable in both groups. At baseline, frail patients reported lower global health status, lower physical functioning scores and more fatigue and pain compared to intermediate-fit patients. Both groups improved in global health status and future perspective; polyneuropathy complaints worsened over time. Frail patients improved over time in physical functioning, fatigue and pain. Improvement in global health status occurred earlier than in intermediate-fit patients. CONCLUSION: HRQoL improved during anti-myeloma treatment in both intermediate-fit and frail MM patients. In frail patients, improvement occurred faster and, in more domains, which was retained during follow-up. This implies that physicians should not withhold safe and effective therapies from frail patients in fear of HRQoL deterioration.

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

The efficacy of Bortezomib-based regimens on survival state in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients.

The prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly improved over the past ten years because of several innovative treatments, including the proteasome inhibitor Bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) like Thalidomide and Lenalidomide. The present study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Bortezomib-based regimens on survival state of MM patients. This retrospective study included 204 newly diagnosed MM patients who were registered at Nanakali Hospital for Blood Diseases and Cancer, Erbil- Iraq, between April 2008 and April 2022. The patients were split into two primary groups: those receiving treatment with Bortezomib and those not. Clinical and laboratory data, treatment type, responsiveness to induction therapy, and survival results were examined in the enrolled patients' medical records. The mean patient age was 60 years, males constituted 55.8% of the included patients. At the time of diagnosis, 98 individuals (48%) had stage 3 illness. Except for the LDH, which was noticeably higher in the non-Bortezomib group, the patients laboratory results did not substantially change between the Bortezomib and non-Bortezomib groups (p = 0.001). In patients treated with Bortezomib, the complete response (CR) rate following induction was substantially greater (35.2%) than in those treated without Bortezomib (9.1%). Compared to the non-Bortezomib group, the median survival time of the Bortezomib group was considerably greater (p < 0.001). Bortezomib has a significant role in inducing a CR before bone marrow (BM) transplantation, and it has a significant role in the survival outcome in MM.

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.

Isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone and bortezomib in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: the randomized phase 3 BENEFIT trial.

CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10-5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10-5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10-5 and 10-6, and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10-5, the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 .

Individualized dynamic frailty-tailored therapy (DynaFiT) in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a prospective study.

It remains a substantial challenge to balance treatment efficacy and toxicity in geriatric patients with multiple myeloma (MM), primarily due to the dynamic nature of frailty. Here, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of dynamic frailty-tailored therapy (DynaFiT) in elderly patients. Patients with newly diagnosed MM (aged ≥ 65 years) received eight induction cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (daratumumab was recommended for frail patients), with treatment intensity adjusted according to longitudinal changes in the frailty category (IMWG-FI) at each cycle. Of 90 patients, 33 (37%), 16 (18%), and 41 (45%) were fit, intermediate fit, and frail at baseline, respectively. Of 75 patients who had geriatric assessment at least twice, 28 (37%) experienced frailty category changes at least once. At analysis, 15/26 (58%) frail patients improved (27% became fit and 31% became intermediate fit), 4/15 (27%) intermediate fit patients either improved or deteriorated (two for each), and 6/30 (20%) fit patients deteriorated. During induction, 34/90 (38%) patients discontinued treatment, including 10/33 (30%) fit, 4/16 (25%) intermediate fit, and 20/41 (49%) frail; 14/40 (35%) frail patients discontinued treatment within the first two cycles, mainly because of non-hematologic toxicity (mostly infections). For fit, intermediate-fit, and frail patients, the overall response rate was 100%, 93%, and 73%, respectively; one-year overall survival was 90%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Therefore, the individualized DynaFiT is feasible and promising for heterogeneous elderly patients.

Belantamab Mafodotin, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin had single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, a finding that supports further evaluation of the agent in combination with standard-care therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd), as compared with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), in patients who had progression of multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response duration, and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. RESULTS: In total, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (243 patients) or DVd (251 patients). At a median follow-up of 28.2 months (range, 0.1 to 40.0), median progression-free survival was 36.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4 to not reached) in the BVd group and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.1 to 17.5) in the DVd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53; P<0.001). Overall survival at 18 months was 84% in the BVd group and 73% in the DVd group. An analysis of the restricted mean response duration favored BVd over DVd (P<0.001). A complete response or better plus MRD-negative status occurred in 25% of the patients in the BVd group and 10% of those in the DVd group. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 95% of the patients in the BVd group and 78% of those in the DVd group. Ocular events were more common in the BVd group than in the DVd group (79% vs. 29%); such events were managed with dose modifications, and events of worsening visual acuity mostly resolved. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with DVd therapy, BVd therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among patients who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. Most patients had grade 3 or higher adverse events. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04246047; EudraCT number, 2018-003993-29.).

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.).

Impact of prior treatment on selinexor, bortezomib, dexamethasone outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up subgroup analysis of the BOSTON trial.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the impact of prior therapies on outcomes with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in 402 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the phase 3 BOSTON trial. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor (PI)-naïve, bortezomib-naïve, and one prior line of therapy (1LOT) patient subgroups. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of over 28 months, clinically meaningful improvements in PFS were noted across all groups with SVd. The median SVd PFS was longer in all subgroups (lenalidomide-refractory: 10.2 vs. 7.1 months, PI-naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; bortezomib-naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; 1LOT: 21.0 vs. 10.7; p < .05). The lenalidomide-refractory subgroup had longer OS with SVd (26.7 vs. 18.6 months; HR 0.53; p = .015). In all subgroups, overall response and ≥very good partial response rates were higher with SVd. The manageable safety profile of SVd was similar to the overall patient population. CONCLUSIONS: With over 2 years of follow-up, these clinically meaningful outcomes further support the use of SVd in patients who are lenalidomide-refractory, PI-naïve, bortezomib-naïve, or who received 1LOT (including a monoclonal antibody) and underscore the observed synergy between selinexor and bortezomib.

Plasmablastic lymphoma: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.

DISEASE OVERVIEW: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare CD20-negative aggressive lymphoma with a poor prognosis under standard treatment options. Though PBL is associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection and other immunosuppressed states, it can also affect immunocompetent individuals. DIAGNOSIS: The diagnosis requires a high clinical suspicion and pathological confirmation. EBER expression and MYC gene rearrangements are frequently detected. The differential diagnosis includes EBV+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, extracavitary primary effusion lymphoma, ALK+ DLBCL, and HHV8+ large B-cell lymphoma, among others. RISK STRATIFICATION: Age ≥60 years, advanced clinical stage, and high intermediate and high International Prognostic Index scores are associated with worse survival. MANAGEMENT: Combination chemotherapy regimens, such as EPOCH, are recommended. The addition of bortezomib, lenalidomide, or daratumumab might improve outcomes. Including PBL patients and their participation in prospective clinical trials is warranted.

The efficacy and tolerability of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone induction therapy with a thalidomide dose step-up strategy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Thalidomide-containing regimens cause adverse events (AEs) that may require a reduction in treatment intensity or even treatment discontinuation in patients with multiple myeloma. As thalidomide toxicity is dose-dependent, identifying the most appropriate dose for each patient is essential. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a thalidomide dose step-up strategy on treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective observational study included 93 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who received bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD). The present study assessed the incidence of thalidomide dose reduction and discontinuation, the overall dose intensity, and their effects on therapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, this study used Cox proportional hazard models to analyze the factors contributing to thalidomide intolerability. The results showed the overall response rates in all patients and the evaluable patients were 78.5% and 98.7%, respectively. The median PFS in the study cohort was not reached. The most common thalidomide-related AEs were constipation (32.3%) and skin rash (23.7%), resulting in dose reduction and discontinuation rates of 22.6% and 21.5%, respectively. The responders had a significantly higher average thalidomide dose intensity than the nonresponders (88.6% vs. 42.9%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The thalidomide dose step-up approach is a viable option for patients with NDMM receiving VTD induction therapy with satisfactory efficacy and tolerability. However, thalidomide intolerance may lead to dose reduction or discontinuation due to unpredictable AEs, leading to lower dose intensity and potentially inferior treatment outcomes. In addition to a dose step-up strategy, optimal supportive care is critical for patients with multiple myeloma receiving VTD induction therapy.