[Nurturing and growing a community of department heads: Act 2 in haematology]. / Faire vivre et grandir une communauté de chefs de service : acte 2 en hématologie.

In response to the French hospital system crisis and the challenges faced by the heads of departments, we have undertaken an initiative to create a community of heads of haematology departments willing to assist each other. Our inaugural seminar, held in January 2023, established the foundational "core" group of heads of department. Throughout 2023, this emerging community has prospered, offering sustained support to peers. In January 2024, we broadened our community to include other heads of departments, following a second seminar gathering 36 participants. During this event, we took the time to exchange thoughts and reflect on our missions. Building on the experience of guest speakers and employing methods of co-development and co-construction in plenary sessions, small-group workshops, and social gathering, we were able to discover and experience the collective intelligence, creativity, strength, and support stemming from such a group. This peer community of heads of departments stands as a powerful tool for management support, whereby personal experiences nourish and enrich the experience of others. We hope that our initiative will inspire heads of departments from other specialties so that, together, we can better work towards our missions as heads of departments and collaborate on rebuilding the hospital "from the bottom up".

Efficacy and safety of teclistamab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after BCMA-targeting therapies.

Teclistamab is a B­cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed bispecific antibody approved for the treatment of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. In the phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study, a cohort of patients who had prior BCMA-targeted therapy (antibody-drug conjugate [ADC] or CAR-T cell therapy) were enrolled to explore teclistamab in patients previously exposed to anti-BCMA treatment. At median follow-up of 28.0 months (range, 0.7-31.1), 40 patients with prior BCMA-targeted therapy had received subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg weekly teclistamab. Median prior lines of treatment were 6 (range, 3-14). Prior anti-BCMA therapy included ADC (n = 29), CAR-T (n = 15), or both (n = 4). Overall response rate was 52.5%; 47.5% of patients achieved very good partial response or better and 30.0% achieved complete response or better. Median duration of response was 14.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.5 months, and median overall survival was 15.5 months. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were neutropenia, infections, cytokine release syndrome, and anemia; cytopenias and infections were the most common grade ≥3 TEAEs. Infections occurred in 28 (70.0%) patients (n = 13 [32.5%] maximum grade 3/4; n = 4 [10%] grade 5). Prior to starting teclistamab, baseline BCMA expression and immune characteristics were unaffected by prior anti-BCMA treatment. The MajesTEC-1 trial cohort C results demonstrate favorable efficacy and safety of teclistamab in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM and prior anti-BCMA treatment. NCT03145181; NCT04557098.

The EMMY longitudinal, cohort study: real-world data to describe multiple myeloma management and outcomes as more therapeutic options emerge.

The therapeutic management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is complex. Despite substantial advances, MM remains incurable, and management involves cycles of treatment response, disease relapse, and further therapy. Currently, evidence to support the therapeutic decision is limited. Thus, the EMMY longitudinal, real-world study was designed to annually assess therapeutic management of MM in France to provide evidence to support physicians. During an annual prespecified 3-month recruitment period, eligible patients will be identified from their medical records. Adults aged ≥18 years diagnosed with symptomatic MM and requiring systemic treatment will be eligible. The primary objective, the evolution of MM therapeutic management, will be described, as well as the impact on the following outcomes: time-to-next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The study plans to recruit 5000 patients over 6 years: 700 to 900 patients annually. EMMY is a unique opportunity to collect real-world data to describe the evolving MM therapeutic landscape and record outcomes in France. These data will provide annual snapshots of various aspects of MM management. This knowledge will provide physicians with real-life, evidence-based data for therapeutic decision-making and ultimately improve treatment for MM patients.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): overall survival analysis of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Previous analyses of the IKEMA trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients with this disease who received isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone as compared with those who received carfilzomib-dexamethasone alone. Herein, we report the analysis of overall survival from the IKEMA trial. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 study included patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged 18 years or older, who had received one to three previous lines of treatment from 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were randomly allocated (3:2) to treatment with either isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, patients received intravenous isatuximab (10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 28-day cycle, and days 1 and 15 of subsequent 28-day cycles). In both treatment groups, intravenous carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of the first cycle; and 56 mg/m2 on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of the first cycle, and days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of subsequent cycles) and intravenous or oral dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23) were administered. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, which was reported previously. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request to discontine. The overall survival analysis reported here was planned to be conducted 3 years after the primary progression-free survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Additional analyses were conducted on the secondary endpoints of time to next treatment and second-progression-free survival. Reported p values are non-inferential due to hierarchical testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03275285). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated: 179 (59%) to the isatuximab group and 123 (41%) to the control group. 169 (56%) patients were male, 133 (44%) were female, 214 (71%) were White, 50 (17%) were Asian, nine (3%) were Black or African American, and three (1%) were multiracial. At data cutoff for this overall survival analysis (Feb 7, 2023), 79 (44%) overall survival events in the isatuximab group and 59 (48%) in the control group had occurred (median follow-up 56·61 months [IQR 54·90-58·02]). Median overall survival (in months) was not reached (NR; 95% CI 52·17-NR) in the isatuximab group and was 50·60 months (38·93-NR) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·855 [95% CI 0·608-1·202], nominal one-sided p=0·18). Survival probability at 48 months was 59·7% (95% CI 52·0-66·7) in the isatuximab group and 52·2% (95% CI 42·7-60·8) in the control group (based on Kaplan-Meier analysis). Improvements in time to next treatment (HR 0·583 [95% CI 0·429-0·792], nominal one-sided p=0·0002) and second-progression-free survival (0·663 [0·491-0·895], nominal one-sided p=0·0035) were observed in the isatuximab group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion reactions (82 [46%] patients in the isatuximab group and four [3%] in the control group) and upper respiratory tract infections (71 [40%] and 34 [28%], respectively). Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups (24 [14%] in the isatuximab group and 22 [18%] in the control group), despite an additional 30 weeks of exposure in the isatuximab group. 12 (7%) patients in the isatuximab group and six (5%) patients in the control group had a treatment-related adverse event with a fatal outcome during study treatment. INTERPRETATION: At the time of the current analysis, a difference in overall survival could not be detected between the treatment groups, and no new safety signals were observed. Collectively, the evidence suggests that isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone is a key treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Sanofi.

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.

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 .

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.

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.).

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in real-world: The retrospective IMAGE study.

BACKGROUND: IMAGE is a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in early access programs (EAPs) in France with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-Pd). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with RRMM who received ≥1 dose of Isa under the EAPs between July 29, 2019 and August 30, 2020 were included. Effectiveness endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates. Verbatim terms for adverse events (AEs) were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities and not graded for severity. RESULTS: A total of 294 and 299 patients were included in the effectiveness and safety populations, respectively. IMAGE included patients who received one prior line of treatment (10.2%) and were daratumumab-refractory (19.1%). At median follow-up of 14.2 months, median PFS in the effectiveness population was 12.4 months (95% CI 9.0-15.0). Overall response and very good partial response rates were 46.3% and 27.9%, respectively. Subgroup analyses reflected similar results. In the safety population, 26.4% of patients reported at least one AE; the most common any-grade AE was neutropenia (9.4%). CONCLUSION: IMAGE demonstrated Isa-Pd had meaningful effectiveness in median PFS and depth of response and no new safety signals in a real-world context, consistent with clinical trial results.

Effectiveness and safety of belantamab mafodotin in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in real-world setting: The ALFA study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this noninterventional, retrospective ALFA study was to describe belantamab mafodotin effectiveness and safety in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a real-world setting in France. METHODS: Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 184 patients initiating belantamab mafodotin treatment, the overall response rate was 32.7% (≥very good partial response [VGPR] 20.4%, partial response [PR] 12.3%). The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 3.3), and median OS (mOS) was 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.3, 11.6). According to best response, mPFS was 20.6 months (95% CI: 12.1, not reached [NR]) in patients with ≥VGPR and 7.1 months (95% CI: 4.6, 9.4) in patients with PR; mOS was NR in patients with ≥VGPR and 17.5 months (95% CI: 7.7, NR) in patients with PR. For both OS and PFS, no differences were found in subgroups of interest. The adverse events (AEs) reported in 159 patients (86.4%) were mostly ocular AEs. CONCLUSIONS: ALFA, the largest real-world cohort conducted so far, confirms the results of belantamab mafodotin as reported in the DREAMM-2 clinical trial. The clinical benefit is significant as long as the patient is a responder.

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.

Twice-weekly induction with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) combination followed by extended IRd consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Results of the phase 2 study IFM2014-03.

Therapeutic strategies for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) have considerably improved during the last 10 years. The IFM2014-03 trial proposed an all-oral triplet induction/consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible NDMM patients, followed by lenalidomide maintenance. Induction consisted of three 21-day cycles of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd), before high-dose Melphalan with transplant followed by eight 28-day cycles of IRd consolidation before 13 cycles of lenalidomide maintenance. Forty-six patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of therapy, and 39 entered the maintenance phase. The primary end-point was stringent complete response after consolidation, and was achieved in nine patients (20.9%, 90% CI 11.4-33.7; p = 0.998). Ten patients (24.4%) had an undetectable minimal residual disease. The overall response rate was 95.7%. The 3-year progression-free survival was 66.3%. No unexpected toxicities were recorded, and only eight patients suspended from any study drug. Of note, 21 (45.7%) patients reported peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grades 1-2 with no serious adverse events). IRd induction and consolidation with transplant before lenalidomide maintenance shows lower response rates compared to other triplet therapies. It could be an alternative for patients who require an all-oral regimen and/or with pre-existent PN, especially if quadruplet regimens including anti-CD38 antibody are not available.

International Myeloma Working Group immunotherapy committee consensus guidelines and recommendations for optimal use of T-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies in multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, despite the development of numerous drug classes and combinations that have contributed to improved overall survival. Immunotherapies directed against cancer cell-surface antigens, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibodies, have recently received regulatory approvals and shown unprecedented efficacy. However, these immunotherapies have unique mechanisms of action and toxicities that are different to previous treatments for myeloma, so experiences from clinical trials and early access programmes are essential for providing specific recommendations for management of patients, especially as these agents become available across many parts of the world. Here, we provide expert consensus clinical practice guidelines for the use of bispecific antibodies for the treatment of myeloma. The International Myeloma Working Group is also involved in the collection of prospective real-time data of patients treated with such immunotherapies, with the aim of learning continuously and adapting clinical practices to optimise the management of patients receiving immunotherapies.

Impact of prior lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitor exposure on the effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis from the INSURE study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA, and REMIX. RESULTS: Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide-naïve/-exposed/-refractory and 37/411/110 were PI-naïve/-exposed/-refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable. CONCLUSION: IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide- and/or PI-nonrefractory versus refractory patients.

RAS/RAF landscape in monoclonal plasma cell conditions.

ABSTRACT: Multiple myeloma is characterized by a huge heterogeneity at the molecular level. The RAS/RAF pathway is the most frequently mutated, in ∼50% of the patients. However, these mutations are frequently subclonal, suggesting a secondary event. Because these genes are part of our routine next-generation sequencing panel, we analyzed >10 000 patients with different plasma cell disorders to describe the RAS/RAF landscape. In this large cohort of patients, almost 61% of the patients presented a RAS/RAF mutation at diagnosis or relapse, but much lower frequencies occurred in presymptomatic cases. Of note, the mutations were different from that observed in solid tumors (higher proportions of Q61 mutations). In 29 patients with 2 different mutations, we were able to perform single-cell sequencing, showing that in most cases, mutations occurred in different subclones, suggesting an ongoing mutational process. These findings suggest that the RAS/RAF pathway is not an attractive target, both on therapeutic and residual disease assessment points of view.

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.

Recent Developments in Convenience of Administration of the Anti-CD38 Antibody Isatuximab: Subcutaneous Delivery and Fast Intravenous Infusion in Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Isatuximab-based combinations are among the accepted standard-of-care regimens for early-line treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), based on the results of the Phase 3 ICARIA-MM and IKEMA trials. Further study findings have shown benefit with Isa-based combinations in patients with newly diagnosed MM, as reported from the randomized GMMG-HD7 and CONCEPT trials. Isa is currently approved in various countries for intravenous (IV) administration in patients with RRMM. A more convenient route of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC) injection, and faster IV infusion may substantially increase convenience of treatment. In this review, we outline evidence emerging from clinical trials that shows increasing clinical applicability of Isa across the MM therapeutic spectrum. We then review recent study results demonstrating that new treatment modalities, either SC Isa administration via an on-body delivery system (OBDS) or fast, 30-minute, fixed-volume IV infusion, are safe and effective, and enhance convenience of treatment with Isa for MM patients and healthcare providers. In the recently reported Phase 1b study, the safety profile and efficacy of Isa administered SC plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone were comparable to those observed with Isa administered IV plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in the control arm and in the ICARIA-MM trial. Analysis of patient-reported outcomes indicated patient confidence in SC Isa administration and satisfaction with treatment delivery by OBDS. These findings point to SC administration as the preferred route for future treatment with Isa-based combinations, as well as to the use of fast, 30-minute IV infusions in settings where SC administration of Isa might not be available.

Daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with tandem transplant for high-risk newly diagnosed myeloma.

ABSTRACT: High-risk (HR) cytogenetics are associated with poor outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and dedicated studies should address this difficult-to-treat population. The phase 2 study 2018-04 from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome evaluated feasibility of an intensive strategy with quadruplet induction and consolidation plus tandem transplant in HR transplant-eligible (TE) NDMM. HR cytogenetics were defined by presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). Treatment consisted of daratumumab-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (D-KRd) induction, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), D-KRd consolidation, second ASCT, and daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance. The primary end point was feasibility. Fifty patients with previously untreated NDMM were included. Median age was 57. Del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were found in 40%, 52%, and 20% of patients, respectively. At data cutoff, the study met the primary end point with 36 patients completing second transplant. Twenty patients discontinued the study due to stem cell collection failure (n = 8), disease progression (n = 7), adverse event (n = 4), or consent withdrawal (n = 1). Grade 3 to 4 D-KRd induction/consolidation-related adverse events (>5% of patients) were neutropenia (39%), anemia (12%), thrombocytopenia (7%), and infection (6%). The overall response rate was 100% for patients completing second transplant, including 81% complete response. Premaintenance minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (10-6) was 94%. After a median follow-up of 33 months, the 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 80% and 91%, respectively. In conclusion, D-KRd with tandem transplant is feasible in patients with HR TE-NDMM and resulted in high response rates and PFS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03606577.