Subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

Treatment benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains suboptimal. The phase 3 ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338) showed that isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolongs median progression-free survival (mPFS) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM compared the benefit of isatuximab in high-risk [defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)] versus standard-risk patients. The efficacy of isatuximab in patients with gain(1q21) abnormality was also assessed in a retrospective subgroup analysis. In ICARIA-MM, 307 patients received isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, and every other week thereafter. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved mPFS (7·5 vs 3·7 months; HR, 0·66; 95% CI, 0·33-1·28) and overall response rate (ORR, 50·0% vs 16·7%) in high-risk patients. In patients with isolated gain(1q21), isatuximab addition improved mPFS (11·2 vs 4·6 months; HR, 0·50; 95% CI, 0·28-0·88) and ORR (53·6% vs 27·6%). More grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in high-risk patients receiving isatuximab (95·7%) versus the control group (67·6%); however, isatuximab did not increase events leading to discontinuation or treatment-related mortality. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone provides a consistent benefit over pomalidomide-dexamethasone treatment in RRMM patients regardless of cytogenetic risk.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis: results from a large cohort of patients with long follow-up.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) is a standard treatment in relapsed/refractory immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis (RRAL). We retrospectively investigated toxicity, efficacy and prognostic markers in 260 patients with RRAL. Patients received a median of two prior treatment lines (68% had been bortezomib-refractory; 33% had received high-dose melphalan). The median treatment duration was four cycles. The 3-month haematological response rate was 31% [very good haematological response (VGHR) in 18%]. The median follow-up was 56·5 months and the median overall survival (OS) and haematological event-free survival (haemEFS) were 32 and 9 months. The 2-year dialysis rate was 15%. VGHR resulted in better OS (62 vs. 26 months, P < 0·001). Cardiac progression predicted worse survival (22 vs. 40 months, P = 0·027), although N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) increase was frequently observed. Multivariable analysis identified these prognostic factors: NT-proBNP for OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1·71; P < 0·001]; gain 1q21 for haemEFS (HR 1·68, P = 0·014), with a trend for OS (HR 1·47, P = 0·084); difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) and light chain isotype for OS (HR 2·22, P < 0·001; HR 1·62, P = 0·016) and haemEFS (HR 1·88, P < 0·001; HR 1·59, P = 0·008). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (HR 0·71, P = 0·004) and 24-h proteinuria (HR 1·10, P = 0·004) were prognostic for renal survival. In conclusion, clonal and organ biomarkers at baseline identify patients with favourable outcome, while VGHR and cardiac progression define prognosis during RD treatment.

Proteasome inhibitors and IMiDs can overcome some high-risk cytogenetics in multiple myeloma but not gain 1q21.

Chromosomal aberrations have significant prognostic importance in multiple myeloma (MM). However, proteasome inhibitors (PI) and IMiDs may partly overcome the poor prognostic impact of some of them. In this study, we investigated a population-based consecutive cohort newly diagnosed patients with MM admitted during a defined time period to hospitals in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The impact of treatment modality on the prognostic importance of specific chromosomal aberration was investigated, with special reference to gain 1q21. The median follow-up of patients still alive at analysis was 40 months for the high-dose (HDT)-treated ones and 29 months for the whole population. Three hundred forty-seven patients with a known 1q21 status were included in this study. The 347 patients were divided into three groups, that is, 119 patients with the 1q21 gain, 105 patients with other aberrations (OA), that is, del(13q), del(17p), t(4,14), and/or (14;16), and 123 patients with no aberrations (NA). The groups were compared in terms of overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and response. The 3-yr OS for patients with gain 1q21 was 60% compared to patients with OA 74% and NO 82% (gain 1q21 vs. NO P < 0.001; gain 1q21 vs. OA P = 0.095). If treated with PI or IMiDs, the 3-yr OS was 58% for patients with gain 1q21 compared to patients with OA 78% and NO 78%, respectively (P = 0.041, P = 0.140). In HDT patients, the 3-yr OS was 69% for patients with gain 1q21 compared to patients with OA 84% and NO 88%, respectively (P < 0.008, P = 0.600). Thus, neither HDT nor using PI or IMiDs could overcome the poor prognostic impact of gain 1q21, while these drugs and HDT seemed to improve OS in patients with OA, approaching the survival in NO. Further, gain 1q21 appears to be one of the most important poor prognostic chromosomal aberrations in multiple myeloma with current treatments. Trials using new drugs or allogeneic transplantation are warranted.

Ex vivo drug sensitivity screening in multiple myeloma identifies drug combinations that act synergistically.

The management of multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging: An assortment of available drug combinations adds complexity to treatment selection, and treatment resistance frequently develops. Given the heterogeneous nature of MM, personalized testing tools are required to identify drug sensitivities. To identify drug sensitivities in MM cells, we established a drug testing pipeline to examine ex vivo drug responses. MM cells from 44 patients were screened against 30 clinically relevant single agents and 44 double- and triple-drug combinations. We observed variability in responses across samples. The presence of gain(1q21) was associated with low sensitivity to venetoclax, and decreased ex vivo responses to dexamethasone reflected the drug resistance observed in patients. Less heterogeneity and higher efficacy was detected with many combinations compared to the corresponding single agents. We identified new synergistic effects of melflufen plus panobinostat using low concentrations (0.1-10 nm and 8 nm, respectively). In agreement with clinical studies, clinically approved combinations, such as triple combination of selinexor plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone, acted synergistically, and synergies required low drug concentrations (0.1 nm bortezomib, 10 nm selinexor and 4 nm dexamethasone). In summary, our drug screening provided results within a clinically actionable 5-day time frame and identified synergistic drug efficacies in patient-derived MM cells that may aid future therapy choices.