A roadmap towards improving outcomes in multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a chronic hematologic malignancy that remains incurable, because most patients eventually relapse or become refractory to current treatments. MM is a major health problem, with a globally increasing incidence. While, increase in the choice of MM treatment, including new immunotherapies (bispecific monoclonal antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy), may allow to further improve MM patients' outcomes, some non-therapy-related key issues may represent a pre-requisite towards improving MM outcomes in the next few years. This includes, the necessity of real-world evidence data, of a better definition of frailty, of a dynamic disease risk assessment, of a better definition of high-risk disease, broader accessibility to novel drugs, and to ensure diversity and representation of underrepresented groups. These key issues will be discussed in the current perspective review.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Progression-Free Survival with D-Rd and VRd Based on MAIA and SWOG S0777 Individual Patient-Level Data.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777. METHODS: Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd. RESULTS: PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results. CONCLUSION: This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population.

Multiple drug combinations can be used to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant. Two of these combinations­daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd)­have each been studied in clinical trials (MAIA and SWOG S0777) against the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd), but D-Rd and VRd have not been compared directly in a head-to-head clinical trial. Our study used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials to indirectly compare outcomes observed with D-Rd and VRd. For this indirect comparison between D-Rd and VRd, we first made adjustments to the patient populations of each trial to make them more similar to each other; this helped to make sure any differences we saw in treatment outcomes between D-Rd and VRd would not be because of differences in the characteristics of the patients who participated in the trials. After we made these adjustments to the patient populations of each trial, both D-Rd and VRd lowered the risk of disease progression or death compared with Rd alone. However, when indirectly compared in our study, D-Rd lowered the risk of disease progression or death by 41% compared with VRd. As data directly comparing treatment outcomes for D-Rd and VRd are not available, this indirect comparison can contribute to the information used to make treatment decisions for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant.

Isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone in 1q21+ patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Long-term outcomes in the Phase 3 IKEMA study.

Gain/amplification of 1q21 (≥3 copies), a chromosomal abnormality frequently observed in multiple myeloma, can negatively affect prognosis, due to its involvement in resistance to anti-myeloma therapy and disease progression. In this updated subgroup analysis of the randomized, Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), we evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and depth of response with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) versus Kd, in 1q21+ patients and related subgroups, at long-term follow-up (44.2 months). Our analysis included patients with 1q21+ (≥3 copies, with/without high-risk chromosomal abnormality [HRCA]), isolated 1q21+ (≥3 copies, without HRCA), gain(1q21) (3 copies, with/without HRCA), and amp(1q21) (≥4 copies, with/without HRCA). PFS benefit was achieved with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+ (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92), with isolated 1q21+ (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.92), with gain(1q21), or amp(1q21), consistent with the overall population and prior interim 1q21+ subgroup analyses. Median PFS with Isa-Kd versus Kd was 25.8 versus 16.2 months in 1q21+ patients and 38.2 versus 16.2 months in patients with isolated 1q21+. Clinically meaningful, higher rates of very good partial response or better, complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and MRD negativity and ≥CR were reached with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+, isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), or amp(1q21). In Isa-Kd and Kd, the MRD negativity and ≥CR rate was 29.3% versus 15.4% in 1q21+ patients, 36.2% versus 12.9% in patients with isolated 1q21+, 27.9% versus 13.5% in patients with gain(1q21), and 31.3% versus 20.0% in patients with amp(1q21), respectively. In conclusion, addition of Isa to Kd in triplet combination therapy has shown PFS benefit and deeper responses, compared with Kd, in 1q21+ patients at higher risk of progression, including patients with isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), and amp(1q21), thus supporting Isa-Kd an effective treatment option for patients with RRMM.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with early versus late relapsed multiple myeloma: IKEMA subgroup analysis.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who experience early relapse within 12 months of therapy initiation are considered functional high-risk and represent an unmet need, needing better therapies to improve outcomes. The final IKEMA (clinicaltrials gov. identifier: NCT03275285) progression-free survival (PFS) analysis confirmed the significant PFS improvement reported at interim analysis with isatuximab (Isa) plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd; Isa-Kd) versus Kd in patients with relapsed MM (updated median PFS: 35.7 vs. 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] =0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42- 0.79). This IKEMA subgroup analysis examined efficacy and safety of Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients who experienced early (n=61 [Isa-Kd], n=46 [Kd]) vs. late relapse (n=104 [Isa-Kd], n=72 [Kd]). As expected, more aggressive features in baseline characteristics were observed in early relapse patients. Consistent with IKEMA overall population results, median PFS (early relapse: 24.7 vs. 17.2 months, HR=0.662, 95% CI: 0.407-1.077; late relapse: 42.7 vs. 21.9 months, HR=0.542, 95% CI: 0.355- 0.826), minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) (early relapse: 24.6% vs. 15.2%; late relapse: 37.5% vs. 16.7%), and MRD- complete response (≥CR) rates (early relapse: 18.0% vs. 10.9%; late relapse: 30.8% vs. 13.9%) were higher with Isa-Kd versus Kd, respectively, in both early and late relapse patients. Grade ≥3, serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and death rates were higher in the late relapse Isa-Kd arm. However, the numbers of deaths were low and treatment exposure was significantly longer in Isa-Kd versus Kd late relapse patients. These results support the addition of Isa to Kd as standardof- care therapy for relapsed and/or refractory MM regardless of relapse timing.

Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Lenalidomide-Pretreated Multiple Myeloma: A Subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by Frailty and Bortezomib Dose Adjustment.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are older and/or have comorbidities, requiring dose adjustments. Data from OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928) supported the use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) for treating relapsed/refractory MM. This subanalysis of OPTIMISMM assessed outcome by frailty and/or bortezomib dose adjustment. METHODS: Patient frailty (nonfrail vs. frail) was classified using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data from patients requiring a bortezomib dose reduction, interruption, and/or withdrawal during PVd treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Among 559 patients, 93 of 281 (33.1%) and 93 of 278 (33.5%) patients who received PVd and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), respectively, were frail. Overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were higher in nonfrail vs. frail with PVd treatment (ORR, 82.8% vs. 79.6%; PFS, 14.7 vs. 9.7 months); significantly higher than with Vd regardless of frailty. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher with PVd vs. Vd, regardless of frailty. Discontinuations of PVd were lower in nonfrail vs. frail patients (19.2% vs. 30.1%); the median duration of treatment was similar (DoT; 8.8 vs. 8.9 months, respectively). Patients who received PVd with a bortezomib dose adjustment (n = 240) had a longer median DoT (9.3 vs. 4.5 months) and PFS (12.1 vs. 8.4 months) vs. those without. CONCLUSION: Frail patients treated with PVd demonstrated a higher ORR and a longer PFS and DoT vs. Vd, despite a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs leading to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and/or dexamethasone discontinuation. Therefore, PVd treatment may improve patient outcomes, regardless of frailty.

How I treat multiple myeloma in geriatric patients.

ABSTRACT: Multiple myeloma (MM) is primarily a disease of older patients. Until recently, geriatric aspects in the context of MM have been poorly investigated. Treatment outcomes for geriatric patients with MM are often compromised by comorbidities and an enhanced susceptibility to adverse events from therapy. Assessment of patient frailty has become more frequent and will be useful in the context of significant and continuous advances in therapy. The recent emergence of immunotherapy with CD38 monoclonal antibodies and upcoming immunooncology drugs, such as bispecific antibodies, will lead to additional therapeutic progress. The applicability of these new molecules to older and frail patients is a key clinical question. Here, we present 2 patient cases derived from clinical practice. We review current frailty scores and standards of care for older, newly diagnosed patients with MM, including frail subgroups, and discuss ways to tailor treatment, as well as treatment perspectives in this population.

Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Clinical perspectives on the optimal use of lenalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

To improve the outcomes of patients with the otherwise incurable hematologic malignancy of multiple myeloma (MM), a key paradigm includes initial treatment to establish disease control rapidly followed by maintenance therapy to ensure durability of response with manageable toxicity. However, patients' prognosis worsens after relapse, and the disease burden and drug toxicities are generally more challenging with subsequent lines of therapy. It is therefore particularly important that patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) receive optimal frontline therapy. The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has consistently demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with significant and clinically relevant benefit, including deep and durable responses with improved survival in patients with NDMM regardless of their transplant eligibility. Furthermore, comparative studies evaluating this triplet regimen against both doublet and other triplet regimens have established RVd as a standard of care in this setting based upon its remarkable and concordant efficacy. Given the breadth of clinical data, physician familiarity, inclusion in treatment guidelines, and the emerging potential of RVd-containing quadruplet regimens, RVd will likely continue as a key cornerstone of the treatment of NDMM, and its role will therefore likely continue to grow as a therapeutic backbone in the initial treatment of MM.

Predictors of Lenalidomide Refractory Relapse Timing With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A FIRST Trial Subanalysis.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered an incurable cancer. Patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) are at risk for relapse within 1 year of frontline therapy. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Rd) may be used as treatment for NDMM or relapsed MM, including in patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. PATIENTS: This subanalysis of the phase III FIRST trial characterized patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM who experienced relapse while receiving Rd therapy by relapse timing (early [<12 months] versus late [≥12 months]) and type (CRAB vs. non-CRAB). METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate time-to-event endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Factors associated with the odds of late relapse were identified by logistic regression with univariate and multivariate analyses using a binary outcome (relapse at <12 vs. ≥12 months) in patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific baseline variables. RESULTS: Patients with early refractory relapse had functionally high-risk disease and inferior outcomes. In patients with early relapse versus those with late relapse, median OS (95% CI) was 26.8 months (21.9-32.8) versus 63.9 months (57.0-78.0), median OS from disease progression to death was 19.9 months (16.0-25.5) versus 36.4 months (27.9-47.0), and median PFS from randomization to second progression was 19.1 months (17.3-22.5) versus 42.1 months (37.4-44.9). Lactate dehydrogenase, baseline ß2 microglobulin, and myeloma subtype were shown to predict time to relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians could use these factors to consider more aggressive treatment regimens for those at highest risk of early relapse.

Selinexor-Based Triplet Regimens in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated With Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (αCD38 mAbs) for newly diagnosed or early relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), especially in non-transplant eligible patients, may lead to more patients developing αCD38 mAb-refractory disease earlier in the treatment course with fewer treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the efficacy and safety of selinexor-based triplets (selinexor+dexamethasone [Sd] plus pomalidomide [SPd, n = 23], bortezomib [SVd, n = 16] or carfilzomib (SKd, n = 23]) in a subset of STOMP (NCT02343042) and BOSTON (NCT03110562) study patients treated previously with αCD38 mAbs. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (median 4 prior therapies, range 1 to 11, 90.3% refractory to αCD38 mAb) were included. Overall response rates (ORR) in the SPd, SVd and SKd cohorts were 52.2%, 56.3%, and 65.2%, respectively. Overall response rate was 47.4% among patients who had MM refractory to the third drug reintroduced in the Sd-based triplet. Median progression-free survival in the SPd, SVd, and SKd cohorts was 8.7, 6.7, and 15.0 months, respectively, and median overall survival was 9.6, 16.9, and 33.0 months, respectively. Median time to discontinuation in the SPd, SVd, and SKd cohorts was 4.4, 5.9, and 10.6 months, respectively. The most common hematological adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. Nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea were primarily grade 1/2. Adverse events were generally manageable with standard supportive care and dose modifications. CONCLUSION: Selinexor-based regimens may offer effective and well-tolerated therapy to patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM who had disease previously exposed or refractory to αCD38 mAb therapy and could help address the unmet clinical need in these high-risk patients.

Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: updated results from IKEMA, a randomized Phase 3 study.

Longer-term outcomes with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) were evaluated in the randomized Phase 3 trial IKEMA (NCT03275285), in a prespecified, follow-up analysis of progression-free survival (PFS, primary study endpoint), final complete response (CR) using Hydrashift Isa immunofixation assay, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and safety. Enrolled patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (1-3 prior treatment lines). Isa 10 mg/kg was administered intravenously weekly in cycle 1 then biweekly. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intent-to-treat population (Isa-Kd: n = 179, Kd: n = 123) and safety evaluated in treated patients (Isa-Kd: n = 177, Kd: n = 122). Consistent with the primary interim analysis, the addition of Isa to Kd prolonged PFS (HR 0.58, 95.4% CI: 0.42-0.79; median PFS 35.7 [95% CI: 25.8-44.0] vs 19.2 [95% CI: 15.8-25.0] months). PFS benefit was observed with Isa-Kd across subgroups, including patients with poor prognosis. The stringent CR/CR rate was 44.1% vs 28.5% (odds-ratio: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.26-3.48), the MRD negativity rate 33.5% vs 15.4% (odds-ratio: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.55-4.99) and the MRD negativity CR rate 26.3% vs 12.2%, with Isa-Kd vs Kd. The safety profile of Isa-Kd was similar to that reported in the prior interim analysis. These findings further support Isa-Kd as a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma patients.Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285.

Plain language summary of the MAIA study of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a clinical trial called MAIA. The trial tested 2 combinations of cancer drugs (daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) in people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. None of the participants who took part in the study had been treated before or were eligible to receive stem-cell transplants. HOW WAS THE STUDY IN THIS SUMMARY CONDUCTED?: A total of 737 participants took part. Half of the participants took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, while the other half of the participants took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Once participants started taking the drugs, the cancer was monitored for improvement (response to treatment), worsening (disease progression), or no change. Participants' blood and urine were tested for myeloma protein to measure response to the treatment. Participants were also monitored for side effects. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: After approximately 56 months of follow-up, more participants who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone were alive and had decreased myeloma protein levels (indicating improvement of cancer) than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The most common side effects were abnormally low white and red blood cell counts and increased lung infections. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In the MAIA study, participants with multiple myeloma who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone lived longer and had decreased myeloma protein levels than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone, indicating survival could be more likely with daratumumab added. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02252172 (Phase 3 MAIA study).

Current Advances in Multiple Myeloma: A Post International Myeloma Society (IMS 2022) Round Table Debate by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH).

This round table discussion organized by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH) was dedicated to the 19th annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS), which was held in Los Angeles between the 25th and 27th August 2022. After some key meetings of the discipline of the field of clinical hematology, the IACH organizes regular round table discussion in order to summarize the flow of information and get the opinion of a panel of experts and the key take-home messages. As part of this discussion, the panellists debated 6 key topics: disease monitoring, management of high-risk multiple myeloma (MM), induction for newly-diagnosed MM, management of relapsed MM, immune reconstitution, and vaccination and cellular therapy in MM.

Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Overall Survival in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial. RESULTS: Using D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: Our simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.