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.

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.

The addition of bortezomib to rituximab, high-dose cytarabine and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma-a randomized, open-label phase III trial of the European mantle cell lymphoma network.

The therapy of relapsed or refractory (r/r) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients remains a major clinical challenge to date. We conducted a randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase-III trial hypothesizing superior efficacy of rituximab, high-dose cytarabine and dexamethasone with bortezomib (R-HAD + B) versus without (R-HAD) in r/r MCL ineligible for or relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), secondary endpoints included response rates, progression free survival, overall survival, and safety. In total, 128 of 175 planned patients were randomized to R-HAD + B (n = 64) or R-HAD (n = 64). Median TTF was 12 vs. 2.6 months (p = 0.045, MIPI-adjusted HR 0.69; 95%CI 0.47-1.02). Overall and complete response rates were 63 vs. 45% (p = 0.049) and 42 vs. 19% (p = 0.0062). A significant treatment effect was seen in the subgroup of patients >65 years (aHR 0.48, 0.29-0.79) and without previous ASCT (aHR 0.52, 0.28-0.96). Toxicity was mostly hematological and attributable to the chemotherapeutic backbone. Grade ≥3 leukocytopenia and lymphocytopenia were more common in R-HAD + B without differences in severe infections between both arms. Bortezomib in combination with chemotherapy can be effective in r/r MCL and should be evaluated further as a therapeutic option, especially if therapy with BTK inhibitors is not an option. Trial registration: NCT01449344.

Characteristics and incidence of infections in patients with multiple myeloma treated by bispecific antibodies: a national retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are an effective treatment used in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Despite a well-tolerated safety profile, infectious events appear to be frequent in clinical trials. Real-world data on epidemiology, characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of infections in patients treated with BsAb are still needed. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentre study in BsAb-treated patients with multiple myeloma was performed in 14 French centres from December 2020 to February 2023. The primary objective was to describe the incidence of infections that required hospitalization, specific treatment, or adaptation in BsAb administration. RESULTS: Among 229 patients with multiple myeloma treated with BsAb, 153 (67%) received teclistamab, 47 (20%) received elranatamab, and 29 (13%) talquetamab. We reported a total of 234 infections, including 123 (53%) of grade of ≥3. Predominant infections affected the respiratory tract (n = 116, 50%) followed by bacteraemias (n = 36, 15%). The hospitalization rate was 56% (n = 131), and 20 (9%) infections resulted in death. Global cumulative incidence of the first infection was 70% in all patients, 73% in patients treated with B-cell maturation antigen-targeting, and 51% with GPRC5D-targeting BsAb. In univariate analyses, corticosteroids for cytokine release syndrome (CRS)/immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were associated with a higher risk of first infection (HR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.38-3.28), whereas GPRC5D-targeting BsAb and anti-bacterial prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk (HR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.3-0.94 and HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.9). Fine and Gray multivariate model found that only corticosteroids for CRS/ICANS were correlated with a higher risk of first infection (HR = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.27-3.19). DISCUSSIONS: The implementation of preventive measures that aim to mitigate the risk of infection under BsAb is pivotal, notably in patients who received corticosteroids for CRS/ICANS.

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.

INSURE: a pooled analysis of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma in routine practice.

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and multiple myeloma patients in real-life: Results of a large survey and clinical guidance recommendations from the IFM group.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a critical issue in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), particularly when immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) combined with dexamethasone therapy are being prescribed as first-line and relapse therapy. One possible explanation for the persistent high rates of VTE, is the use of inappropriate thromboprophylaxis strategies for patients starting antimyeloma treatment. To tackle the issue, the Intergroupe francophone du myélome (IFM) offered convenient guidance for VTE thromboprophylaxis in MM patients initiating systemic therapy. This guidance is mainly supported by the results of a large survey on the clinical habits regarding VTE of physicians who are substantially involved in daily care of MM patients. VTE prophylaxis should be considered for all patients treated with IMiDs in combination with dexamethasone, in the absence of significant comorbidities, such as renal failure or bleeding risk. Anticoagulant should be preferred to antiplatelet agents for thromboprophylaxis. Despite the absence of large randomized controlled trials comparing those attitudes/options, available data on direct oral anticoagulants, which are already used in daily management of MM patients, are consistent with their potential usefulness for VTE prophylaxis in such patients. However, in order to implement a personalized continuous improvement strategy, clinicians must to be organized to collect all the data regarding this management. In other situations, thromboprophylaxis should be evaluated by using risk models and after careful evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio.

Long-term analysis of the RiBVD phase II trial reveals the unfavorable impact of TP53 mutations and hypoalbuminemia in older adults with mantle cell lymphoma; for the LYSA group.

Between 2011 and 2012, a phase II trial evaluated the use of the RiBVD (Rituximab, Bendamustine, Velcade and Dexamethasone) combination as first-line treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients aged over 65. We have now re-examined the classic prognostic factors, adding an assessment of the mutation status of TP53. Patients (n=74; median age 73 years) were treated with the RiBVD combination. Median Progression Free Survival (mPFS) was 79 months, and median Overall Survival (mOS) was 111 months. TP53 mutation status was available for 54/74 (73%) patients. TP53 mutations (TP53mt) were found in 12 patients (22.2%). In multivariate analysis, among the prognostic factors (PF) evaluated, only TP53mt and an albumin level below 3.6 g/dL (Alb<3.6 g/dL) were independently associated with a shorter mPFS. A hazard ratio (HR) of 3.16 (1.3-9.9, p=0.014) was obtained for TP53mt versus TP53wt, and 3.6 (1.39-9.5, p=0.009) for Alb<3.6 g/dL vs Alb≥3.6 g/dL. In terms of mOS, multivariate analysis identified three PFs: TP53mt (HR: 5.9 (1.77-19.5, p=0.004)), Alb<3.6 g/dL (HR: 5.2 (1.46-18.5, p=0.011)), and ECOG=2 (HR: 3.7 (1.31-10.6, p=0.014)). Finally, a score combining TP53 status and albumin level distinguished three populations based on the presence of 0, 1, or 2 PF. For these populations, mPFS was 7.8 years, 28 months and 2.5 months, respectively. Our prolonged follow-up confirmed the efficacy of the RiBVD regimen, comparing it favorably to other regimens. TP53mt and hypoalbuminemia emerge as strong PF that can be easily integrated into prognostic scores for older adult patients with MCL.

Integrated analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone or bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone induction in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Objective: Providing the most efficacious frontline treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is critical for patient outcomes. No direct comparisons have been made between bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone (VTD) induction regimens in transplant-eligible NDMM. Methods: An integrated analysis was performed using patient data from four trials meeting prespecified eligibility criteria: two using VRD (PETHEMA GEM2012 and IFM 2009) and two using VTD (PETHEMA GEM2005 and IFM 2013-04). Results: The primary endpoint was met, with VRD demonstrating a noninferior rate of at least very good partial response (≥ VGPR) after induction vs VTD. GEM comparison demonstrated improvement in the ≥ VGPR rate after induction for VRD vs VTD (66.3% vs 51.2%; P = .00281) that increased after transplant (74.4% vs 53.5%). Undetectable minimal residual disease rates post induction (46.7% vs 34.9%) and post transplant (62.4% vs 47.3%) support the benefit of VRD vs VTD. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study and/or treatment discontinuation were less frequent with VRD (3%, GEM2012; 6%, IFM 2009) vs VTD (11%, IFM 2013-04). Conclusion: These results supported the benefit of VRD over VTD for induction in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. The trials included are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01916252, NCT01191060, NCT00461747, and NCT01971658).

Hairy cell leukaemia with unusual BRAF mutations.

Hairy cell leukaemia (HCL) diagnosis is based on the morphologic detection of circulating abnormal hairy cells in the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow, an HCL immunological score of 3 or 4 based on the expression of the CD11c, CD25, CD103 and CD123 and also the presence of a BRAF V600E activating mutation in the B-raf proto-oncogene (BRAF gene) (7q34). When using new generation sequencing of 21 targeted genes in 124 HCL patients, we identified a cohort of 6/124 (2%) patients with unusual BRAF mutations: two patients presented non-V600 mutations (BRAF F595L, BRAF W604L respectively) and four other patients silent BRAF mutations. When using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) three of the four patients with concomitant BRAF V600E and silent mutation were negative. The respective role of these mutations in the occurrence of HCL or its progression remains to be clarified, but BRAF sequencing is necessary in case of negative BRAF V600E by ddPCR.

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).

Real-world study of the efficacy and safety of belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma based on data from the nominative ATU in France: the IFM 2020-04 study.

Belantamab mafodotin (BM) is an anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate (GSK2857916) that represents an alternative option in multiple myeloma. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of BM in a real-world setting in patients who benefited from an early access program. We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Eligibility criteria were treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in monotherapy in adult patients who have received at least three lines of therapy previously, including at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and whose disease progressed during the last treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the overall survival (OS). Between November 2019 and December 2020, 106 patients were treated with BM; 97 were eligible for the efficacy evaluation and 104 for safety. The median age was 66 (range, 37-82) years. High-risk cytogenetics were identified in 40.9% of patients. Fifty-five (56.7%) patients were triple-class refractory and 11 (11.3%) were penta-class refractory. The median number of prior lines of treatment was five (range, 3-12). The median number of BM cycles administered was three (range, 1-22). The overall response rate at best response was 38.1% (37/97). The median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9-15.3), and median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI: 1.9-4.7). The median duration of response was 9 months (range, 4.65-10.4). Treatment was delayed for 55 (52.9%) patients including 36.5% for treatment-related toxicity. Ophthalmic adverse events, mainly grade ≤2, were the most common toxicity (48%). The occurrence of keratopathy was 37.5%. Overall, our data are concordant with the results from DREAMM-2 in terms of efficacy and safety on a non-biased population.

Pomalidomide and dexamethasone until progression after first salvage therapy in multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide maintenance in myeloma is well established. Nevertheless, pomalidomide could provide an alternative. Myeloma patients in first relapse, initially treated in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial, and subsequently in the IFM 2013-01 phase 2 trial, received four cycles of salvage therapy with pomalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (PCD) with transplantation plus 2 PCD consolidation or without transplantation but with 5 PCD and for all patients pomalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance therapy. This consisted of 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly until progression. The primary endpoint was an improved response to treatment. A total of 75/100 patients reached therapy. The median follow-up time was 73 months. The median duration of treatment was 23.7 months. One third of patients improved their response from the initiation of treatment: 11%, 19% and 4% to a very good partial response, complete response or stringent complete response respectively. The median progression-free survival time was 33.2 months and the median overall survival time was not reached. Among the 75 patients, the reasons for pomalidomide discontinuation were progressive disease (54%), adverse events (AEs) (30%), investigator discretion (11%) and consent withdrawal (5%). Grade (G) 3/4 haematological AEs included neutropenia (51%) and lymphopenia (35%); G3/4 drug-related non-haematological AEs (>5%) comprised 13% infections. Long-term administration of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is feasible and one third of the patients improved their response.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of 318 families with familial monoclonal gammopathy: A multicenter Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome study.

Familial forms of monoclonal gammopathy, defined as multiple myeloma (MM) or Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS), are relatively infrequent and most series reported in the literature describe a limited number of families. MM rarely occurs in a familial context. MGUS is observed much more commonly, which can in some cases evolve toward full-blown MM. Although recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities have been described in tumor cells of sporadic cases of MM, the pathogenesis of familial MM remains largely unexplained. In order to identify genetic factors predisposing to familial monoclonal gammopathy, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome identified 318 families with at least two confirmed cases of monoclonal gammopathy. There were 169 families with parent/child pairs and 164 families with cases in at least two siblings, compatible with an autosomal transmission. These familial cases were compared with sporadic cases who were matched for age at diagnosis, sex and immunoglobulin isotype, with 10 sporadic cases for each familial case. The gender distribution, age and immunoglobulin subtypes of familial cases were unremarkable in comparison to sporadic cases. With a median follow-up of 7.4 years after diagnosis, the percentage of MGUS cases having evolved to MM was 3%. The median overall survival of the 148 familial MM cases was longer than that of matched sporadic cases, with projected values of 7.6 and 16.1 years in patients older and younger than 65 years, respectively. These data suggest that familial cases of monoclonal gammopathy are similar to sporadic cases in terms of clinical presentation and carry a better prognosis.

Biallelic deletion of 1p32 defines ultra-high-risk myeloma, but monoallelic del(1p32) remains a strong prognostic factor.

Cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are known to be the preponderant prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Our team has recently developed a prognostic score based on 6 CAs, with which del(1p32) appears to be the second worst abnormality after del(17p). This study aimed to confirm the adverse effect of 1p32 deletion in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Among 2551 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 11% were harboring del(1p32). Their overall survival (OS) was significantly inferior compared with patients without del(1p32) (median OS: 49 months vs 124 months). Likewise, progression-free survival was significantly shorter. More importantly, biallelic del(1p32) conferred a dramatically poorer prognosis than a monoallelic del(1p32) (median OS: 25 months vs 60 months). As expected, the OS of patients with del(1p32) significantly decreased when this abnormality was associated with other high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), or gain(1q)]. In the multivariate analysis, del(1p32) appeared as a negative prognostic factor; after adjustment for age and treatment, the risk of progression was 1.3 times higher among patients harboring del(1p32), and the risk of death was 1.9 times higher. At the dawn of risk-adapted treatment strategies, we have confirmed the adverse effect of del(1p32) in multiple myeloma and the relevance of its assessment at diagnosis.

In Multiple Myeloma, High-Risk Secondary Genetic Events Observed at Relapse Are Present From Diagnosis in Tiny, Undetectable Subclonal Populations.

PURPOSE: Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by copy number abnormalities (CNAs), some of which influence patient outcomes and are sometimes observed only at relapse(s), suggesting their acquisition during tumor evolution. However, the presence of micro-subclones may be missed in bulk analyses. Here, we use single-cell genomics to determine how often these high-risk events are missed at diagnosis and selected at relapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 81 patients with plasma cell dyscrasias using single-cell CNA sequencing. Sixty-six patients were selected at diagnosis, nine at first relapse, and six in presymptomatic stages. A total of 956 newly diagnosed patients with MM and patients with first relapse MM have been identified retrospectively with required cytogenetic data to evaluate enrichment of CNA risk events and survival impact. RESULTS: A total of 52,176 MM cells were analyzed. Seventy-four patients (91%) had 2-16 subclones. Among these patients, 28.7% had a subclone with high-risk features (del(17p), del(1p32), and 1q gain) at diagnosis. In a patient with a subclonal 1q gain at diagnosis, we analyzed the diagnosis, postinduction, and first relapse samples, which showed a rise of the high-risk 1q gain subclone (16%, 70%, and 92%, respectively). In our clinical database, we found that the 1q gain frequency increased from 30.2% at diagnosis to 43.6% at relapse (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.00). We subsequently performed survival analyses, which showed that the progression-free and overall survival curves were superimposable between patients who had the 1q gain from diagnosis and those who seemingly acquired it at relapse. This strongly suggests that many patients had 1q gains at diagnosis in microclones that were missed by bulk analyses. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that identifying these scarce aggressive cells may necessitate more aggressive treatment as early as diagnosis to prevent them from becoming the dominant clone.

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

High-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221.