Search

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is one of the most important prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM) and a valid surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Recently, MRD negativity was approved as an early clinical endpoint for accelerated drug approval in MM. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence of MRD utility in real-world setting. In this retrospective multicenter study, we report outcomes of 331 newly diagnosed MM patients with MRD evaluation at Day+100 after autologous stem cell transplantation using flow cytometry with a median limit of detection of 0.001%. MRD negativity was reached in 47% of patients and was associated with significantly prolonged median PFS (49.2 months vs. 18.4 months; hazard ratios (HR) = 0.37; p < 0.001) and OS (not reached vs. 74.9 months; HR = 0.50; p = 0.007). Achieving MRD negativity was associated with PFS improvements regardless of age, International Staging System (ISS) stage, lactate dedydrogenase (LDH) level, or cytogenetic risk. Importantly, MRD positive patients benefited from lenalidomide maintenance versus no maintenance (18-months PFS: 81% vs. 46%; HR = 0.24; p = 0.002) while in MRD negative patients such benefit was not observed (p = 0.747). The outcomes of our real-world study recapitulate results from clinical trials including meta-analyses and support the idea that MRD positive patients profit more from lenalidomide maintenance than MRD negative ones., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non-high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non-high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non-high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non-high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients' data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1-3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The existence of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and light-chain (AL) amyloidosis who present with a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)-like phenotype has been hypothesized, but methods to identify this subgroup are not standardized and its clinical significance is not properly validated., Patients and Methods: An algorithm to identify patients having MGUS-like phenotype was developed on the basis of the percentages of total bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) and of clonal PC within the BM PC compartment, determined at diagnosis using flow cytometry in 548 patients with MGUS and 2,011 patients with active MM. The clinical significance of the algorithm was tested and validated in 488 patients with smoldering MM, 3,870 patients with active MM and 211 patients with AL amyloidosis., Results: Patients with smoldering MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed significantly lower rates of disease progression (4.5% and 0% at 2 years in two independent series). There were no statistically significant differences in time to progression between treatment versus observation in these patients. In active newly diagnosed MM, MGUS-like phenotype retained independent prognostic value in multivariate analyses of progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .001) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.56; P = .039), together with International Staging System, lactate dehydrogenase, cytogenetic risk, transplant eligibility, and complete remission status. Transplant-eligible patients with active MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed PFS and OS rates at 5 years of 79% and 96%, respectively. In this subgroup, there were no differences in PFS and OS according to complete remission and measurable residual disease status. Application of the algorithm in two independent series of patients with AL predicted for different survival., Conclusion: We developed an open-access algorithm for the identification of MGUS-like patients with distinct clinical outcomes. This phenotypic classification could become part of the diagnostic workup of MM and AL amyloidosis.

Background: Although novel therapies improved prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, clinical outcomes in the multi-refractory population are still poor., Patients and Methods: We reviewed data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, identified and characterized triple-class exposed (3CE) relapsed/refractory MM patients, treatment patterns after 3CE, assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), explored cohorts with and without triple- and penta-refractoriness., Results: In 83 3CE patients who started subsequent therapies, the median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 8.5-19.9), PFS 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.5), and TTNT 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.8). Triple- and penta-class refractory patients had a significantly worse prognosis in all outcomes. Their life expectancy was shorter, the disease progression started earlier, and the TTNT was shorter, which increased likelihood of becoming refractory to more therapies. Time-to-event results from the first index date and all index dates analyses were very similar., Conclusion: Similar to previous studies from the US and Europe, our results show a high disease burden. Introduction of novel therapies, such as CAR-T cells, new bispecific and trispecific monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs, is expected to bring significant benefits to these patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.

Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients., Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N  =  127) or RD (N  = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients., Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1-3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months ( p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months ( p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months ( p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab-16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up., Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

In multiple myeloma (MM), malignant plasma cells infiltrate the bone marrow. In some cases, plasma cells migrate out of the bone marrow creating either para-skeletal plasmacytomas (PS) or infiltrating soft tissues as extramedullary plasmacytomas (EMD). The aim of this study was to define risk groups in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with PS and EMD plasmacytomas. In total, 523 NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas and 196 NDMM patients with EMD plasmacytomas were diagnosed in the Czech Republic between 2004 and 2021 using modern imaging methods. Patients’ data were analyzed from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. In NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas, we found a subgroup with <5% of bone-marrow plasma cells to have the best prognosis (mPFS: 58.3 months (95% CI: 33.0−NA); mOS: not reached). The subgroup with >5% of bone-marrow plasma cells and ≥3 plasmacytomas had the worst prognosis (mPFS: 19.3 months (95% CI: 13.4−28.8), p < 0.001; mOS: 27.9 months (95% CI: 19.3−67.8), p < 0.001). Our results show association between tumor burden and prognosis of NDMM patients with plasmacytomas. In the case of PS plasmacytomas, NDMM patients with low BM PC infiltration have an excellent prognosis.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by malignant plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. In extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD), a subclone of these cells migrates out of the bone marrow. Out of 4 985 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 in the Czech Republic, we analyzed 234 secondary EMD patients to clarify risk factors of secondary EMD development. We found younger age [<65 years; odds ratio (OR) 4·38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·46-7·80, P < 0·0001], high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (>5 μkat/l; OR 2·07, 95% CI: 1·51-2·84, P < 0·0001), extensive osteolytic activity (OR 2·21, 95% CI: 1·54-3·15, P < 0·001), and immunoglobulin A (IgA; OR 1·53, 95% CI: 1·11-2·11, P = 0·009) or the non-secretory type of MM (OR 2·83; 95% CI: 1·32-6·04, P = 0·007) at the time of MM diagnosis to be the main risk factors for secondary EMD development. Newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with subsequent EMD had inferior median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival when compared to NDMM patients without future EMD [mPFS: 13·8 months (95% CI: 11·4-16·3) vs 18·8 months (95% CI: 17·7-19·9), P = 0·006; mOS: 26·7 months (95% CI: 18·1-35·4) vs 58·7 months (95% CI: 54·8-62·6), P < 0·001]. We found that NDMM patients with specific risk factors associated with secondary EMD development have a more aggressive disease course before secondary EMD develops., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia)., Interpretation: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Oncopeptides AB., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FHS reports institutional grant support from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria (personal) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptides AB, Schain, Skylite DX, and Takeda; advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides AB; and stock or stock options from Nordic Nanovector and Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. M-AD reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. SD reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. DC reports consulting fees from Amgen and Janssen, payment or honoraria from Amgen and Novartis, support for meetings or travel from Amgen and Janssen, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. IS reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sanofi, PharmaMar, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen-Cilag; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKine, Janssen-Cilag, PharmaMar, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. TM reports advisory board participation from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. JM reports consulting fees (personal) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and safety monitoring board participation for Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. VM reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, and The Binding Site; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. GM reports payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Krka, Novartis, Sandoz, and Takeda, and support for meetings or travel from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. LR reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. AML reports institutional grant support from AbbVie, Archigen, BeiGene, Celgene, Fibrogen, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Novartis, Onconova, Oncopeptides AB, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, and Verastem; consulting fees (personal) from Incyte; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, IQVIA, Janssen, and Servier; support for travel from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, IQVIA, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Verastem; and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen and Servier outside of the submitted work. AS reports institutional grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and support for meetings or travel from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi outside of the submitted work. VM and NAB report employment at Oncopeptides AB and stock or stock options from Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. MT is an employee of Statisticon, for which Oncopeptides is a client, and owns stock options in Oncopeptides. CB reports employment at Oncopeptides AB, grants or contracts from Takeda, and stock options at Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. JH reports consulting fees from Oncopeptides AB and stock or stock options from Oncopeptides AB outside of the submitted work. RH reports institutional grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees (personal) from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, PharmaMar, and Takeda; support for meetings or travel from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. M-VM reports payment or honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and advisory board or safety monitoring board participation for Amgen, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides AB, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, and Sanofi outside of the submitted work. PGR reports institutional grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides AB, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Karyopharm, and Oncopeptides AB; and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. PS reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda, and payment or honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, SkylineDx, and Takeda outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible., Patients and Methods: We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%)., Results: The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P = .275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) experience several relapses, and become refractory to successive therapies. In the ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338), isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with RRMM. This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM assessed the treatment benefit of isatuximab by prior lines of therapy and refractory status. A total of 307 patients were randomized to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, then every other week. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. PFS was assessed by prior lines and refractory status. Overall, 102 (66 %) patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone and 101 (66 %) patients receiving pomalidomide-dexamethasone had received 2-3 prior lines; 52 (34 %) and 52 (34 %) had received >3 prior lines, respectively. Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who received 2-3 prior lines of therapy (12.3 vs. 7.8 months) and >3 prior lines of therapy (9.4 vs. 4.3 months). Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who were lenalidomide-refractory (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), lenalidomide-refractory at last line (11.6 vs. 5.7 months), refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), and double-refractory (11.2 vs. 4.8 months). Overall response rate (ORR) in patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone was 59.0 % versus 31.4 % in lenalidomide-refractory; 60.2 % versus 32.2 % in PI-refractory; and 58.6 % versus 29.9 % in double-refractory patients. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved PFS and ORR regardless of prior lines of therapy or refractory status, consistent with the benefit in the overall population., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody approved for intravenous (IV) infusion for multiple myeloma (MM). We describe the Phase II PLEIADES study of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA SC) in combination with standard-of-care regimens: DARA SC plus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM); DARA SC plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) for transplant-ineligible NDMM; and DARA SC plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) for relapsed/refractory MM. In total, 199 patients were treated (D-VRd, n = 67; D-VMP, n = 67; D-Rd, n = 65). The primary endpoints were met for all cohorts: the ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate after four 21-day induction cycles for D-VRd was 71·6% [90% confidence interval (CI) 61·2-80·6%], and the overall response rates (ORRs) for D-VMP and D-Rd were 88·1% (90% CI 79·5-93·9%) and 90·8% (90% CI 82·6-95·9%). With longer median follow-up for D-VMP and D-Rd (14·3 and 14·7 months respectively), responses deepened (ORR: 89·6%, 93·8%; ≥VGPR: 77·6%, 78·5%), and minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 ) rates were 16·4% and 15·4%. Infusion-related reactions across all cohorts were infrequent (≤9·0%) and mild. The median DARA SC administration time was 5 min. DARA SC with standard-of-care regimens demonstrated comparable clinical activity to DARA IV-containing regimens, with low infusion-related reaction rates and reduced administration time., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice., Methods: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05., Results: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable., Conclusions: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM) presents without MM defining symptoms. We aimed to identify patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression within 2 years using only serum parameters. In total, 527 patients with SMM were included and divided into a training group (287 patients from the Czech Myeloma Group [CMG]) and an independent validation group (240 patients from Heidelberg). The median follow-up was 2·4 and 2·5 years, respectively. Progression to MM occurred in 51·9% of the CMG and 38·8% of the Heidelberg patients, respectively. The median risk of progression was 11·0% (CMG) and 9·7% (Heidelberg) per year, during the 5 years after diagnosis. A serum involved/uninvolved free light-chain ratio of >30, immunoparesis, and serum monoclonal (M) protein of ≥2·3 g/dl emerged as powerful predictors of 2-year progression rate with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2·49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1·49-4·17), HR of 2·01 (95% CI 1·36-2·96) and HR of 2·00 (95% CI 1·44-2·79) (P < 0·001) in univariate Cox regression analysis, respectively. Based on this, the CMG model identified patients with SMM with a 2-year risk of progression of 78·7% (95% CI 53·1-95·7; HR 6·8; P < 0·001, CMG) and 81·3% (95% CI 47·1-98·8; HR 38·63; P < 0·001, Heidelberg). Serum parameters in the CMG model allow identification of patients with SMM with an 80% risk of progression to symptomatic MM within 2 years., (© 2020 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment., Findings: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2-67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3-64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5-46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62-0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3-49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0-not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5-58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63-0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%])., Interpretation: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone., Funding: Janssen and Celgene., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post-transplant, when disease symptoms are limited., Methods: We assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE-MM3 (NCT02181413)., Results: The characteristics at study entry were well-balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ-C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four-week intervals using a linear mixed-effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ-MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least-squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma., Conclusions: In addition to improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL., (© 2019 Takeda Pharmaceuticals. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies., Methods: A partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources., Results: The base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively., Conclusions: Combining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

Nowadays, bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is widely used in treatment of newly diagnosed or relapsed multiple myeloma. The aim of this study was to analyze efficiency of bortezomib retreatment in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. From 2004 to 2016, 283 patients were retrospectively evaluated at all hematological centers in the Czech Republic. Bortezomib was administered at the standard dosing and in combined therapy with corticosteroids, chemotherapy or thalidomide. Before bortezomib retreatment, 61% of patients received previous lenalidomide treatment, 40.6% autologous transplantation, and median number of prior lines of therapy was three. In total, 21% of patients were refractory to the first bortezomib treatment. In bortezomib retreatment, overall response rate was 34.5%, median progression-free survival was 7.8 months (95% CI: 6.7-8.9), median duration of response was 10.5 months (95% CI: 8.0-13.0) and median overall survival was 20.3 months (95% CI: 17.9-22.7). Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia and infection. Neuropathy grade 2 or higher occurred in 19.4% of patients. We conclude that bortezomib retreatment is an effective and safe therapeutic alternative for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients.

Objective: The treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains challenging. The outcomes in highly pretreated populations are unsatisfactory and there is urgent need for novel and safe therapeutic approaches. Recently, daratumumab has been approved for RRMM with promising results even in monotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of single agent daratumumab outside a clinical trial., Patients and Methods: 14 patients with RRMM and significant pretreatment (median 4.5 previous lines) entered a specific healthcare program and received treatment with single agent daratumumab. They were followed for therapeutic response based on IMWG criteria, and incidence of adverse events. The data were collected using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies., Results: The overall response rate was 38.5%. 23.1% of patients reached very good partial response, 15.4% reached partial remission, 15.4% had minimal response, 38.5% had stable disease and 7.7% had progressive disease. The median progression free survival was 4.6 months and median overall survival was not achieved. The toxicities were mostly mild, only infectious complications and hematological toxicity reached grade III., Conclusion: We conclude that daratumumab has significant activity in highly pretreated RRMM even as a single agent, with an acceptable toxicity profile and survival impact.

Lenalidomide (LEN) is an immunomodulator with clinical activity against myeloma cells. Based on the pivotal phase 3 trials MM-009 and MM010, the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone(DEX) was approved for patients with multiple myeloma who received at least one prior therapy. Here, we evaluated LEN/DEX therapy in unselected population and subsequently in selected sub-groups of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma followed in the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. Altogether 858 patients were treated with LEN/DEX in the Czech Republic and Slovakia until end of 2017. The analyzed sub-groups were defined as patients with high risk cytogenetic aberrations and patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The overall response rate (ORR; partial remission or better response, PR) in the whole group of patients was 46.3% for all lines of therapy, 26.4% for high-risk group and 32.1% for relapsed and refractory group. Medians of overall survival (OS) in the same cohorts were as follows: 25.6, 15.7 and 18.5 months, progression free survival (PFS) was: 11.2, 6.4 and 9.0 months respectively. The most common adverse events were hematologic and infectious. In conclusion we found that our results correlated with those found in other studies in terms of response rates, survival measures, and also of treatment toxicity.

The main goal was to find a simple prognostic to evaluate overall survival of patients older than 65 years of age with myeloma. Retrospective registry-based analysis from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies was conducted. Patients over 65 years with symptomatic myeloma were included. The four major parameters with impact on survival were identified: male gender, age > 75, creatinine > 152 μmol/L, and ECOG performance status 2-4. The patients were scored as good (0 points), intermediate good (1 point), intermediate poor (2 points), poor (3-4 points). Patients (1410 MM) were included. Median OS (months) was 65.7 (95% CI 49.8-81.7) for good, 51.0 (44.1-57.8) for intermediate good, 32.2 (26.2-38.2) for intermediate poor, and 18.9 (15.1-22.7) for poor. The differences in OS were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Good score was used as reference for hazard ratios, which for each other score were 1.43 (1.09-1.84) for intermediate good, 2.58 (2.00-3.33) for intermediate poor, and 3.88 (2.94-5.10) for poor. Time to progression showed medians (months) 20.5 (17.4-62.4) for good, 19.3 (17.0-21.7) for intermediate good, 19.6 (16.2-23.0) for intermediate poor, and 13.0 (10.8-15.2) for poor. The suggested scoring system provides readily available information about the prognosis of MM patients above 65 years.

Background: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT., Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3-35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7-33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group., Interpretation: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study used data from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies to validate the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and revised International Staging System (R-ISS) indices for risk stratification in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in clinical practice. Patients were included if they had symptomatic MM, complete data allowing R-ISS and IMWG staging (including cytogenetic information regarding t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p)), and key parameters for treatment evaluation. Median overall survival (OS) in included patients (n = 550) was 47.7 (95% CI: 39.5-55.9) and 46.2 (95% CI: 38.9-53.5) months from diagnosis and initiation of first-line therapy, respectively. Patients categorized as higher vs lower risk had reduced survival; median OS from diagnosis was 35.4 (95% CI: 30.5-40.3) vs 58.3 (95% CI: 53.8-62.9) months in high-risk vs other patients (IMWG; P = .001) and 34.1 (95% CI: 30.2-38.0) vs 47.2 (95% CI: 43.4-51.0) months in Stage III vs Stage II patients (R-ISS; P < .001). In conclusion, IMWG and R-ISS risk stratification indices are applicable to patients with MM in a real-world setting., (© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Real-world data on patient outcomes and treatment patterns in multiple myeloma (MM) are limited., Materials and Methods: The present noninterventional, observational, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Czech patient medical record data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies estimated real-world outcomes in adults with a diagnosis of symptomatic MM made between May 2007 and June 2014., Results: In total, 2446 patients had initiated first-line treatment. The median overall survival since the diagnosis (primary endpoint) was 50.3 months (95% confidence interval, 46.1-54.5 months) and decreased with each successive treatment line. A similar trend was observed for progression-free survival and the depth of response. In line with European guidelines and clinical practice, bortezomib-, thalidomide-, and lenalidomide-based regimens were most commonly used across all treatment lines (42.3%, 28.9%, and 18.4%, respectively). In the first line, bortezomib and thalidomide were used most often, with lenalidomide the most commonly used agent in the relapse setting (second to fourth lines). Exploratory analyses revealed that younger age (≤ 65 years), lower international staging system stage, and previous stem cell transplantation were associated with significant improvements in overall and progression-free survival, especially in the early treatment lines., Conclusion: The present study is the first analysis of Czech data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, and it provides important insights into the real-world management of MM for physicians and healthcare providers., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

TOURMALINE-MM1 is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma following 1-3 prior lines of therapy. The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the IRd arm versus placebo-Rd arm (median 20.6 vs 14.7 months, hazard ratio 0.74, P = .01), with limited additional toxicity. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of TOURMALINE-MM1. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30) and Multiple Myeloma Module 20 (QLQ-MY20) were completed at screening, the start of cycles 1 and 2, every other cycle, the end of treatment, and every 4 weeks until progression. Over median follow-up of 23.3 and 22.9 months in the IRd and placebo-Rd arms, mean QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL scores were maintained from baseline over the course of treatment in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between groups. EORTC QLQ-C30 function domain scores were also generally maintained from baseline; similarly, physical, emotional, and social function domains were maintained with IRd versus placebo-Rd, with slightly higher mean change from baseline scores at earlier time points with IRd. Findings from this double-blind study demonstrate that addition of ixazomib to Rd significantly improved efficacy while HRQoL was maintained, reflecting the limited additional toxicity seen with IRd versus placebo-Rd, and support the feasibility of long-term IRd administration., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: We conducted an adjusted comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for daratumumab monotherapy versus standard of care, as observed in a real-world historical cohort of heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients from Czech Republic., Methods: Using longitudinal chart data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group, patient-level data from the RMG was pooled with pivotal daratumumab monotherapy studies (GEN501 and SIRIUS; 16 mg/kg)., Results: From the RMG database, we identified 972 treatment lines in 463 patients previously treated with both a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug. Treatment initiation dates for RMG patients were between March 2006 and March 2015. The most frequently used treatment regimens were lenalidomide-based regimens (33.4%), chemotherapy (18.1%), bortezomib-based regimens (13.6%), thalidomide-based regimens (8.0%), and bortezomib plus thalidomide (5.3%). Few patients were treated with carfilzomib-based regimens (2.5%) and pomalidomide-based regimens (2.4%). Median observed PFS for daratumumab and the RMG cohort was 4.0 and 5.8 months (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.39), respectively, and unadjusted median OS was 20.1 and 11.9 months (unadjusted HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.78), respectively. Statistical adjustments for differences in baseline characteristics were made using patient-level data. The adjusted HRs (95% CI) for PFS and OS for daratumumab versus the RMG cohort were 0.79 (0.56-1.12; p = .192) and 0.33 (0.21-0.52; p < .001), respectively., Conclusions: Adjusted comparisons between trial data and historical cohorts can provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement decision makers on relative treatment efficacies in the absence of head-to-head comparison studies for daratumumab monotherapy.

Background: In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established., Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs., Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings., Conclusions: The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment., Trial Registration: Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391 . Registered 2 March 2010.

IgM myeloma is a rare hematologic malignancy for which the clinicopathological features and patient outcomes have not been extensively studied. We carried out a multicenter retrospective study in patients with diagnosis of IgM myeloma defined by >10% marrow involvement by monoclonal plasma cells, presence of an IgM monoclonal paraproteinemia of any size, and anemia, renal dysfunction, hypercalcemia, lytic lesions and/or t(11;14) identified by FISH. A total of 134 patients from 20 centers were included in this analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 65.5 years with a male predominance (68%). Anemia, renal dysfunction, elevated calcium and skeletal lytic lesions were found in 37, 43, 19, and 70%, respectively. The median serum IgM level was 2,895 mg dL -1 with 19% of patients presenting with levels >6,000 mg dL -1 . International Staging System (ISS) stages 1, 2, and 3 were seen in 40 (33%), 54 (44%), and 29 (24%) of patients, respectively. The malignant cells expressed CD20 (58%) and cyclin D1 (67%), and t(11;14) was the most common cytogenetic finding (39%). The median overall survival (OS) was 61 months. Higher ISS score was associated with worse survival (P = 0.02). Patients with IgM myeloma present with similar characteristics and outcomes as patients with more common myeloma subtypes., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant condition with a risk of malignant conversion., Patients and Methods: With the aim to estimate the cumulative risk MGUS progression to hematologic malignancies, we analyzed a nationwide population-based cohort of 1887 MGUS patients from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) between 2007 and 2013., Results: During the follow-up period (median 4 years; range 0.6-34.8), progression to hematologic malignancies was observed in 8.6% (162 of 1887) of patients. Factors associated with progression were as follows: M-protein concentration ≥1.5 g/dL, pathological sFLC (<0.26 or >1.65) ratio, bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) in cytology >5%, immunoparesis, age ≥69 years, and the level of serum hemoglobin at baseline <12.0 g/dL. Combining these factors, we propose a new risk model (CMG model). The risk of progression at 10 years was 1.6%, 16.9%, 22.9%, 39.4%, and 52.3%, respectively, if 0 (reference group), one, two, three, or four to five risk factors are present (P<.001) with HR 63 times higher compared to the reference MGUS group., Conclusion: The new CMG model was established with an advantage for better identification of MGUS patients at low risk., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) was established by the Czech Myeloma Group in 2007. RMG is a registry designed for the collection of clinical data concerning diagnosis, treatment, treatment results and survival of patients with monoclonal gammopathies. Data on patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM), multiple myeloma (MM) or primary AL ("amyloid light-chain") amyloidosis are collected in the registry., Data: Nineteen Czech centres and four Slovak centres currently contribute to the registry. The registry currently contains records on more than 5,000 patients with MM, almost 3,000 patients with MGUS, 170 patients with WM and 26 patients with primary AL amyloidosis, i.e. more than 8,000 records on patients with monoclonal gammopathies altogether., Results: This paper describes technology employed for the collection, storage and subsequent online visualisation of data. The CLADE-IS platform is introduced as a new system for the collection and storage of data from the registry. The form structure and functions of the new system are described for all diagnoses in general; these functions facilitate data entry to the registry and minimise the error rate in data. Publicly available online visualisations of data on patients with MGUS, WM, MM or primary AL amyloidosis from all Czech or Slovak centres are introduced, together with authenticated visualisations of data on patients with MM from selected centres., Conclusion: The RMG represents a data basis that makes it possible to monitor the disease course in patients with monoclonal gammopathies on the population level.Key words: Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies - RMG - registries - monoclonal gammopathies - CLADE-IS - data visualisation - database.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a cancer of plasma cells with an incidence of 4.8 cases per 100,000 population in the Czech Republic in 2014; the burden of MM in the Czech Republic is moderate when compared to other European countries. This work brings the latest information on MM epidemiology in the Czech population., Material and Methods: The Czech National Cancer Registry is the basic source of data for the population-based evaluation of MM epidemiology. This database also makes it possible to assess patient survival and to predict probable short-term as well as long-term trends in the treatment burden of the entire population., Results: According to the latest Czech National Cancer Registry data, there were 504 new cases of MM and 376 deaths from MM in 2014. Since 2004, there has been a 26.9% increase in MM incidence and an 8.3% increase in MM mortality. In 2014, there were 1,982 persons living with MM or a history of MM, corresponding to a 74.4% increase when compared to MM prevalence in 2004. The 5-year survival of patients treated in the period 2010-2014 was nearly 40%., Conclusion: The available data make it possible to analyse long-term trends in MM epidemiology and to predict the future treatment burden as well as treatment results.Key words: multiple myeloma - epidemiology - Czech National Cancer Registry - Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies - Czech Republic.

Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell dyscrasia. It is the second most common hematological malignancy which is characterized by proliferation of clonal plasma cells producing harmful monoclonal immunoglobulin. Despite treatment modalities greatly evolved during the last decade, small amount of aberrant residual cells reside in patients after therapy and can cause relapse of the disease. Characterization of the residual, resistant clones can help to reveal important therapeutic targets for application of effective and precious treatment. We use CD38, CD45, CD56 and CD19 sorted aberrant plasma cells to perform next generation sequencing of their exome. Among the 213 genes in which at least one variant was present, the most interesting was found gene NRAS, one of the most often mutated gene in multiple myeloma, and homologs of 88 gene panel previously used for multiple myeloma sequencing among which was a gene previously identified as gene meaningful in bortezomib resistance. Nevertheless, the results of next generation exome sequencing need to be interpreted with caution, since they rely on bioinformatical analysis, which is still being optimized. The results of next generation sequencing will also have to be confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Final results supported by larger cohort of patients will be published soon.Key words: multiple myeloma - minimal residual disease - exome - next generation sequencing.

Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM) are premalignant stages of multiple myeloma (MM). MM is a malignancy of plasma cells, which is associated with a median overall survival of 5 to 7 years. MM accounts for approximately 10% of hematological malignancies., Patients and Methods: Descriptive analysis of data from 19 Czech centres collected in the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) was performed., Results: Over the last 10 years of prospective collection of data, together with retrospectively recorded data on patients diagnosed before the registry establishment, data on 7,467 patients with either asymptomatic or symptomatic form of MM have been gathered. Validation criteria for the analysis were met by 2,506 MGUS patients, 400 SMM patients and 4,738 MM patients. The median duration of follow-up was 4.3 years in MGUS patients and 2.4 years in SMM patients. The overall risk of progression from MGUS to malignancy was 1.7% per year. The risk of progression from SMM to MM was highest in the 1st years after diagnosis: overall, this risk was 16.6% per year. The median duration of follow-up was 2.8 years in MM patients. The median overall survival from the diagnosis was 5.7 years. The median OS from treatment initiation/progression-free survival decreased from 60.5/21.0 months in the 1st line therapy to 34.3/12.4 months in the 2nd line therapy, 22.6/8.9 months in the 3rd line therapy and 13.8/5.8 months in the 4th or higher line therapies. Thanks to the availability of novel drugs for MM treatment in the Czech Republic, treatment strategies have changed dramatically over the last decade., Conclusion: RMG is a registry designated for the collection of data on diagnosis, treatment, treatment results and survival of patients with monoclonal gammopathies in the long-term follow-up. RMG is a valuable source of data from real clinical practice.Key words: registries - monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance - smouldering multiple myeloma - multiple myeloma - progression - treatment - survival.

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m 2 thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib (n=157) or control (n=158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4-14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7-12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760-1.249; P=0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ⩾3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients., Competing Interests: Dr Hájek reports funding from Celgene, Janssen and Merck outside of the submitted work; Dr Masszi has nothing to disclose; Dr Petrucci reports receiving personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, and BMS outside the submitted work; Dr Palumbo reports receiving personal fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab A/S, Janssen-Cilag, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Aventis, Celgene and Array BioPharma outside the submitted work; Dr Rosiñol reports personal fees from Onyx during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Janssen, and Celgene outside the submitted work; Dr Nagler reports funding from Onyx outside the submitted work; Dr Yong has nothing to disclose; Dr Oriol reports other from Celgene, Jansen and Novartis outside the submitted work; Dr Minarik has nothing to disclose; Dr Pour has nothing to disclose; Dr Dimopoulos reports personal fees from Onyx and Celgene outside the submitted work; Dr Maisnar reports funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work; Dr Rossi has nothing to disclose; Dr Kasparu has nothing to disclose; Dr Droogenbroeck has nothing to disclose; Dr Ben-Yehuda has nothing to disclose; Dr Hardan has nothing to disclose; Dr Jenner received honoraria from Amgen/Onyx outside the submitted work; Dr Calbecka has nothing to disclose; Dr David has nothing to disclose; Dr de la Rubia has nothing to disclose; Dr Drach has nothing to disclose; Dr Gasztonyi has nothing to disclose; Dr Górnik has nothing to disclose; Dr Leleu reports funding from Celgene, Janssen, Leopharma, Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi outside the submitted work; Dr Munder has nothing to disclose; Dr Offidani reports other from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, and Mundipharma outside the submitted work; Dr Zojer received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and Mundipharma; Dr Chang is employed by, and owns stock in, Onyx; Dr Rajangam is employed by, and owns stock in, Onyx; Dr San Miguel reports funding from Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Onyx, Janssen, BMS, and MSD outside the submitted work; and Dr Ludwig reports grants from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Bristol Meyers, Amgen and Onyx outside the submitted work.

Skin infiltration in multiple myeloma (skin MM) is a rare clinical problem. Only a few cases of skin involvement have been reported, primarily in single case reports. We analyzed and present the clinical outcomes, immunohistochemistry and cytogenetic features, and relevant laboratory data on 53 biopsy-proven skin MM cases. The median time from MM diagnosis to skin involvement was 2 years. There appears to be an overrepresentation of immunoglobulin class A (IgA) and light chain disease in skin MM. We found no correlation between CD56 negative MM and skin infiltration. We found that skin MM patients presented in all MM stages (i.e. ISS stages I to III), and there was no preferential cytogenetic abnormality. Patients with skin MM carry a very poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) of 8.5 months as time from skin involvement. Moreover, patients with IgA disease and plasmablastic morphology appear to have a worse OS.

The presence of certain high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, such as translocations (4;14) and (14;16) and deletion (17p), are known to have a negative impact on survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (N = 792) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed MM. This preplanned subgroup analysis of ASPIRE was conducted to evaluate KRd vs Rd by baseline cytogenetics according to fluorescence in situ hybridization. Of 417 patients with known cytogenetic risk status, 100 patients (24%) were categorized with high-risk cytogenetics (KRd, n = 48; Rd, n = 52) and 317 (76%) were categorized with standard-risk cytogenetics (KRd, n = 147; Rd, n = 170). For patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of 23.1 months, a 9-month improvement relative to treatment with Rd. For patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd. The overall response rates for KRd vs Rd were 79.2% vs 59.6% (high-risk cytogenetics) and 91.2% vs 73.5% (standard-risk cytogenetics); approximately fivefold as many patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics achieved a complete response or better with KRd vs Rd (29.2% vs 5.8% and 38.1% vs 6.5%, respectively). KRd improved but did not abrogate the poor prognosis associated with high-risk cytogenetics. This regimen had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with relapsed MM, irrespective of cytogenetic risk status, and should be considered a standard of care in these patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01080391., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Introduction: The normalization of free light chain ratio (FLCr) has been introduced as a marker of stringent complete remission (CR) of multiple myeloma (MM). There is currently a lack of literature assessing the role of FLCr on MM disease progression and remission status., Patients and Methods: A multicentered retrospective review of 125 patients with MM in CR and various FLCr values was completed. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, FLCr values, complete remission (CR)/relapse status, and time to progression (TTP). The FLCr values were recorded to provide time-dependent findings on the role of FLCr on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS)., Results: The mean follow-up time of 125 patients from five hospitals in the Czech Republic was 31 months. A total of 47.2% of patients relapsed (54 of 125) during the follow-up period. The median TTP of patients with normal FLCr (n = 66) was 54.4 and 40.2 months for patients with abnormal FLCr (n = 59) (P = 0.217). None of the patients reached median overall survival regardless of FLCr values (P = 0.821). In the subgroup of newly diagnosed patients after upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), there were 55.6% of patients (35 of 63) with normal FLCr and 44.4% (28 of 64) with abnormal FLCr. A total of 34.9% of patients (22 of 63) relapsed in this subgroup. Within the abnormal FLCr patients, a median TTP was 56.3 months, but no median TTP was reached among the normal FLCr patients (P = 0.746). Median OS in patients with normal (nFLCr) and abnormal FLCr (aFLCr) was not reached (P = 0.787)., Conclusion: We did not observe any benefit from FLCr normalization in CR in myeloma patients in terms of progression-free survival or overall survival., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: A combination of low-dose thalidomide and corticosteroids is a treatment option for anaemic patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) who are not eligible for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation., Methods: We describe the outcomes of 13 patients with PMF treated with thalidomide 50 mg daily in combination with prednisone 0.5 mg/kg daily. Treatment responses were seen in 10/13 (77%) patients with a median onset of therapeutic effect at 4 weeks (range 3-7 weeks) after treatment initiation. Improvements of anaemia and thrombocytopenia and reduction in splenomegaly were observed in 70%, 38%, and 30% of patients, respectively. Four of six initially transfusion-dependent patients became transfusion independent following the therapy. The median duration of treatment response was 18 months (range 3-35 months). The treatment was well tolerated, with only one patient discontinuing therapy due to toxicity. Responders included both patients with and without JAK2 V617F, and included patients with both newly diagnosed and longstanding PMF., Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis confirmed that the therapy with low-doses thalidomide with prednisone in patients with PMF achieves significant response rate in anaemia with low treatment toxicity.

Objective: Subcutaneous (SC) application of bortezomib has been recently introduced as a new application route in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We performed an analysis to compare the outcomes of bortezomib-based therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated using either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration., Patients and Methods: During January 2012 through December 2013, we performed a retrospective analysis of 446 patients with MM treated with bortezomib-based regimens (either once weekly - 63% or twice weekly - 27%) in both, the first line setting, and in relapse, with separate analysis of patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. We assessed the response rates and toxicity profiles in both, IV and SC route of bortezomib administration., Results: The response rates in both IV and SC arm were similar with overall response rate 71.7% vs 70.7%, complete remissions in 13.9% vs 8.6%, very good partial remissions in 30.8% vs 34.5% and partial remissions in 27% vs 27.6%. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no significant differences between IV and SC group. There were no significant differences in the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN of any grade was present in 48% in the IV arm and in 41% in the SC arm. PN grade ≥ 2 was present in 20% vs 18% and PN grade ≥ 3 was present in 6% vs 4%., Conclusions: We conclude that subcutaneous application of bortezomib has similar therapeutic outcomes and toxicity profile as intravenous route of application. In our cohort there was no difference in the incidence of PN, suggesting that PN is dose dependent and might be reduced by lower intensity schemes rather than by the route of administration.

Background: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown efficacy in a phase 1 and 2 study in relapsed multiple myeloma., Methods: We randomly assigned 792 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma to carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Progression-free survival was significantly improved with carfilzomib (median, 26.3 months, vs. 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P=0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis. The Kaplan-Meier 24-month overall survival rates were 73.3% and 65.0% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 87.1% and 66.7% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (P<0.001; 31.8% and 9.3% of patients in the respective groups had a complete response or better; 14.1% and 4.3% had a stringent complete response). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 83.7% and 80.7% of patients in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively; 15.3% and 17.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. Patients in the carfilzomib group reported superior health-related quality of life., Conclusions: In patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival at the interim analysis and had a favorable risk-benefit profile. (Funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01080391.).

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is an asymptomatic, potentially malignant condition. It has been established that annually approximately 1-2% of MGUS cases transforms into one of the malignant forms of monoclonal gammopathies. Progression risk factors include the quantity and type of M-protein, and namely the ratio of free light immunoglobulin chains (FLC). These factors, enable purposeful stratification of MGUS individuals. Some authors consider suppression of polyclonal immunoglobulin levels to be another progression factor. The aim of the study was to compare polyclonal immunoglobulin (PIg) levels with uninvolved heavy/light chain pair (HLC) levels in order to verify the degree of immunoparesis depending on MGUS risk category (0-3). The analyzed set consisted of 159 serum samples from MGUS patients (102 IgG, 57 IgA), who were stratified into 4 risk groups (0 - low, 1 - low-intermediate, 2 - high-intermediate and 3 - high risk of transformation). The results of analysis showed that with increasing degree of MGUS increases risk of immune paresis defined by decreasing levels of polyclonal immunoglobulins, ie. IgA and IgM in the case of IgG MGUS, respectively, IgG and IgM in case of IgA MGUS. Significant differences were also found when analyzing the levels of uninvolved HLC pairs IgG kappa (resp. IgG lambda) in IgG lambda (IgG kappa) dominant secretion. In the case of MGUS with IgA isotype, the results were similar. Discovery of the connection between the degree of immunosuppression and the level of MGUS risk contributes to our understanding of the relationship between biology, development and potential malignant transformation of MGUS. It is apparent that uninvolved HLC pair assay enables more reliable identification of at-risk MGUS patients than a simple quantitative assay for polyclonal immunoglobulins alone.

We analyzed 1156 multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated with thalidomide. The overall response rate was 63.6%, with complete remission in 13.4%. Combined regimens had better outcomes than thalidomide plus dexamethasone or single agent thalidomide. Thalidomide was not able to overcome adverse cytogenetics. Superior results were seen in patients undergoing subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation. The rate of adverse events was low. Thalidomide has a strong potential to improve response and survival measures in patients with standard risk MM. Combined regimens should be used, with lower doses of thalidomide. High risk myelomas should be treated individually., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)