Search

• This EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations on the management of multiple myeloma. • Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions and countries in Europe. • Key treatment recommendations are provided for both newly diagnosed myeloma patients and patients with relapsed/refractory disease. • Recommendations for the treatment of plasma cell leukaemia, solitary plasmacytoma and smouldering myeloma are also provided. • Key recommendations for myeloma complications, including bone disease and renal impairment, are included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bisphosphonates (BPs) prevent, reduce, and delay multiple myeloma (MM)-related skeletal complications. Intravenous pamidronate and zoledronic acid, and oral clodronate are used for the management of MM bone disease. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence for the use of BPs in MM and provide European Union-specific recommendations to support the clinical practice of treating myeloma bone disease. Design and methods: An interdisciplinary, expert panel of specialists on MM and myeloma-related bone disease convened for a face-to-face meeting to review and assess the evidence and develop the recommendations. The panel reviewed and graded the evidence available from randomized clinical trials, clinical practice guidelines, and the body of published literature. Where published data were weak or unavailable, the panel used their own clinical experience to put forward recommendations based solely on their expert opinions. Results: The panel recommends the use of BPs in MM patients suffering from lytic bone disease or severe osteoporosis. Intravenous administration may be preferable; however, oral administration can be considered for patients unable to make hospital visits. Dosing should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. In general, BPs are well tolerated, but preventive steps should be taken to avoid renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The panel agrees that BPs should be given for 2 years, but this may be extended if there is evidence of active myeloma bone disease. Initial therapy of ONJ should include discontinuation of BPs until healing occurs. BPs should be restarted if there is disease progression. Conclusions: BPs are an essential component of MM therapy for minimizing skeletal morbidity. Recent retrospective data indicate that a modified dosing regimen and preventive measures can greatly reduce the incidence of ONJ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccination is one of the most successful medical interventions that has saved the life of millions of people. Vaccination is particularly important in patients with multiple myeloma, who have an increased risk of infections due to the disease-inherent immune suppression, and because of the immune suppressive effects of therapy. Hence, all appropriate measures should be exploited, to elicit an effective immune response to common pathogens like influenza, pneumococci, varicella zoster virus, and to those bacteria and viruses (haemophilus influenzae, meningococci, and hepatitis) that frequently may pose a significant risk to patients with multiple myeloma. Patients after autologous, and specifically after allogeneic transplantation have severely reduced antibody titers, and therefore require a broader spectrum of vaccinations. Response to vaccination in myeloma often is less vigorous than in the general population, mandating either measurement of the postvaccination antibody titers and/or repeating the vaccination. Here, we compile the existing data on vaccination in multiple myeloma and provide recommendations for clinical practice.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) seem to be at increased risk for more severe COVID-19 infection and associated complications due to their immunocompromised state, the older age and comorbidities. The European Myeloma Network has provided an expert consensus statement in order to guide therapeutic decisions in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient education for personal hygiene and social distancing measures, along with treatment individualization, telemedicine and continuous surveillance for early diagnosis of COVID-19 are essential. In countries or local communities where COVID-19 infection is widely spread, MM patients should have a PCR test of nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 before hospital admission, starting a new treatment line, cell apheresis or ASCT in order to avoid ward or community spread and infections. Oral agent-based regimens should be considered, especially for the elderly and frail patients with standard risk disease, whereas de-intensified regimens for dexamethasone, bortezomib, carfilzomib and daratumumab should be used based on patient risk and response. Treatment initiation should not be postponed for patients with end organ damage, myeloma emergencies and aggressive relapses. Autologous (and especially allogeneic) transplantation should be delayed and extended induction should be administered, especially in standard risk patients and those with adequate MM response to induction. Watchful waiting should be considered for standard risk relapsed patients with low tumor burden, and slow biochemical relapses. The conduction of clinical trials should continue with appropriate adaptations to the current circumstances. Patients with MM and symptomatic COVID-19 disease should interrupt anti-myeloma treatment until recovery. For patients with positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, but with no symptoms for COVID-19, a 14-day quarantine should be considered if myeloma-related events allow the delay of treatment. The need for surveillance for drug interactions due to polypharmacy is highlighted. The participation in international COVID-19 cancer registries is greatly encouraged.

Background: Standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma includes combination therapies for patients who are not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. At the primary analysis for progression-free survival of the phase 3 ALCYONE trial, progression-free survival was significantly longer with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) alone in patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here we report updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified, interim, overall survival analysis of ALCYONE with more than 36 months of follow-up., Methods: ALCYONE was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients between Feb 9, 2015, and July 14, 2016, at 162 sites in 25 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation, because of their age (≥65 years) or because of substantial comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio and by permuted block randomisation to receive D-VMP or VMP. An interactive web-based randomisation system was used. Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. There was no masking to treatment assignments. All patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 of body surface area on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 of cycle one and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 of cycles two through nine), oral melphalan (9 mg/m 2 once daily on days 1 through 4 of each cycle), and oral prednisone (60 mg/m 2 once daily on days 1 through 4 of each cycle). Patients in the D-VMP group also received intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg of bodyweight, once weekly during cycle one, once every 3 weeks in cycles two through nine, and once every 4 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which has been reported previously. Results presented are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. The primary analysis population (including for overall survival) was the intention-to-treat population of all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. The safety population included patients who received any dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479., Findings: 706 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (350 to the D-VMP group, 356 to the VMP group). At a median follow-up of 40·1 months (IQR 37·4-43·1), a significant benefit in overall survival was observed for the D-VMP group. The hazard ratio (HR) for death in the D-VMP group compared with the VMP group was 0·60 (95% CI 0·46-0·80; p=0·0003). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 36-month rate of overall survival was 78·0% (95% CI 73·2-82·0) in the D-VMP group and 67·9% (62·6-72·6) in the VMP group. Progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, remained significantly improved for the D-VMP group (HR 0·42 [0·34-0·51]; p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse events during maintenance daratumumab monotherapy in patients in the D-VMP group were respiratory infections (54 [19%] of 278 patients had upper respiratory tract infections; 42 [15%] had bronchitis, 34 [12%] had viral upper respiratory tract infections), cough (34 [12%]), and diarrhoea (28 [10%])., Interpretation: D-VMP prolonged overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. With more than 3 years of follow-up, the D-VMP group continued to show significant improvement in progression-free survival, with no new safety concerns., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2-3 vs >3) and age (<75 years vs ≥75 years). Treatments were assigned based on a permuted blocked randomisation scheme with a block size of four. The isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group received isatuximab intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 in each cycle, and oral or intravenous dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Dose reductions for adverse reactions were permitted for pomalidomide and dexamethasone, but not for isatuximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by an independent response committee and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02990338., Findings: Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, we randomly assigned 307 patients to treatment: 154 to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone, and 153 to pomalidomide-dexamethasone. At a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 10·1-13·9), median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·9-13·9) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6·5 months (4·5-8·3) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group; hazard ratio 0·596, 95% CI 0·44-0·81; p=0·001 by stratified log-rank test. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone vs pomalidomide-dexamethasone) were infusion reactions (56 [38%] vs 0), upper respiratory tract infections (43 [28%] vs 26 [17%]), and diarrhoea (39 [26%] vs 29 [20%]). Adverse events with a fatal outcome were reported in 12 patients (8%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group and 14 (9%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (<1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection)., Interpretation: The addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Isatuximab is an important new treatment option for the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, particularly for patients who become refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor., Funding: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The treatment of multiple myeloma has undergone significant changes and has resulted in the achievement of molecular remissions, the prolongation of remission duration, and extended survival becoming realistic goals, with a cure being possible in a small but growing number of patients. In addition, nowadays it is possible to categorize patients more precisely into different risk groups, thus allowing the evaluation of therapies in different settings and enabling a better comparison of results across trials. Here, we review the evidence from clinical studies, which forms the basis for our recommendations for the management of patients with myeloma. Treatment approaches depend on "fitness," with chronological age still being an important discriminator for selecting therapy. In younger, fit patients, a short three drug-based induction treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the preferred option. Consolidation and maintenance therapy are attractive strategies not yet approved by the European Medicines Agency, and a decision regarding post-ASCT therapy should only be made after detailed discussion of the pros and cons with the individual patient. Two- and three-drug combinations are recommended for patients not eligible for transplantation. Treatment should be administered for at least nine cycles, although different durations of initial therapy have only rarely been compared so far. Comorbidity and frailty should be thoroughly assessed in elderly patients, and treatment must be adapted to individual needs, carefully selecting appropriate drugs and doses. A substantial number of new drugs and novel drug classes in early clinical development have shown promising activity. Their introduction into clinical practice will most likely further improve treatment results., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: There is a need for a simple, reliable staging system for multiple myeloma that can be applied internationally for patient classification and stratification., Patients and Methods: Clinical and laboratory data were gathered on 10,750 previously untreated symptomatic myeloma patients from 17 institutions, including sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. Potential prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate techniques. Three modeling approaches were then explored to develop a staging system including two nontree and one tree survival assessment methodologies., Results: Serum beta2-microglobulin (Sbeta2M), serum albumin, platelet count, serum creatinine, and age emerged as powerful predictors of survival and were then used in the tree analysis approach. A combination of Sbeta2M and serum albumin provided the simplest, most powerful and reproducible three-stage classification. This new International Staging System (ISS) was validated in the remaining patients and consists of the following stages: stage I, Sbeta2M less than 3.5 mg/L plus serum albumin > or = 3.5 g/dL (median survival, 62 months); stage II, neither stage I nor III (median survival, 44 months); and stage III, Sbeta2M > or = 5.5 mg/L (median survival, 29 months). The ISS system was further validated by demonstrating effectiveness in patients in North America, Europe, and Asia; in patients less than and > or = 65 years of age; in patients with standard therapy or autotransplantation; and in comparison with the Durie/Salmon staging system. CONCLUSION) The new ISS is simple, based on easy to use variables (Sbeta2M and serum albumin), and recommended for early adoption and widespread use.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of alpha-IFN maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma in a retrospective registry analysis. 473 patients with multiple myeloma who received IFN maintenance treatment ASCT were compared with 419 patients who did not receive IFN-treatment. Patients who were evaluable for response and in complete or partial remission at 6 months after ASCT were eligible, after excluding patients with graft failure. Cox proportional hazards assumptions were checked and handled by stratification. The prognostic variables unevenly distributed between the two groups were statistically corrected for in the Cox analysis. 391 patients reached complete remission (CR) after ASCT (203 in the IFN group and 188 in the no-IFN group) and 501 were in partial remission (PR, IFN 270, no-IFN 231). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly better in the IFN-group (OS, 78 vs 47 months, P = 0.007, and PFS, 29 vs 20 months, P = 0.006, respectively). The difference in OS and PFS was most strongly pronounced in the PR patients. 209 patients have died (IFN, 84; no-IFN, 125). Progressive myeloma was the cause of death in 94% of the IFN-treated patients and in 83% of the no-IFN group (P = NS). Thus, IFN maintenance treatment after ASCT was associated with better OS and PFS. Treatment seemed to be most beneficial in patients who did not achieve CR. The difference in median survival was as long as 2.5 years, and although part of this difference is attributable to differences in other prognostic factors, it might justify possible differences in quality-of-life due to adverse effects of interferon treatment.