Search

Background: Despite advances in treatments for multiple myeloma (MM), most patients relapse and become refractory to standard drug classes including immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and anti-CD38 antibodies. The LocoMMotion study showed poor clinical outcomes in triple-class exposed patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) treated with real-world clinical practice (RWCP) therapy. Here, we report efficacy outcomes for Spanish patients receiving RWCP treatments in the LocoMMotion study compared with the full cohort., Patients and Methods: The prospective, noninterventional, multinational LocoMMotion study (NCT04035226) enrolled 248 patients who had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a PI, an IMiD, and an anti-CD38 antibody, with disease progression during or after their last LOT. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Spanish patients (n = 24) had received a median of 4 prior LOT (range, 2-7). At 29.2 months median follow-up, patients had received 14 different treatment regimens used in RWCP during the study. Efficacy outcomes were consistent between the Spanish cohort and overall study population. The ORR was 29.2% (95% CI, 12.6%-51.1%). Median PFS and OS were 4.6 months (95% CI, 1.2-6.3) and 11.6 months (95% CI, 6.4-24.5), respectively., Conclusion: Spanish patients from the LocoMMotion study demonstrated poor outcomes in response to RWCP treatments consistent with those of the overall study population, highlighting the need for access to new and effective therapies for patients with RRMM in Spain and globally., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: A proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are older and/or have comorbidities, requiring dose adjustments. Data from OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928) supported the use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) for treating relapsed/refractory MM. This subanalysis of OPTIMISMM assessed outcome by frailty and/or bortezomib dose adjustment., Methods: Patient frailty (nonfrail vs. frail) was classified using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data from patients requiring a bortezomib dose reduction, interruption, and/or withdrawal during PVd treatment were assessed., Results: Among 559 patients, 93 of 281 (33.1%) and 93 of 278 (33.5%) patients who received PVd and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), respectively, were frail. Overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were higher in nonfrail vs. frail with PVd treatment (ORR, 82.8% vs. 79.6%; PFS, 14.7 vs. 9.7 months); significantly higher than with Vd regardless of frailty. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were higher with PVd vs. Vd, regardless of frailty. Discontinuations of PVd were lower in nonfrail vs. frail patients (19.2% vs. 30.1%); the median duration of treatment was similar (DoT; 8.8 vs. 8.9 months, respectively). Patients who received PVd with a bortezomib dose adjustment (n = 240) had a longer median DoT (9.3 vs. 4.5 months) and PFS (12.1 vs. 8.4 months) vs. those without., Conclusion: Frail patients treated with PVd demonstrated a higher ORR and a longer PFS and DoT vs. Vd, despite a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs leading to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and/or dexamethasone discontinuation. Therefore, PVd treatment may improve patient outcomes, regardless of frailty., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The objective was to assess the benefit of pomalidomide-based combination regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously treated with lenalidomide. A pooled estimate was obtained for efficacy outcomes including overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and progression-free survival (PFS) based on multiple trials conducted in this patient population., Patients and Methods: A literature search was conducted on March 22, 2022 for relevant trials published between January 1, 2016 and the search date. The search identified 12 eligible trials with publications dated between 2016 and 2021. The meta-analyses were conducted among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (patients treated in all lines of therapy) and 2 subpopulations: 2L (only patients treated in the second line [2L]) and ≥2L (patients treated in the 2L and beyond)., Results: From the meta-analyses, ORR was 69.9% for ITT, 74.4% for ≥2L, and 87.2% for 2L. CR rate was 12.1% for ITT, 17.6% for ≥2L, and 29.7% for 2L. One-year PFS rates were 55.1% for ITT, 59.1% for ≥2L, and 74.0% for 2L. Two-year PFS rates were 29.3% for ITT, 36.0% for ≥2L, and 41.9% for 2L., Conclusion: Pomalidomide-based combination regimens were effective in patients with RRMM previously treated with lenalidomide and tended to be associated with better outcomes when used earlier in the treatment pathway. A drug class switch may not always be necessary when making treatment decisions for patients with RRMM for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted, although this must be supported by comparative studies., Competing Interests: Disclosure F.E.D. reported consulting fees from Janssen and participation on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptide, Sanofi, and Takeda. X.L. reported honoraria, research support, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutic, iTeos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. P.V. in an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. S.D. is an employee of and has equity ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb. P.L.N. is an employee of Amaris Consulting, contracted by Bristol Myers Squibb. K.W. reported research support from Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda, honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda, and travel fees from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction/background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered an incurable cancer. Patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) are at risk for relapse within 1 year of frontline therapy. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Rd) may be used as treatment for NDMM or relapsed MM, including in patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant., Patients: This subanalysis of the phase III FIRST trial characterized patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM who experienced relapse while receiving Rd therapy by relapse timing (early [<12 months] versus late [≥12 months]) and type (CRAB vs. non-CRAB)., Methods: The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate time-to-event endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Factors associated with the odds of late relapse were identified by logistic regression with univariate and multivariate analyses using a binary outcome (relapse at <12 vs. ≥12 months) in patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific baseline variables., Results: Patients with early refractory relapse had functionally high-risk disease and inferior outcomes. In patients with early relapse versus those with late relapse, median OS (95% CI) was 26.8 months (21.9-32.8) versus 63.9 months (57.0-78.0), median OS from disease progression to death was 19.9 months (16.0-25.5) versus 36.4 months (27.9-47.0), and median PFS from randomization to second progression was 19.1 months (17.3-22.5) versus 42.1 months (37.4-44.9). Lactate dehydrogenase, baseline β2 microglobulin, and myeloma subtype were shown to predict time to relapse., Conclusions: Clinicians could use these factors to consider more aggressive treatment regimens for those at highest risk of early relapse., Competing Interests: Disclosure SM serves on data safety monitoring boards/advisory boards for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. MeD has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Takeda, and Janssen. CH has received honoraria from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, and Takeda. XL has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Pfizer, Amgen, Roche, and Gilead. MiD has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi; and support for meeting attendance/travel expenses from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi. KW has received research funding from Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; and support for travel expenses from Janssen, GSK, and Sanofi. JM, BC, and MS are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb and have received meeting attendance/travel expenses and stock or stock options from Bristol Myers Squibb. TF declares no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of teclistamab in patients with RRMM who received ≥3 prior lines of therapy and were triple-class exposed (TCE) are being evaluated in the single-arm, multicohort, phase I/II MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT04557098). We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of teclistamab versus physician's choice (PC) of therapy in TCE RRMM patients., Methods: Individual patient-level data from MajesTEC-1 patients who received teclistamab (1.5 mg/kg weekly; clinical cutoff March 16, 2022) were included. An external control arm was created from patients in long-term follow-up of 4 clinical trials of daratumumab who were treated with PC therapy after discontinuation of trial treatments. In the primary analysis, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in 9 baseline covariates. A fully adjusted model included 5 additional prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next treatment (TTNT)., Results: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. In the primary analysis, outcomes were significantly improved with teclistamab versus PC: ORR (OR [95% CI] 4.81 [3.04-7.72]; P < .0001); ≥VGPR rate (OR, 12.07 [6.91-22.11]; P < .0001); OS (HR, 0.54 [0.40-0.73]; P < .0001); PFS (HR, 0.59 [0.46-0.78]; P = .0001); and TTNT (HR, 0.32 [0.24-0.42]; P < .0001). Results of the fully adjusted model were consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusion: Teclistamab showed significantly improved effectiveness versus PC on all outcomes, highlighting its clinical benefit in patients with TCE RRMM and limited treatment options., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Activating BRAF mutations are found in a small subset of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, but prevalence increases in late-stage, refractory disease, and the mutations are associated with adverse outcome. This prospective single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combined BRAF/MEK inhibition, using encorafenib and binimetinib, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) carrying a BRAFV600E mutation. Patients received 450 mg encorafenib once daily and binimetinib 45 mg twice daily. The primary end point was the overall response rate achieved within the first year after start of treatment according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Twelve RRMM patients with a median of 5 prior lines of therapy were enrolled. The overall response rate was 83.3%, with 10 patients achieving at least a partial response. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months, and overall survival was 55% at 24 months. Emerging resistance to therapy was driven by RAS mutations and structural variants involving the BRAF locus. This is the first prospective clinical trial to demonstrate that combined BRAF/MEK inhibition is highly effective in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated RRMM, and it represents a successful targeted precision medicine approach in this disease. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02834364., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Adults with triple-class refractory (TCR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognosis, but the burden of TCR MM has not been well characterized. This study evaluated treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and healthcare resource use (HCRU) among patients with TCR MM in US clinical practice., Patients and Methods: Patients with TCR MM in the Connect MM Registry (NCT01081028; a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM) were included. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, HRQoL, and HCRU were analyzed using descriptive statistics. OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology for the overall cohort and for patients with/without ≥1 post-TCR line of therapy (LOT)., Results: A total of 232 patients with TCR MM were included; 155 (67%) had ≥1 post-TCR LOT (post-TCR-Treated subgroup; median 9.9 months of follow-up). Most common post-TCR treatments were carfilzomib (47%), pomalidomide (40%), and daratumumab (26%); median treatment duration was 3.3 months. Median OS was 9.9 months in the overall population, 10.8 months in post-TCR-Treated patients, and 2.6 months for those with no new post-TCR LOT. HRQoL deteriorated and pain increased over 1 year of follow-up, with clinically meaningfully changes in EQ-5D (mean, -0.06 points) and FACT-G (mean, -9.9 points). 124 (53%) patients had ≥1 all-cause hospitalization and 58 (25%) had ≥1 MM-related hospitalization; median annualized length of stay was 35.3 and 42.9 days, respectively., Conclusion: The burden of TCR MM is substantial, emphasizing the need for more effective treatment options in the TCR setting., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; CARTITUDE-1), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy, versus 3 non-CAR-T therapies (belantamab mafodotin [DREAMM-2], selinexor plus dexamethasone [STORM Part 2], and melphalan flufenamide plus dexamethasone [HORIZON]), each with distinct mechanisms of action, for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were triple-class exposed to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody., Patients and Methods: Pairwise matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using patient-level data for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and summary level data for each comparator (2.5 mg/kg cohort in DREAMM-2, modified intention-to-treat population in STORM Part 2, and triple-class refractory patients in HORIZON). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility of the comparator trial were included. MAICs adjusted for imbalances in important prognostic factors between CARTITUDE-1 and the comparator populations. Comparative efficacy of cilta-cel versus each therapy was estimated for overall response rate, complete response or better rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Results: After adjustment, patients treated with cilta-cel demonstrated at least a 3.1-fold and at least a 10.3-fold increase in the likelihood of achieving an overall response or complete response or better, respectively, at least a 74% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, and at least a 47% reduction in the risk of death. These results were statistically significant., Conclusion: Cilta-cel showed improved efficacy over each comparator for all outcomes, demonstrating its potential as an efficacious treatment for patients with triple-class exposed RRMM., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10-5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Despite the recent introduction of new therapies for multiple myeloma (MM), it remains an incurable disease. As MM progresses, patients experience cycles of relapse and remission, with remission periods becoming increasingly shorter as the disease becomes less treatment-sensitive. The treatment of relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) remains a significant clinical challenge. Patients with RRMM are a highly heterogeneous group and choosing the most appropriate treatment requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the number of treatment options for MM is continually growing with no definitive consensus to guide treating clinicians. The emergence of second-generation proteasome inhibitors (e.g., carfilzomib and ixazomib), immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., pomalidomide) and monoclonal antibodies (e.g., isatuximab) has expanded an already complex treatment landscape. This review provides a clear summary of the available treatments for MM and discusses how to tailor treatments to individual patients' needs. Novel treatments currently under clinical development, including venetoclax, melflufen and CAR T-cell therapies, are also discussed., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19-infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

Background: In the phase III CASTOR study in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus Vd alone. Outcomes after 40.0 months of median follow-up are discussed., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had received ≥ 1 line of treatment and were administered bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 ) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for 8 cycles with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg) until disease progression., Results: Of 498 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (D-Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), 47% had 1 prior line of treatment (1PL; D-Vd, n = 122; Vd, n = 113). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd in the ITT population (16.7 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.40; P < .0001) and the 1PL subgroup (27.0 vs. 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15-0.32; P < .0001). In lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median PFS was 7.8 versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68; P = .0002) for D-Vd (n = 60) versus Vd (n = 81). Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (10 -5 ) were greater with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: 14% vs. 2%; 1PL: 20% vs. 3%; both P < .0001). PFS2 was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61; 1PL: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51; P < .0001). No new safety concerns were observed., Conclusion: After 3 years, D-Vd maintained significant benefits in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with a consistent safety profile. D-Vd provided the greatest benefit at first relapse and increased MRD-negativity rates., (Copyright © 2019 Janssen Global Services, LLC. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lenalidomide and bortezomib frontline exposure has raised a growing need for novel treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib in combination with daratumumab has shown substantial efficacy with tolerable safety in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in a phase 1 study. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 466 patients recruited from 102 sites across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomly assigned 2:1 to carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd). All patients received twice per week carfilzomib at 56 mg/m 2 (20 mg/m 2 ; days 1 and 2 during cycle 1). Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients ≥75 years old starting on the second week). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention to treat. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population. This trial (NCT03158688) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients of 569 assessed for eligibility were enrolled. After median follow-up of approximately 17 months, median progression-free survival was not reached in the KdD group versus 15·8 months in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·46-0·85; p=0·0027). Median treatment duration was longer in the KdD versus the Kd group (70·1 vs 40·3 weeks). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 253 (82%) patients in the KdD group and 113 (74%) patients in the Kd group. The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was similar in both groups (KdD, 69 [22%]; Kd, 38 [25%])., Interpretation: KdD significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus Kd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and was associated with a favourable benefit-risk profile., Funding: Amgen., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM., Methods: Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts., Results: The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance., Conclusion: Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified ≥60 months' follow-up). Patients were randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and was similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an ≈30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vs MPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00689936 and EudraCT as 2007-004823-39., (© 2018 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Direct analysis of HLA-presented antigens by mass spectrometry provides a comprehensive view on the antigenic landscape of different tissues/malignancies and enables the identification of novel, pathophysiologically relevant T-cell epitopes. Here, we present a systematic and comparative study of the HLA class I and II presented, nonmutant antigenome of multiple myeloma (MM). Quantification of HLA surface expression revealed elevated HLA molecule counts on malignant plasma cells compared with normal B cells, excluding relevant HLA downregulation in MM. Analyzing the presentation of established myeloma-associated T-cell antigens on the HLA ligandome level, we found a substantial proportion of antigens to be only infrequently presented on primary myelomas or to display suboptimal degrees of myeloma specificity. However, unsupervised analysis of our extensive HLA ligand data set delineated a panel of 58 highly specific myeloma-associated antigens (including multiple myeloma SET domain containing protein) which are characterized by frequent and exclusive presentation on myeloma samples. Functional characterization of these target antigens revealed peptide-specific, preexisting CD8(+) T-cell responses exclusively in myeloma patients, which is indicative of pathophysiological relevance. Furthermore, in vitro priming experiments revealed that peptide-specific T-cell responses can be induced in response-naive myeloma patients. Together, our results serve to guide antigen selection for T-cell-based immunotherapy of MM., (© 2015 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important element for consideration in treatment decisions in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The pivotal MM-003 (A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Pomalidomide in Combination With Low-Dose Dexamethasone vs. High-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients With Refractory Multiple Myeloma or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Companion Study [NIMBUS]) randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS) with pomalidomide (POM) plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in patients with RRMM in whom lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) had failed. MM-003 also investigated HRQoL as a predefined secondary end point., Patients and Methods: Recruited patients (n = 455) were refractory to their last treatment and had failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Eight clinically relevant and validated HRQoL domains from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20, and EQ-5D questionnaires were selected for analysis. Time to symptom worsening based on minimally important differences (MIDs) was calculated., Results: Clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL as determined by MIDs, regression analyses, and best response analyses were observed more frequently in patients receiving POM + LoDEX than in those receiving HiDEX. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median time to clinically meaningful worsening in HRQoL versus HiDEX in 4 HRQoL domains and demonstrated a trend in an additional 3 domains. Patients in the HiDEX arm experienced earlier HRQoL deterioration compared with those in the POM + LoDEX arm in each domain analyzed., Conclusion: POM + LoDEX offer good clinical outcomes that lead to improved and prolonged HRQoL compared with HiDEX in patients with RRMM and end-stage disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In patients with multiple myeloma (MM), risk stratification by chromosomal abnormalities may enable a more rational selection of therapeutic approaches. In the present study, we analyzed the prognostic value of 12 chromosomal abnormalities in a series of 354 MM patients treated within the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Because of the 2-arm design of the study, we were able to analyze the effect of a bortezomib-based treatment before and after autologous stem cell transplantation (arm B) compared with standard treatment without bortezomib (arm A). For allanalyzed chromosomal aberrations, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were at least equal or superior in the bortezomib arm compared with the standard arm. Strikingly, patients with del(17p13) benefited the most from the bortezomib-containing treatment: the median PFS in arm A was 12.0 months and in arm B it was 26.2 months (P = .024); the 3 year-OS for arm A was 17% and for arm B it was 69% (P = .028). After multivariate analysis, del(17p13) was an independent predictor for PFS (P < .0001) and OS (P < .0001) in arm A, whereas no statistically significant effect on PFS (P = .28) or OS (P = .12) was seen in arm B. In conclusion, the adverse impact of del(17p13) on PFS and OS could be significantly reduced by bortezomib-based treatment, suggesting that long-term administration of bortezomib should be recommended for patients carrying del(17p13).