Search

T-cell redirecting therapy (TCRT), specifically chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T-cells) and bispecific T-cell engagers (TCEs) represent a remarkable advance in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). There are several products available around the world and several more in development targeting primarily B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and G protein-coupled receptor class C group 5 member D (GRPC5D). The relatively rapid availability of multiple immunotherapies brings the necessity to understand how a certain agent may affect the safety and efficacy of a subsequent immunotherapy so MM physicians and patients can aim at optimal sequential use of these therapies. The International Myeloma Working Group conveyed panel of experts to review patient and disease-related factors affecting efficacy and safety of immunotherapy, summarize existing information on sequencing therapy and provide a series of core recommendations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LJC: Honoraria (Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, AbbVie, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Sanofi, Genentech/Roche), Research Funding (Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, Caribou, Gracell, Genentech/Roche); RB: Honoraria (Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, SparkCures), Research Funding (AbbVie, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, Sanofi); HM: Honoraria (Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, GSK, Karyopharm, AbbVie) Research Funding (Pfizer); SB: Honoraria (AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, MJH Lifesciences); BD: Honoraria (Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, Canopy, COTA, Bristol-Myers-Squibb) Research Funding (Amgen, GSK); CN: Honoraria (Johnson & Johnson); JR: Honoraria (Janssen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Takeda, Genentech, AbbVie, Regeneron, Forus, Menarini, Adaptive Biotechnologies); KW:Honoraria (Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Menarini, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, Takeda) Research Funding (Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi; GSK, Abbvie) Consultancy (Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Beigene, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Menarini, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda); MJF: Honoraria (Kite/Gilead, CMS, Novartis, Janssen, Legend, Cytoagents, SITC); JCY: Honoraria (Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Regeneron, GSK, Pfizer, Menarini); NWCJvdD: Honoraria (Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Adaptive, Pfizer, AbbVie, Servier) Research Funding (Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb/Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis); NB: Honoraria (AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Forus, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda) Research Funding (Pfizer); RP: Honoraria (GSK, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Abbvie, Roche) Research Funding (GSK, Pfizer); W-JC: Honoraria (AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, GSK, Novartis) Research Funding (Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Novartis); PJH: Advisory Board without honoraria (Antengene, Gilead, iTeos Therapeutics, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer), Research Funding: Novartis; GK: Honoraria (Janssen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Sanofi, Kite, Arcellx, Pfizer, Kedrion, Cellectar); PK: Research Funding (Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Ichnos Sciences, Amgen); FS: Honoraria (AbbVie, GSK, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Novartis, SkyliteDX, Pfizer, Daiki-Sankyo,); JB: Honoraria (AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Janssen, K36 Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Sebia, Takeda) Research Funding (2 Seventy Bio, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, C4 Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, CARsgen, Cartesian Therapeutics, Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, K36 Therapeutics. Karyopharm, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida, Roche, Takeda); HE: Honoraria (Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis, Roche), Research Funding (BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi; GSK, Amgen) Consultancy (Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda); ADC: Honoraria (GSK; Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, iTeos, Ichnos, Arcellx, Legend; Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Kite); Research Funding (GSK, Genentech, Janssen, BMS); Patent (Novartis); JM: Honoraria (Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Takeda); YL: Honoraria (Janssen, Sanofi, NexImmune, Caribou, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Regeneron, Genentech; Sanofi, Regeneron) Research Funding (Janssen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb); TGM: Honoraria (GSK, Sanofi, Amgen, Janssen); AC: Honoraria (AbbVie, Adaptive biotechnologies, Amgen, Angengene, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Forus, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Millenium/Takeda, Sanofi). The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest. The work presented in this manuscript did not receive any financial or material support., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

In the MAIA study (median follow-up, 56.2 months), daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In this post hoc analysis of clinically important subgroups in MAIA (median follow-up, 64.5 months), transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM were randomized 1:1 to D-Rd or Rd. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10 -5 ). PFS favored D-Rd versus Rd in most subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79), frail patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85), patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80), and patients with isolated gain(1q21) (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.67). ORRs, MRD-negativity rates, and sustained (≥12 months) MRD-negativity rates were higher with D-Rd versus Rd across subgroups. In patients aged ≥75 years, rates of grade 3/4 and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar for D-Rd and Rd, but discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower for D-Rd. Results support use of D-Rd for high-risk patients, supporting D-Rd as a standard of care for transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02252172., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PM served on an advisory board for and received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides. TF has nothing to disclose. SZU received research funding from Amgen, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDx, and Takeda; served in a consulting role for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Edo Pharma, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Secura Bio, SkylineDx, Takeda, and TeneoBio; and served on a speakers bureau for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi. NB served in a consulting or advisory role for and received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, FORUS, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received research funding from Pfizer and Celgene. NR served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline; and received research funding from bluebird bio. TP served as an advisor for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Oncopeptides, Genentech, CSL Behring, and AbbVie; and received research support from Janssen, Genmab, Celgene, Takeda, Oncopeptides, Genentech, AbbVie, and Roche. RZO received research funding from Asylia Therapeutics, Biotheryx, Heidelberg Pharma, CARsgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; received honoraria from and served as a member on a board of directors or advisory committee for AbbVie, Biotheryx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, Meridian Therapeutics, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Neoleukin, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; and holds stock in Asylia Therapeutics. SB served as a consultant and on a speakers bureau for Sanofi, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. HN is an employee of Genmab. CH received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, and AbbVie. HQ served as a consultant for and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Antengene. HG received grants and/or provisions of Investigational Medicinal Product from Amgen, Array BioPharma/Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Chugai, Dietmar Hopp Foundation, Janssen, Johns Hopkins University, Mundipharma, and Sanofi; received research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlycoMimetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Heidelberg Pharma, Roche, Karyopharm, Janssen, Incyte, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MorphoSys AG, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Novartis; served on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pfizer. MO served as a consultant for Janssen. AP received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; served as a member on a board or advisory committee for Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; and received research funding from Takeda. CPV received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, FORUS, Pfizer, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, and Amgen. KW received research funding from Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; and received travel support from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. MT has nothing to disclose. MM served on an advisory board for Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; and received accommodations from Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, and Sanofi. LF received honoraria from Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, and Takeda; and received funding from Janssen and Amgen. XL received honoraria, research support, and consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, Sanofi, Gilead, Pfizer, Harpoon Therapeutics, Regeneron, and iTeos. GW, HP, and FB are employees of Janssen and hold stock in Johnson & Johnson. MK and RC are employees of Janssen. SKK received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Allogene, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Takeda, Regeneron, and Molecular Templates; participated in consulting or an advisory board (with no personal payments) for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Roche-Genentech, Takeda, AstraZeneca, bluebird bio, Epizyme, Secura Bio, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Trillium, Loxo Oncology, K36, Sanofi, and Arcellx; and participated in consulting or an advisory board (with personal payments) for Oncopeptides, BeiGene, Antengene, and GLH Pharma., (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is challenging as patients exhaust all available therapies and the disease becomes refractory to standard drug classes. Here we report the final results of LocoMMotion, the first prospective study of real-world clinical practice (RWCP) in triple-class exposed (TCE) patients with RRMM, with a median follow-up of 26.4 months (range, 0.1-35.0). Patients (N  =  248) had received median 4 prior LOT (range, 2-13) at enrollment. 91 unique regimens were used in index LOT. Overall response rate was 31.9% (95% CI, 26.1-38.0), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-5.6) and median overall survival was 13.8 months (95% CI, 10.8-17.0). 152 patients (61.3%) had subsequent LOTs with 134 unique regimens, of which 78 were used in first subsequent LOT. Median PFS2 (from start of study through first subsequent LOT) was 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.4-13.0). 158 patients died on study, 67.7% due to progressive disease. Additional subgroup analyses and long-term safety summaries are reported. The high number of RWCP treatment regimens utilized and poor clinical outcomes confirm a lack of standardized treatment for TCE patients with RRMM, highlighting the need for new treatments with novel mechanisms., Competing Interests: Competing interests: M-VM has received honoraria from or served on the board of directors/advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and Takeda. KW has served as a consultant and received honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Karyopharm, and Takeda; has received honoraria from Roche; and has received honoraria and served as a member on boards of directors and/or advisory committees for Amgen, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. VDS has served on an advisory board or speakers’ bureaus and received honoraria from AbbVie, Alexion, AOP Health, argenx, BMS, GSK, Grifols, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, SOBI, and Takeda. HG has served as a consultant for Amgen, Novartis, and Takeda; has served as a consultant and received honoraria, grants, and/or provision of investigational medicinal product and research funding from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi; has received research funding from Incyte, Molecular Partners, MSD, Mundipharma, and Novartis; and has received other grants from Dietmer Hopp Foundation. MD has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, and Janssen; and has served on the speakers’ bureau for Janssen. MM has received honoraria from Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Astellas, BMS, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has received honoraria/research funding from Celgene and Sanofi. JL-H has no relationships to disclose. DD is an employee/consultant/honoraria/member of board of directors/advisory committees for Janssen Cilag; and a member of the board of directors/advisory committees/received research funding from Celgene. EA has no relationships to disclose. LV has served on the advisory board of BMS, Janssen, and Takeda. AP has received honoraria from or has served in a consulting/advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. RB has received honoraria/research funding from Allogene, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, and Servier. NWCJvdD has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Cellectis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis; and has served in a consulting/advisory role for Adaptive, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. EMO has received honoraria from or has served in a consulting/advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Menarini, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. TR is a former Janssen employee. JMS is a Janssen employee. SK is a Janssen employee. IH is a Janssen employee. VS is a Janssen employee. LM is a Janssen employee. JB is a Janssen employee. OCF is an employee of Legend Biotech USA Inc. HE has received research funding or honoraria and has served in a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria and/or served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Despite treatment advances, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) often progress through standard drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). LocoMMotion (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04035226) is the first prospective study of real-life standard of care (SOC) in triple-class exposed (received at least a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 mAb) patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Patients (N = 248; ECOG performance status of 0-1, ≥3 prior lines of therapy or double refractory to a PI and IMiD) were treated with median 4.0 (range, 1-20) cycles of SOC therapy. Overall response rate was 29.8% (95% CI: 24.2-36.0). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 4.6 (95% CI: 3.9-5.6) and 12.4 months (95% CI: 10.3-NE). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 83.5% of patients (52.8% grade 3/4). Altogether, 107 deaths occurred, due to progressive disease (n = 74), TEAEs (n = 19), and other reasons (n = 14). The 92 varied regimens utilized demonstrate a lack of clear SOC for heavily pretreated, triple-class exposed patients with RRMM in real-world practice and result in poor outcomes. This supports a need for new treatments with novel mechanisms of action., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10 -5 ) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Elimination of suppressive T cells may enable and enhance cancer immunotherapy. Here, we demonstrate that the cell membrane protein SLAMF7 was highly expressed on immunosuppressive CD8 + CD28 - CD57 + Tregs in multiple myeloma (MM). SLAMF7 expression associated with T cell exhaustion surface markers and exhaustion-related transcription factor signatures. T cells from patients with a high frequency of SLAMF7 + CD8 + T cells exhibited decreased immunoreactivity towards the MART-1 aa26-35*A27L antigen. A monoclonal anti-SLAMF7 antibody (elotuzumab) specifically depleted SLAMF7 + CD8 + T cells in vitro and in vivo via macrophage-mediated antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP). Anti-SLAMF7 treatment of MM patients depleted suppressive T cells in peripheral blood. These data highlight SLAMF7 as a marker for suppressive CD8 + Treg and suggest that anti-SLAMF7 antibodies can be used to boost anti-tumoral immune responses in cancer patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

To understand the profile of best responders (complete response or better [≥CR]) to carfilzomib, we described the characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) data, and the safety of patients who achieved ≥CR to carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR. In post hoc analyses from ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, median PFS and OS were longer for ≥CR patients versus those who achieved a very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR). In the carfilzomib arm of ASPIRE, median PFS was 50.4 months for ≥CR versus 22.1 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was 67.0 versus 44.2 months, respectively. In the carfilzomib arm of ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 34.0 for ≥CR versus 20.4 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was non-estimable. Despite the longer treatment duration, fewer patients with ≥CR versus VGPR/PR experienced treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE or ENDEAVOR. Low serum lactate dehydrogenase was the only factor associated with achieving ≥CR vs patients not achieving CR in ASPIRE in multivariate regression analyses. No association was found between cytogenetic risk status and reaching ≥CR. Carfilzomib treatment may lead to rapid and deep responses, irrespective of most patient characteristics.

In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) demonstrated superior efficacy vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide, including those refractory to lenalidomide. This analysis evaluated outcomes in patients at first relapse (N = 226) by lenalidomide-refractory status, prior bortezomib exposure, and prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Second-line PVd significantly improved PFS vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (17.8 vs 9.5 months; P = 0.0276) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory patients (22.0 vs 12.0 months; P = 0.0491), patients with prior bortezomib (17.8 vs 12.0 months; P = 0.0068), and patients with (22.0 vs 13.8 months; P = 0.0241) or without (16.5 vs 9.5 months; P = 0.0454) prior SCT. In patients without prior bortezomib, median PFS was 20.7 vs 9.5 months (P = 0.1055). Significant improvement in overall response rate was also observed with PVd vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (85.9% vs 50.8%; P < 0.001) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory (95.7% vs 60.0%; P < 0.001) patients, with similar results regardless of prior bortezomib or SCT. No new safety signals were observed. These data demonstrate the benefit of PVd at first relapse, including immediately after upfront lenalidomide treatment failure and other common first-line treatments.

The role of salvage high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (sHDCT/ASCT) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the era of continuous novel agent treatment has not been defined. This randomized, open-label, phase III, multicenter trial randomized patients with 1st-3rd relapse of multiple myeloma (MM) to a transplant arm (n = 139) consisting of 3 Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg, day 1-21; dexamethasone 40 mg, day 1, 8, 15, and 22; 4-week cycles) reinduction cycles, sHDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m 2 ), ASCT, and lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg/day) or to a control arm (n = 138) of continuous Rd. Median PFS was 20.7 months in the transplant and 18.8 months in the control arm (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.65-1.16; p = 0.34). Median OS was not reached in the transplant and 62.7 months in the control arm (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.52-1.28; p = 0.37). Forty-one patients (29%) did not receive the assigned sHDCT/ASCT mainly due to early disease progression, adverse events, and withdrawal of consent. Multivariate landmark analyses from the time of sHDCT showed superior PFS and OS (p = 0.0087/0.0057) in patients who received sHDCT/ASCT. Incorporation of sHDCT/ASCT into relapse treatment with Rd was feasible in 71% of patients and did not significantly prolong PFS and OS on ITT analysis while patients who received sHDCT/ASCT may have benefitted.

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.

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved the treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drug classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events.

The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology Group-65/German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group-HD4 (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4) phase III trial compared bortezomib (BTZ) before and after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM, PAD arm) compared with classical cytotoxic agents prior and thalidomide after HDM (VAD arm) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients aged 18-65 years. Here, the long-term follow-up and data on second primary malignancies (SPM) are presented. After a median follow-up of 96 months, progression-free survival (censored at allogeneic transplantation, PFS) remained significantly prolonged in the PAD versus VAD arm (hazard ratio (HR)=0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.65-0.89, P=0.001). Overall survival (OS) was similar in the PAD versus VAD arm (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.08, P=0.24). The incidence of SPM were similar between the two arms (7% each, P=0.73). The negative prognostic effects of the cytogenetic aberration deletion 17p13 (clone size ⩾10%) and renal impairment at baseline (serum creatinine >2 mg dl -1 ) on PFS and OS remained abrogated in the PAD but not VAD arm. OS from first relapse/progression was similar between the study arms (HR=1.02, P=0.85). In conclusion, the survival benefit with BTZ induction/maintenance compared with classical cytotoxic agents and thalidomide maintenance is maintained without an increased risk of SPM.

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drugs classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events.Leukemia accepted article preview online, 18 December 2017. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.353.

The randomized phase 3 study ENDEAVOR demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) for carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a preplanned subgroup analysis of ENDEAVOR to evaluate Kd vs Vd by cytogenetic risk. Of 785 patients with known cytogenetics, 210 (27%) had high-risk cytogenetics (Kd, n=97 (25%); Vd, n=113 (28%)) and 575 (73%) had standard-risk cytogenetics (Kd, n=284 (75%); Vd, n=291 (72%)). Median PFS in the high-risk group was 8.8 months for Kd vs 6.0 months for Vd (hazard ratio (HR), 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.92; P=0.0075). Median PFS in the standard-risk group was not estimable for Kd vs 10.2 months for Vd (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33-0.58; P<0.0001). Overall response rates were 72.2% (Kd) vs 58.4% (Vd) in the high-risk group and 79.2% (Kd) vs 66.0% (Vd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 15.5% (Kd) vs 4.4% (Vd) achieved a complete response (CR) or better. In the standard-risk group, 13.0% (Kd) vs 7.9% (Vd) achieved ⩾CR. This preplanned subgroup analysis found that Kd was superior to Vd in relapsed or refractory MM, regardless of cytogenetic risk.

The randomized phase 3 ENDEAVOR study (N=929) compared carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). We performed a subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR in patients categorized by number of prior lines of therapy or by prior treatment. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with one prior line was 22.2 months for Kd vs 10.1 months for Vd, and median PFS for patients with ⩾2 prior lines was 14.9 months for Kd vs 8.4 months for Vd. For patients with prior bortezomib exposure, the median PFS was 15.6 months for Kd vs 8.1 months for Vd, and for patients with prior lenalidomide exposure the median PFS was 12.9 months for Kd vs 7.3 months for Vd. Overall response rates (Kd vs Vd) were 81.9 vs 65.5% (one prior line), 72.0 vs 59.7% (⩾2 prior lines), 71.2 vs 60.3% (prior bortezomib) and 70.1 vs 59.3% (prior lenalidomide). The safety profile in the prior lines subgroups was qualitatively similar to that in the broader ENDEAVOR population. In RMM, outcomes are improved when receiving treatment with carfilzomib compared with bortezomib, regardless of the number of prior therapy lines or prior exposure to bortezomib or lenalidomide.

We aimed at demonstrating non-inferiority of bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCD) compared to bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone (PAd) induction therapy with respect to very good partial response rates or better (⩾VGPR) in 504 newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients. VCD was found to be non-inferior to PAd with respect to ⩾VGPR rates (37.0 versus 34.3%, P=0.001). The rates of progressive disease (PD) were 0.4% (VCD) versus 4.8% (PAd; P=0.003). In the PAd arm, 11 of 12 patients with PD had either renal impairment (creatinine ⩾2 mg/dl) at diagnosis or the cytogenetic abnormality gain 1q21, whereas no PD was observed in these subgroups in the VCD arm. Leukocytopenia/neutropenia (⩾3°) occurred more frequently in the VCD arm (35.2% versus 11.3%, P<0.001). Neuropathy rates (⩾2°) were higher in the PAd group (14.9 versus 8.4%, P=0.03). Serious adverse events, both overall and those related to thromboembolic events, were higher in the PAd group (32.7 versus 24.0%, P=0.04 and 2.8 versus 0.4%, P=0.04). Stem cell collection was not impeded by VCD. VCD is as effective as PAd in terms of achieving ⩾VGPR rates with fewer PD and has a favorable toxicity profile. Therefore, VCD is preferable to PAd as induction therapy.

In this report, a panel of European myeloma experts discuss the role of pomalidomide in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Based on the available evidence, the combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone is a well-tolerated and effective treatment option for patients with RRMM who have exhausted treatment with lenalidomide and bortezomib. The optimal starting dose of pomalidomide is 4 mg given on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle, whereas dexamethasone is administered at a dose of 40 mg weekly (reduced to 20 mg for patients aged >75 years). The treatment should continue until evidence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dose-modification schemes have been established for patients who develop neutropenia, thrombocytopaenia and other grade 3-4 adverse events during pomalidomide therapy. Guidance on the prevention and management of infections and venous thromboembolism is provided, based on the available clinical evidence and the experience of panel members. The use of pomalidomide in special populations, such as patients with advanced age, renal impairment or unfavourable cytogenetic features, is also discussed.