Search

Abstract: The prognostic impact of achieving and in particular maintaining measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity in multiple myeloma is now established; therefore, identifying among MRD-negative patients the ones at higher risk of losing MRD negativity is of importance. We analyzed predictors of unsustained MRD negativity in patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). MRD was performed by multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity of 10-5) at premaintenance and every 6 months thereafter. The cumulative incidence (CI) of MRD resurgence and/or progression was analyzed in MRD-negative patients. A total of 306 of 474 (65%) MRD-negative patients were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months from MRD negativity, 185 of 306 (60%) patients were still MRD negative and progression free, 118 (39%) lost their MRD-negative status, and 3 patients (1%) died without progression. Amp1q vs normal (4-year CI, 63% vs 34), ≥2 concomitant high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities vs 0 (4-year CI, 59% vs 33%), circulating tumor cells at baseline (high vs low at 4-year CI, 62% vs 32%), and time-to-reach MRD negativity postconsolidation vs preconsolidation (4-year CI, 46% vs 35%) were associated with a higher risk of unsustained MRD negativity in a multivariate Fine-Gray model. During the first 2 years of maintenance, patients receiving carfilzomib-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide alone had a lower risk of unsustained MRD negativity (4-year CI, 20% vs 33%)., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based triplets, in particular carfilzomib-Rd (KRd) and daratumumab-Rd (DaraRd), represent a standard of care in lenalidomide-sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) patients in first relapse. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT), suggested better outcome with DaraRd. Trying to address this issue in clinical practice, we collected data of 430 consecutive MM patients addressed to Rd-based triplets in first relapse between January 2017 and March 2021. Overall, the most common used regimen was DaraRd, chosen in almost half of the cases (54.4%), followed by KRd (34.6%). Different triplets were used much less commonly. In an attempt to limit the imbalance of a retrospective analysis, we conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between DaraRd and KRd. After PSM, efficacy of DaraRd versus KRd was similar in terms of overall-response rate (ORR) (OR: 0.9, P=0.685) as well as of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (OR: 0.9, P=0.582). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for DaraRd (29.8 vs. 22.5 months; P=0.028). DaraRd was tolerated better, registering a lower rate of grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity (OR: 0.4, P<0.001). With the limitations of any retrospective analysis, our real-life PSM comparison between DaraRd and KRd, in first-relapse MM patients, showed better tolerability and prolonged PFS of DaraRd, although with some gaps of performance, in particular of DaraRd, with respect to RCT. Carfilzomib-containing regimens, like KRd, still remain a valid second-line option in the emerging scenario of first-line daratumumab-based therapy.

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk., Methods: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m 2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA., Interpretation: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need., Funding: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RM has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and Amgen; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKlin; and has served on scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline. LP has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Janssen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen. BG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. AP has served on the advisory board for Amgen; has received support for meeting fees, travel, and lodging expenses from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and has received non-financial support from Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and Amgen. NG has received research grants from Celgene and Janssen Pharmaceutical; has received sponsorship for clinical studies from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Millennium Pharmaceutical; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen Pharmaceutical; and has received support for attending meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AG has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Janssen; and has served on the advisory boards for Takeda and Janssen. MC has received advisory fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Celgene. SB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen. EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. AB has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: High levels of circulating tumor plasma cells (CTC-high) in patients with multiple myeloma are a marker of aggressive disease. We aimed to confirm the prognostic impact and identify a possible cutoff value of CTC-high for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), in the context of concomitant risk features and minimal residual disease (MRD) achievement., Methods: CTC were analyzed at diagnosis with two-tube single-platform flow cytometry (sensitivity 4 × 10 -5 ) in patients enrolled in the multicenter randomized FORTE clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203643). MRD was assessed by second-generation multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity 10 -5 ). We tested different cutoff values in series of multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazards regression analyses on PFS outcome and selected the value that maximized the Harrell's C-statistic. We analyzed the impact of CTC on PFS and OS in a MV analysis including baseline features and MRD negativity., Results: CTC analysis was performed in 401 patients; the median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 45-54 months). There was a modest correlation between the percentage of CTC and bone marrow plasma cells ( r = 0.38). We identified an optimal CTC cutoff of 0.07% (approximately 5 cells/µL, C-index 0.64). In MV analysis, CTC-high versus CTC-low patients had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.97, P < .001; 4-year PFS 38% v 69%) and OS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.56; P < .001; 4-year OS 68% v 92%). The CTC levels, but not the bone marrow plasma cell levels, affected the outcome. The only factor that reduced the negative impact of CTC-high was the achievement of MRD negativity (interaction P = .039)., Conclusion: In multiple myeloma, increasing levels of CTC above an optimal cutoff represent an easy-to-assess, robust, and independent high-risk factor. The achievement of MRD negativity is the most important factor that modulates their negative prognostic impact.

Objectives: Autologous stem cell transplantation is the gold standard for eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Patients are usually hospitalized for administration of mobilization chemotherapy. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of mobilization therapy with low-dose (2 g/m 2 ) and intermediate-dose (3-4 g/m 2 ) cyclophosphamide administered as outpatient., Methods: A total of 176 consecutive newly diagnosed transplant-eligible myeloma patients receiving outpatient mobilization were retrospectively evaluated. Induction therapy was mainly performed with new drugs (91%)., Results: Chemotherapy was very well tolerated with 16.6% of patients having all-grade adverse events (AEs) and only 1.2% having severe AEs. The most frequently reported AEs were nausea and vomiting grade 1-2 (6.8%). Only 5.7% of patients required hospitalization for AEs. Stem cell collection was successful in 93.1% of patients, with a median CD34 + harvest of 8.7 × 10 6 /kg. Target for 2 autologous stem cell transplantation (at least 6 CD34 +  × 10 6 /kg) was reached by 76.3% of patients. Administration of plerixafor on demand was necessary in 12.1% of patients., Conclusions: Outpatient mobilization with low- and intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide appears an efficient and safe procedure, with minimal and manageable AEs and low rate of hospitalization., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P =0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P =0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P =0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P =0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196., (Copyright© 2020 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Plerixafor inhibits CXCR4, thus inducing the mobilization of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells in lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, the kinetics of plerixafor-induced mobilization of lymphocyte subsets is poorly known. Here, we evaluated the graft content, the engraftment, and the immunological reconstitution of MM patients receiving plerixafor. Thirty-seven patients undergoing one or tandem ASCT were enrolled. After mobilization with cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF, plerixafor was added at hematological recovery regardless of CD34 + cell count. We evaluated the number of CD34 + , CD34 + /CD38 - , CD3 + , CD4 + , CD8 + , CD19 + , CD56 + /CD3 - , CD4 + /CD25 + /FOXP3 + , and CD138 + /CD38 + cells on each apheresis. Hematological and immunological recovery were determined at 30 days, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after ASCT. Overall, 34/37 patients mobilized a median of 10.1 × 10 6 CD34 + cells/Kg (IQ 7.7-13.4). Patients with <20/µL CD34 + cells at plerixafor administration (18/33) had a significantly higher CD34 + cell fold increase, but not a higher absolute number, than 16/33 patients with ≥20/µL CD34 + cells. A similar CD34 + and immune graft composition was reported. A higher number of CD3 + and CD8 + cells/µL was observed at 3 months after first ASCT (p < 0.05) in the group with ≥20 CD34 + cells/µL. Thus, in MM patients, the timing of plerixafor administration influences immunological recovery.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196)., (Copyright© 2020 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Background: The main goal of this post hoc analysis of the Collaboration to Collect Autologous Transplant Outcomes in Lymphoma and Myeloma (CALM) study was to evaluate the rate of short- and long-term infectious and non-infectious complications occurring after ASCT in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: The analysis included all patients with MM from the CALM study who underwent ≥1 ASCT. The primary endpoint of the analysis was to determine the rate of infectious and non-infectious complications after ASCT and to compare them in three time periods: 0–100 days, 101 days–1 year, and >1 year after the first transplant. Results: The analysis included a total of 3552 patients followed up for a median of 56.7 months (range 0.4–108.1). Complication rates decreased with the time from ASCT with 24.85 cases per 100 patient-years from day 0 to 100 days after the transplant, and <2.31 cases per 100 patient-years from the 101st day. At 100 days after ASC T, 45.7% of patients had complications, with infectious events being twice as frequent as non-infectious complications. Bacterial infections (6.5 cases per 100 patient-years, 95% CI: 6.1–7.0) and gastrointestinal complications (4.7 cases per 100 patient-years, 95% CI: 4.3–5.1) were the most common early events. The pattern of complications changed with time from ASCT. The presence of complications after ASCT was not associated with overall survival. Conclusions: Our data provide a solid basis for comparing ASCT-related complications to those caused by emerging treatments in multiple myeloma, such as CAR T-cell therapy and other immunotherapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]