Search

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. The Oncologist 2014;19:829-844 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation is standard treatment in Europe for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We evaluated whether the addition of daratumumab to VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation would improve stringent complete response rate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Methods: In this two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 CASSIOPEIA trial, we recruited transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at 111 European sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive four pre-transplant induction and two post-transplant consolidation cycles of VTd alone (VTd group) or in combination with daratumumab (D-VTd group). The primary endpoint of part 1 was stringent complete response assessed 100 days after transplantation. Part 2 (maintenance) is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02541383.Findings: Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled at 111 European sites and were randomly assigned to the D-VTd group (n=543) or the VTd group (n=542). At day 100 after transplantation, 157 (29%) of 543 patients in the D-VTd group and 110 (20%) of 542 patients in the VTd group in the intention-to-treat population had achieved a stringent complete response (odds ratio 1·60, 95% CI 1·21-2·12, p=0·0010). 211 (39%) patients in the D-VTd group versus 141 (26%) in the VTd group achieved a complete response or better, and 346 (64%) of 543 versus 236 (44%) of 542 achieved minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5 sensitivity threshold, assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry; both p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival from first randomisation was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·33-0·67, p<0·0001). 46 deaths on study were observed (14 vs 32, 0·43, 95% CI 0·23-0·80). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (28% vs 15%), lymphopenia (17% vs 10%), and stomatitis (13% vs 16%).Interpretation: D-VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation improved depth of response and progression-free survival with acceptable safety. CASSIOPEIA is the first study showing the clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard of care in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Funding: The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only., Methods: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants., Findings: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment., Interpretation: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy., Funding: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM reports personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. CH reports personal fees from Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. AP reports personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. BA reports grants from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and Janssen, outside the submitted work; and advisory board participation from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. KB reports grants from Celgene outside the submitted work; personal fees from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, and Amgen, outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Celgene, AbbVie, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. SZ reports grants from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda, during the conduct of the study. MD reports grants from Celgene and Janssen during the conduct of the study; participation on an advisory board for Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. TD reports grants from Celgene and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees and advisory board participation from Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, and Amgen, outside of the submitted work. CD reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. TF reports personal fees from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. CS reports personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. MMo reports grants from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene; non-financial support from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene; and personal fees from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. LK reports personal fees from Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. XL reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. MMa reports personal fees from and advisory board participation for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. A-MS reports personal fees from Celgene outside the submitted work. NWCJvdD reports grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Servier, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. AB reports personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CT reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitter work. MR reports grants from Janssen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and travel support from Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. M-DL reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees and advisory board participation from AbbVie, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. TA reports employment and equity ownership from Genmab. MK reports employment with Janssen. KZ reports employment with Janssen. CdB reports employment and equity ownership from Janssen. SV reports employment with Janssen. TK reports employment with Janssen. VV reports employment with Janssen. JV reports employment with Janssen. HA-L reports grants from Celgene and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. PS reports personal fees from Celgene and Janssen, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objectives and Design: A novel risk stratification algorithm estimating risk of death in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma starting second-line treatment was recently developed using multivariable Cox regression of data from a Czech registry. It uses 16 parameters routinely collected in medical practice to stratify patients into four distinct risk groups in terms of survival expectation. To provide insight into generalisability of the risk stratification algorithm, the study aimed to validate the risk stratification algorithm using real-world data from specifically designed retrospective chart audits from three European countries., Participants and Setting: Physicians collected data from 998 patients (France, 386; Germany, 344; UK, 268) and applied the risk stratification algorithm., Methods: The performance of the Cox regression model for predicting risk of death was assessed by Nagelkerke's R 2 , goodness of fit and the C-index. The risk stratification algorithm's ability to discriminate overall survival across four risk groups was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and HRs., Results: Consistent with the Czech registry, the stratification performance of the risk stratification algorithm demonstrated clear differentiation in risk of death between the four groups. As risk groups increased, risk of death doubled. The C-index was 0.715 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.734)., Conclusions: Validation of the novel risk stratification algorithm in an independent 'real-world' dataset demonstrated that it stratifies patients in four subgroups according to survival expectation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RH has received research funding from Amgen and Celgene, consultancy fees from Amgen, Celgene and Takeda, and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen. SG-M, ZS and MC are employees of Amgen Europe and stockholders in Amgen. MD has received research funding from Celgene and Janssen, and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda. LD is an employee of Amgen and a stockholder in Amgen. MSR has received research funding from Amgen and Novartis, consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda and Novartis, and has participated in advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen and Janssen. WB is an employee of Pharmerit International, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this research. AB has received consultancy fees from Amgen in relation to the work reported here., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Adoptive cellular therapy using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy is currently being evaluated in patients with relapsed / refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The majority of CAR-T cell programs now being tested in clinical trials are targeting B-cell maturation antigen. Several recent phase I / II trials show promising preliminary results in patients with MM progressing on proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies targeting CD38. CAR-T cell therapy is a potentially life-threatening strategy that can only be administered in experienced centers. For the moment, CAR-T cell therapy for MM is still experimental, but once this strategy has been approved in relapsed/refractory MM, it will become one of the most important indications for this therapy in Europe and world-wide. This manuscript proposes practical considerations for the use of CAR-T cell therapy in MM, and discusses several important issues for its future development., (Copyright© 2019 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

With increasing number of therapies available for the treatment of multiple myeloma, it is timely to examine the course of patients' journeys. We investigated patient characteristics, treatment durations and outcomes, and symptom burden across the treatment pathway in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. In total, 435 physicians retrospectively reviewed 4997 patient charts. Profiles of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma during the last 12 months were similar across countries; bone pain was the most common presentation. Median duration of first-line therapy was 6 months, followed by a median treatment-free interval of 10 months; both these decreased with increasing lines of therapy, as did time to progression. Depth of response, as assessed by the treating physician, also decreased with each additional line of therapy: 74% of patients achieved at least a very good partial response at first line, compared with only 11% at fifth line. Deeper responses were associated with longer time to progression, although these were physician-judged. Toxicities and co-morbidities increased with later treatment lines, and were more likely to have led to discontinuation of treatment. These real-world data provide an insight into patient outcomes and treatment decisions being made in clinical practice., (© 2016 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

High-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients have usually a less favorable outcome after intensive treatment compared with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. This may reflect different disease-related and patient-related factors. The purpose of this analysis is to identify disease-specific prognostic factors and to develop prognostic scores for both patient groups. A total of 692 patients in the EORTC/GIMEMA AML-10 study and 289 patients in the CRIANT study received identical remission-induction and consolidation treatment. Estimated 5-year survival rate was 34 % in the AML-10 versus 27 % in the CRIANT study, and estimated disease-free survival was 40 % versus 28 %, respectively. In multivariate analysis, cytogenetic characteristics, white blood count, and age appeared prognostic for survival in both studies. French-American-British (FAB) subtype and performance status were prognostic in the AML-10 study only, whereas number of cytopenias and duration of antecedent hematologic disorder >6 months were prognostic in the CRIANT study only. The prognostic scores distinguish three groups with a 5-year survival rate of 54, 38, and 19 % in the AML-10 study versus 69, 37, and 5 % in the CRIANT study. The prognostic value of these scores has been validated on two external series. The new scoring systems form a practical tool to predict the outcome of individual MDS and AML patients treated with intensive antileukemic therapy.