Explore the vast range of titles available.

Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. 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 ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1–21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction–consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1–2 and 15–16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; 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, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction–intensification–consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7–55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44–3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9–41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68–82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58–72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44–0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) have revolutionised multiple myeloma therapy, but adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and infections are common. This Policy Review presents a consensus from the European Myeloma Network on the prevention and management of these adverse events. Recommended measures include premedication, frequent assessing for symptoms and severity of cytokine release syndrome, step-up dosing for several BsAbs and some CAR T-cell therapies; corticosteroids; and tocilizumab in the case of cytokine release syndrome. Other anti-IL-6 drugs, high-dose corticosteroids, and anakinra might be considered in refractory cases. ICANS often arises concomitantly with cytokine release syndrome. Glucocorticosteroids in increasing doses are recommended if needed, as well as anakinra if the response is inadequate, and anticonvulsants if convulsions occur. Preventive measures against infections include antiviral and antibacterial drugs and administration of immunoglobulins. Treatment of infections and other complications is also addressed.

Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are emerging as an important novel class of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), and are set to be more widely used in clinical practice. However, this new class of therapies is associated with a distinct adverse event (AE) profile that includes cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, as well as AEs leading to increased infection risk such as cytopenias and hypogammaglobulinemia, and infections themselves. As preliminary data with this class of agents shows an increased risk of infections as compared with conventional MM treatment regimens, such as immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), guidance on infection monitoring, prophylaxis and treatment is required. This review provides consensus recommendations from a panel of 13 global experts, following a meeting in August 2022. The meeting objective was to review existing literature and identify relevant information on infections with all BsAbs in patients with MM, as well as to discuss clinical experience of experts in managing these infections. The recommendations outlined here can be used to guide management of infection risk factors, such as hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia. In addition, they can be used to guide the monitoring, prophylaxis, and treatment of bacterial, viral and fungal infections, including emerging infections of interest, such as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), and the use of vaccinations prior to and during BsAb treatment. The recommendations have been graded by the panel based on level of data available. Key recommendations include universal herpes simplex and varicella zoster virus prophylaxis, screening for hepatitis B virus reactivation risk in all patients, monthly intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for immunoparesis and in the absence of life-threatening infectious manifestations, use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with Grade 3 neutropenia, universal pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis and no routine anti-fungal prophylaxis.Video SummaryBReUfrXvMgXdk_GdGVqcDi

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1–21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m2) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1–21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1–21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831. 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4–57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6–36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2–52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60–3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8–not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5–46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59–1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. Celgene.

In the biology of multiple myeloma (MM), immune dysregulation has emerged as a critical component for novel therapeutic strategies. This dysfunction is due to a reduced antigen presentation, a reduced effector cell ability and a loss of reactive T cells against myeloma, together with a bone marrow microenvironment that favors immune escape. The Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) pathway is associated with the regulation of T cell activation and with the apoptotic pathways of effector memory T cells. Specifically, the binding with PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) on the surface of tumor plasma cells down-regulates T cell-proliferation, thus contributing to the immune escape of tumor cells. In relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients, PD-1/PD-L1 blockade was analyzed by using nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab. Outcomes with single agents were unsatisfactory, whereas combination strategies with backbone immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) suggested a synergistic action in such a complex immunological landscape, even in patients previously refractory to these drugs. Nevertheless, these combinations were also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. This review aims to analyze the available preclinical and clinical data on the role of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in MM therapy, focusing on available preliminary efficacy and safety data and offering insights for future investigation.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is incorporated in an increasing number of multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials as a correlative analysis, an endpoint or even as a determinant of subsequent therapy. There is substantial heterogeneity across clinical trials in how MRD is assessed and reported, creating challenges for data interpretation and for the design of subsequent studies. We convened an international panel of MM investigators to harmonize how MRD should be assessed and reported in MM clinical trials. The panel provides consensus on which MM trials should include MRD, the recommended time points for MRD assessment, and expected analytical validation for MRD assays. We subsequently outlined parameters for reporting MRD results implementing the intention-to-treat principle. The panel provides guidance regarding the incorporation of newer peripheral blood-based and imaging-based approaches to detection of residual disease. Recommendations are summarized in 13 consensus statements that should be followed by sponsors, investigators, editors, and reviewers engaged in designing, performing, and interpreting MM trials.

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. 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/m2 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/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m2 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/m2 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/m2 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. 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. 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. Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Multiple myeloma is a disease typical of the elderly, and, because of the increase in life expectancy of the general population, its incidence is expected to grow in the future. Elderly patients represent a particular challenge due to their marked heterogeneity. Many new and highly effective drugs have been introduced in the last few years and results from clinical trials are promising. Besides the availability of novel agents, a careful evaluation of elderly patients showed to be a key factor for the success of therapy. A geriatric assessment is a valid strategy to better stratify patients. In particular, different scores are available today to appropriately assess elderly patients and define their fitness/frailty status. The choice of treatment—transplantation, triplets, doublets, or reduced-dose therapies including novel agents—should depend on the patient’s fitness status (fit, intermediate-fit or frail). Second-generation novel agents have also been evaluated as salvage therapy in the elderly, and these new agents certainly represent a further step forward in the treatment armamentarium for elderly patients with multiple myeloma.

Background A substantial unmet medical need exists for patients with Multiple Myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation who relapse after first-line therapy with daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd). Three therapeutic options recommended for lenalidomide-refractory patients from EHA-ESMO guidelines are approved in Europe and reimbursed in Italy: carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd); pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd); selinexor, bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd). This study aimed to identify key decision criteria and their relevance for assessing these alternatives from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Methods Following ISPOR good practices, we developed a multiple-criteria decision analysis framework using the Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique method. Preferences were elicited from multiple stakeholders, including hematologists, methodologists, decision-makers, and patient representatives. Decision criteria were identified through a targeted literature review, discussed in a multi-stakeholder workshop, and shortlisted with a pragmatic literature review to assess data availability for each alternative. Results The final multiple-criteria decision analysis framework comprised five main criteria: acquisition cost, efficacy, organizational impact, route of administration, and safety. Within the safety criterion, we considered six sub-criteria related to six adverse events: peripheral neuropathy, diarrhoea, nausea, fatigue, anaemia, and thrombocytopenia. Efficacy emerged as the most relevant criterion by most respondents, with a median weight of 38.1%, followed by the safety criterion (26.8% median weight), with peripheral neuropathy being the most relevant safety sub-criterion (34.9%). Based on elicited preferences, SVd was ranked as the most valuable therapy with a global score of 72, followed by PVd (44) and Kd (26), on account of its clinical efficacy. No significant differences in preferences were observed across different stakeholder groups. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the post-DRd treatment landscape for Multiple Myeloma, supporting decision-making from an Italian multi-stakeholder perspective.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is still considered an incurable hematologic cancer and, in the last decades, the treatment goal has been to obtain a long-lasting disease control. However, the recent availability of new effective drugs has led to unprecedented high-quality responses and prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival. The improvement of response rates has prompted the development of new, very sensitive methods to measure residual disease, even when monoclonal components become undetectable in patients’ serum and urine. Several scientific efforts have been made to develop reliable and validated techniques to measure minimal residual disease (MRD), both within and outside the bone marrow. With the newest multidrug combinations, a good proportion of MM patients can achieve MRD negativity. Long-lasting MRD negativity may prove to be a marker of “operational cure”, although the follow-up of the currently ongoing studies is still too short to draw conclusions. In this article, we focus on results obtained with new-generation multidrug combinations in the treatment of high-risk smoldering MM and newly diagnosed MM, including the potential role of MRD and MRD-driven treatment strategies in clinical trials, in order to optimize and individualize treatment.