Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Recent developments have led to remarkable improvements in the assessment and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). New technologies have become available to precisely evaluate the biology and extent of the disease, including information about cytogenetics and genetic abnormalities, extramedullary manifestations and minimal residual disease. New, more effective drugs have been introduced into clinical practice, which enable clinicians to significantly improve the outcome of patients but also pose new challenges for the prevention and management of their specific side effects. Given these various new options and challenges, it is important to identify the minimal requirements for diagnosis and treatment of patients, as access to the most sophisticated advances may vary depending on local circumstances. Here, we propose the minimal requirements and possible options for diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m 2 thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib ( n =157) or control ( n =158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4–14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7–12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760–1.249; P =0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ⩾3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients.

In this study, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone improved response rates and overall survival among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Survival rates have improved for patients with multiple myeloma, yet relapse remains common, 1 indicating an ongoing need for new therapeutic approaches. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide in combination with high-dose dexamethasone is approved for use in relapsed multiple myeloma on the basis of phase 3 trials showing superiority to dexamethasone alone, with a median progression-free survival of 11.1 months and an overall response rate of 60%. 2 – 4 In previously untreated patients, lower weekly doses of dexamethasone proved less toxic and more effective than high-dose dexamethasone. 5 Indeed, in a recent phase 3 study, lenalidomide with weekly dexamethasone, administered until disease progression, was . . .

Extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMM) is an aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM). This study represents the most comprehensive next-generation sequencing analysis of EMM tumors ( N  = 14) to date, uncovering key molecular features and describing the tumor microenvironment. We observed the co-occurrence of 1q21 gain/amplification and MAPK pathway mutations in 79% of EMM samples, suggesting that these are crucial mutational events in EMM development. We also demonstrated that patients with mutated KRAS and 1q21 gain/amplification at the time of diagnosis have a significantly higher risk of EMM development (HR = 2.4, p  = 0.011) using data from a large CoMMpass dataset. We identified downregulation of CXCR4 and enhanced cell proliferation, along with reduced expression of therapeutic targets (CD38, SLAMF7, GPRC5D, FCRH5), potentially explaining diminished efficacy of immunotherapy. Conversely, we identified significantly upregulated EZH2 and CD70 as potential future therapeutic options. For the first time, we report on the tumor microenvironment of EMM, revealing CD8+ T cells and NK cells as predominant immune effector cells using single-cell sequencing. Finally, this is the first longitudinal study in EMM revealing the molecular changes from the time of diagnosis to EMM relapse.

Purpose: Latino Medicare enrollees report suboptimal rates of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) despite Medicare policies designed to improve CRCS access for older persons. Patient navigation (PN) may address many underlying barriers to CRCS, yet little is known about the effectiveness of PN to increase CRCS adherence among Latino Medicare enrollees. Methods: Using a randomized controlled trial study design, we evaluated tailored PN delivered outside of primary care settings as an intervention to increase CRCS adherence in this population. Intervention participants (n = 135) received tailored PN services which included education, counseling, and logistical support administered in their language of choice. Comparison participants (n = 168) received mailed cancer education materials. We compared CRCS rates between interventions and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of CRCS adherence for PN versus comparison groups after adjusting for covariates of interest. Results: More navigated than non-navigated participants became CRCS adherent during the study period (43.7 vs. 32.1 %, p = 0.04). The odds of CRCS adherence were significantly higher for PN relative to comparison participants before and after adjusting for covariates (unadjusted OR 1.64, p = 0.04; adjusted OR 1.82, p = 0.02). Higher CRCS adherence rates were observed primarily in the uptake of endoscopic screening methods. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that PN delivered outside of the primary care environment is modestly effective in increasing CRCS adherence among Latino Medicare enrollees. This intervention strategy should be further evaluated as a complement to primary care-based PN and other care coordination strategies to increase adherence with CRCS and other evidence-based screenings among older Latinos.

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) was identified in 3.2% of 21 463 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, 50 years of age or older. The risk of progression to multiple myeloma, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, AL amyloidosis or a lymphoproliferative disorder is approximately 1% per year. Low-risk MGUS is characterized by having an M protein <15 g/l, IgG type and a normal free light chain (FLC) ratio. Patients should be followed with serum protein electrophoresis at six months and, if stable, can be followed every 2–3 years or when symptoms suggestive of a plasma cell malignancy arise. Patients with intermediate and high-risk MGUS should be followed in 6 months and then annually for life. The risk of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma (SMM) progressing to multiple myeloma or a related disorder is 10% per year for the first 5 years, 3% per year for the next 5 years and 1–2% per year for the next 10 years. Testing should be done 2–3 months after the initial recognition of SMM. If the results are stable, the patient should be followed every 4–6 months for 1 year and, if stable, every 6–12 months.

Multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) has become standard in the management of patients with plasma cell (PC) dyscrasias, and could be considered mandatory in specific areas of routine clinical practice. It plays a significant role during the differential diagnostic work-up because of its fast and conclusive readout of PC clonality, and simultaneously provides prognostic information in most monoclonal gammopathies. Recent advances in the treatment and outcomes of multiple myeloma led to the implementation of new response criteria, including minimal residual disease (MRD) status as one of the most relevant clinical endpoints with the potential to act as surrogate for survival. Recent technical progress led to the development of next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry that represents a validated, highly sensitive, cost-effective and widely available technique for standardized MRD evaluation, which also could be used for the detection of circulating tumor cells. Here we review current applications of MFC and NGF in most PC disorders including the less frequent solitary plasmocytoma, light-chain amyloidosis or Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

In newly diagnosed myeloma patients, upfront autologous transplant (ASCT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1) compared with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (CC+R). Salvage ASCT at first relapse may still effectively rescue patients who did not receive upfront ASCT. To evaluate the long-term benefit of upfront ASCT vs CC+R and the impact of salvage ASCT in patients who received upfront CC+R, we conducted a pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials (RV-MM-209 and EMN-441). Primary endpoints were PFS1, progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), overall survival (OS). A total of 268 patients were randomized to 2 courses of melphalan 200 mg/m 2 and ASCT (MEL200-ASCT) and 261 to CC+R. Median follow-up was 46 months. MEL200-ASCT significantly improved PFS1 (median: 42 vs 24 months, HR 0.53; P <0.001), PFS2 (4 years: 71 vs 54%, HR 0.53, P <0.001) and OS (4 years: 84 vs 70%, HR 0.51, P <0.001) compared with CC+R. The advantage was noticed in good and bad prognosis patients. Only 53% of patients relapsing from CC+R received ASCT at first relapse. Upfront ASCT significantly reduced the risk of death (HR 0.51; P =0.007) in comparison with salvage ASCT. In conclusion, these data confirm the role of upfront ASCT as the standard approach for all young myeloma patients.