Elotuzumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Extended 3-year follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective clinical experience with 319 cases outside of controlled clinical trials

Efficacy of elotuzumab for multiple myeloma deteriorates after daratumumab: a multicenter retrospective study

Elotuzumab-based regimens are sometimes selected for multiple myeloma treatment after daratumumab-based regimens. However, there has been insufficient discussion on the efficacy of elotuzumab after daratumumab. We used Kansai Myeloma Forum registration data in a multicenter retrospective evaluation of the efficacy of elotuzumab after daratumumab. Overall survival (OS) rate and time to next treatment (TTNT) were significantly worse in the cohort given elotuzumab after daratumumab (Dara cohort, n = 47) than in the cohort with no history of daratumumab administration before elotuzumab (No-Dara cohort, n = 80, OS: P = 0.03; TTNT: P = 0.02; best response: P < 0.01). In the Dara cohort, OS and TTNT rates were worse with sequential elotuzumab use after daratumumab than with non-sequential (OS: P = 0.02; TTNT: P = 0.03). In patients given elotuzumab < 180 days after daratumumab, OS (P = 0.08) and best response (P = 0.21) tended to be worse, and TTNT was significantly worse (P = 0.01), than in those given elotuzumab after ≥ 180 days. These findings were confirmed by subgroup analyses and multivariate analyses. Monoclonal-antibody-free treatment might be preferable after daratumumab-based regimens. If possible, elotuzumab-based regimens should be considered only ≥ 180 days after daratumumab use.

Teclistamab-cqyv in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable neoplasm characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in treatment, MM patients eventually experienced a relapse of the disease. Penta-drug refractory patients continue to be the hard core of relapsed/refractory (RR) settings. Teclistamab-cqyv is a humanized IgG4 antibody and a bispecific BCMA-director CD3 T-cell engager. It recruits endogenous T cells, by targeting CD3 receptors expressed on their surface, resulting in their activation against BCMA, an antigen expressed by plasma cells. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have approved Teclistamab-cqyv in monotherapy for the treatment of RRMM patients who have received at least three prior therapies, including immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) and have demonstrated disease progression during the last therapy. Its effectiveness was demonstrated in a pivotal clinical trial where the overall response rate (ORR) reached 60%. Other clinical studies are currently ongoing to investigate the association of the bispecific antibody with novel drugs with encouraging preliminary results, especially in the setting of heavily pretreated patients. In this review, the authors will provide a comprehensive overview of the drug, including its mechanism of action, major clinical trials, and future perspectives.

Selinexor in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Selinexor, an XPO1 inhibitor, has emerged as a promising therapeutic option in the challenging landscape of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of selinexor, with a focus on available clinical studies involving MM patients and its safety profile. Clinical trials, such as STORM and BOSTON, have demonstrated its efficacy, particularly in combination regimens, showcasing notable overall response rates (ORR) and prolonged median progressionfree survival (mPFS). Selinexor's versatility is evident across various combinations, including carfilzomibdexamethasone (XKd), lenalidomidedexamethasone (XRd), and pomalidomidedexamethasone (XPd), with efficacy observed even in tripleclass refractory and highrisk patient populations. However, challenges, including resistance mechanisms and adverse events, necessitate careful management. Realworld evidence also underscores selinexor's effectiveness in RRMM, though dose adjustments and supportive measures remain crucial. Ongoing trials are exploring selinexor in diverse combinations and settings, including pomalidomidenaïve patients and postautologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) maintenance.

EXPERT OPINION

The evolving landscape of selinexor's role in the sequencing of treatment for RRMM, its potential in highrisk patients, including those with extramedullary disease, as revealed in the most recent international meetings, and ongoing investigations signal a dynamic era in myeloma therapeutics. Selinexor emerges as a pivotal component in multidrug strategies and innovative combinations.

Immunotherapy of Multiple Myeloma: Current Status as Prologue to the Future

The landscape of therapeutic measures to treat multiple myeloma has undergone a seismic shift since the dawn of the current century. This has been driven largely by the introduction of new classes of small molecules, such as proteasome blockers (e.g., bortezomib) and immunomodulators (e.g., lenalidomide), as well as by immunotherapeutic agents starting with the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab in 2015. Recently, other immunotherapies have been added to the armamentarium of drugs available to fight this malignancy. These include the bispecifics teclistamab, talquetamab, and elranatamab, and the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell products idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). While the accumulated benefits of these newer agents have resulted in a more than doubling of the disease's five-year survival rate to nearly 60% and improved quality of life, the disease remains incurable, as patients become refractory to the drugs and experience relapse. This review covers the current scope of antimyeloma immunotherapeutic agents, both those in clinical use and in development. Included in the discussion are additional monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), bi- and multitargeted mAbs, and CAR T-cells and emerging natural killer (NK) cells, including products intended for "off-the-shelf" (allogeneic) applications. Emphasis is placed on the benefits of each along with the challenges that need to be surmounted if MM is to be cured.

Survival Risk Scores for Real-Life Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Receiving Elotuzumab or Carfilzomib In Combination With Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone as Salvage Therapy: Analysis of 919 Cases Outside Clinical Trials

The present study aimed to develop two survival risk scores (RS) for overall survival (OS, SRS^KRd/EloRd) and progression-free survival (PFS, PRS^KRd/EloRd) in 919 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who received carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd)/elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloRd). The median OS was 35.4 months, with no significant difference between the KRd arm versus the EloRd arm. In the multivariate analysis, advanced ISS (HR = 1.31; P = 0.025), interval diagnosis–therapy (HR = 1.46; P = 0.001), number of previous lines of therapies (HR = 1.96; P < 0.0001), older age (HR = 1.72; P < 0.0001), and prior lenalidomide exposure (HR = 1.30; P = 0.026) remained independently associated with death. The median PFS was 20.3 months, with no difference between the two strategies. The multivariate model identified a significant progression/death risk increase for ISS III (HR = 1.37; P = 0.002), >3 previous lines of therapies (HR = 1.67; P < 0.0001), older age (HR = 1.64; P < 0.0001), and prior lenalidomide exposure (HR = 1.35; P = 0.003). Three risk SRS^KRd/EloRd categories were generated: low-risk (134 cases, 16.5%), intermediate-risk (467 cases, 57.3%), and high-risk categories (213 cases, 26.2%). The 1- and 2-year OS probability rates were 92.3% and 83.8% for the low-risk (HR = 1, reference category), 81.1% and 60.6% (HR = 2.73; P < 0.0001) for the intermediate-risk, and 65.5% and 42.5% (HR = 4.91; P < 0.0001) for the high-risk groups, respectively. Notably, unlike the low-risk group, which did not cross the median timeline, the OS median values were 36.6 and 18.6 months for the intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively. Similarly, three PRS^KRd/EloRd risk categories were engendered. Based on such grouping, 338 (41.5%) cases were allocated in the low-, 248 (30.5%) in the intermediate-, and 228 (28.0%) in the high-risk groups. The 1- and 2-year PFS probability rates were 71.4% and 54.5% for the low-risk (HR = 1, reference category), 68.9% and 43.7% (HR = 1.95; P < 0.0001) for the intermediate-risk, and 48.0% and 27.1% (HR = 3.73; P < 0.0001) for the high-risk groups, respectively. The PFS median values were 29.0, 21.0, and 11.7 months for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk cases. This analysis showed 2.7- and 4.9-fold increased risk of death for the intermediate- and high-risk cases treated with KRd/EloRd as salvage therapy. The combined progression/death risks of the two categories were increased 1.3- and 2.2-fold compared to the low-risk group. In conclusion, SRS^KRd/EloRd and PRS^KRd/EloRd may represent accessible and globally applicable models in daily clinical practice and ultimately represent a prognostic tool for RRMM patients who received KRd or EloRd.