Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up including ixazomib maintenance

Lenalidomide use in multiple myeloma (Review)

Lenalidomide is a second-generation new immunomodulatory medication used to treat multiple myeloma (MM). Its mechanism of action involves affecting the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, interleukin-6, cytochrome c, caspase-8, as well as other factors including immunological modulation and the direct killing of cells, among others, rendering it a fundamental medication, useful for the treatment of MM. Combining lenalidomide with other medications such dexamethasone, bortezomib, ixazomib, carfilzomib and daratumumab can markedly alleviate MM. When autologous-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) cannot be utilized to treat newly diagnosed individuals with MM (NDMM), monotherapy maintenance following lenalidomide and dexamethasone may be employed. Following ASCT, single-agent maintenance with lenalidomide can be performed as an additional treatment. The combination of bortezomib and lenalidomide has been demonstrated to be associated with favorable response rates, tolerable toxicity, and therapeutic benefits although caution is warranted to prevent the onset of peripheral neuropathy with its use. A new-generation oral drug with an excellent safety profile, ixazomib, is more practical and therapeutically applicable in relapsed refractory MM. However, the frequent occurrence of cardiovascular events, hematocrit, and infections with it require flexible adjustment in its clinical application. Carfilzomib produces a rapid and profound response in patients with NDMM eligible for transplantation, but its cardiovascular side effects need to be closely monitored. The primary aim of the present review was to examine the pharmacological properties and pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide, as well as the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide-based treatments with reference to data from clinical trials and real-world studies.

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

In-class transition (iCT) of proteasome inhibitor-based therapy: a community approach to multiple myeloma management

Long-term proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment can improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, but this can be difficult to achieve in clinical practice due to toxicity, comorbidities, and the burden of repeated parenteral administration. US MM-6 (NCT03173092) enrolled transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd; ≤39 cycles or until progression or toxicity) following three cycles of bortezomib-based induction. Primary endpoint: 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction, and actigraphy. At datacut, in the fully accrued cohort of 140 patients, median age was 73 years with 42% aged ≥75 and 61% deemed frail; 10% of patients were ongoing on treatment. After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 71% (95% confidence interval: 61-78). ORR increased from 62% at the end of induction to 80% following in-class transition (iCT) to IRd for a median of 11 months. The 2-year OS rate was 86%. The overall safety profile/actigraphy levels were consistent with previous reports; QoL/treatment satisfaction scores were stable with ongoing therapy. iCT to IRd may allow prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile, while maintaining QoL.

Proteasome inhibition in combination with immunotherapies: State-of-the-Art in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disorder accounting for around 1.8% of all neoplastic diseases. Nowadays, clinicians have a broad arsenal of drugs at their disposal for the treatment of MM, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, CAR T-cell therapies and antibody-drug conjugates. In this paper we briefly highlight essential clinical elements relating to proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib. Studies suggest that the early use of immunotherapy may improve outcomes significantly. Therefore, in our review we specifically focus on the combination therapy of proteasome inhibitors with novel immunotherapies and/or transplant. A high number of patients develop PI resistance. Thus, we also review new generation PIs, such as marizomib, oprozomib (ONX0912) and delanzomib (CEP-18770) and their combinations with immunotherapies.

Efficacy and Safety of Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Following Injectable PI-Based Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

This nationwide, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), ixazomib plus lenalidomide (LEN) and dexamethasone (DEX) (IRd) following injectable PI-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Of 45 patients enrolled, 36 patients received IRd after achieving at least a minor response to 3 cycles of bortezomib or carfilzomib plus LEN + DEX (VRd, n=6; KRd, n=30). At median follow-up of 20.8 months, the 12-month event-free survival rate (primary endpoint) was 49% (90% CI: 35.9-62.0), counting 11 events of progressive disease/death, 8 dropouts and 4 missing response data. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate by Kaplan-Meier analysis (dropouts as censoring) was 74% (95% CI: 56-86). Median PFS and time to next treatment (95% CI) were 29.0 (21.3-NE) and 32.3 (14.9-35.4) months, respectively; median OS was not evaluable. The overall response rate was 73%, and 42% of patients had a very good partial response or better. Frequent (≥10% incidence) grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were decreased neutrophil and platelet counts (n=7 [16%] each). Two deaths occurred (one during KRd treatment and one during IRd treatment), both due to pneumonia. IRd following injectable PI-based therapy was tolerable and efficacious in RRMM patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03416374; Date of registration: January 31, 2018.

Hypophosphatemia in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Hypophosphatemia is among the most common electrolyte abnormalities, especially among patients with underlying malignancies, and is frequently associated with adverse prognoses. Phosphorus levels are regulated through a number of mechanisms, including parathyroid hormone (PTH), fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23), vitamin D, and other electrolyte levels themselves. Clinically, the findings are nonspecific, and the diagnosis is frequently delayed. This article is a narrative literature review. The PubMed database was searched for relevant articles pertaining to hypophosphatemia causes and consequences in patients suffering from multiple myeloma. We found a variety of causes of hypophosphatemia in patients with multiple myeloma. Tumor-induced osteopenia, although more common among patients with small squamous cell carcinomas, can occur with multiple myeloma as well. Additionally, both light chains themselves and medications can trigger Fanconi syndrome, which leads to phosphorus wasting by the kidney. Bisphosphonates, in addition to being a possible cause of Fanconi syndrome, lead to a decrease in calcium levels, which then stimulates parathyroid hormone (PTH) release, predisposing the patient to significant hypophosphatemia. Additionally, many of the more modern medications used to manage multiple myeloma have been associated with hypophosphatemia. A better understanding of those mechanisms may give clinicians a clearer idea of which patients may need more frequent screening as well as what the potential triggers in the individual patient may be.

The Landscape of Currently Enrolling Maintenance Trials in Multiple Myeloma

Maintenance therapies in multiple myeloma improve survival after induction treatment. This study characterizes the strategies for maintenance therapy being employed in currently enrolling clinical trials for patients with multiple myeloma and highlights how high-risk myeloma patients may be assigned to maintenance strategies incongruent with current US guidelines.

An update on the safety of ixazomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) have rapidly expanded over the past few years with several newly approved drugs. While there is need to explore treatments that lead to longer responses and survival, special consideration should be given on reducing treatment burden, reducing toxicities, and improving quality of life. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor for the treatment of MM, combining clinical efficacy with a favorable safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of ixazomib. Pharmacokinetic considerations, management of common toxicities, and the impact of the drug on the current and future treatment strategies are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Ixazomib is an effective and welltolerated MM drug. It is also being studied in combination with other newer agents. It does not have long-term cumulative toxicities, and the most adverse events are mild and manageable. These findings, along with the ease of oral administration, make it a possible option for long-term treatment approaches for MM patients, as well as in the frail/elderly patient population.

Ixazomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in China-Compared with bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

To compare the response and safety of Ixazomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone (IRd) and Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone (VRd) treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis in Xiangtan Central Hospital. A total of 52 newly diagnosed MM patients from June 2019 to June 2021 were enrolled and divided into the IRd (n = 21) and VRd (n = 31) groups. After 4 cycles of chemotherapy, the best response and adverse events were recorded. Moreover, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients in IRd group and VRd group showed similar PFS (Log-rank p = 0.70), OS (Log-rank p = 0.61) and overall response rate (83.87% vs 90.48%, p = 0.803). In addition, patients in VRd group showed lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores (p = 0.047), and higher incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (0.00% vs 19.35%, p = 0.032) than that of patients in IRd group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to VRd regimen, IRd had the similar efficacy, better safety, and may be more convenient for patients with poor basic condition for newly diagnosed MM. This study provides an insight for physicians to use IRd as first-line treatment in MM.

Triplet RVd Induction for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has become standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy of RVd as induction therapy in terms of response rates and survival outcomes of transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.

METHODS

The databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until February 1, 2021. Both randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs from the available literature were extracted as one-arm data to assess the efficacy of each triplet regimen for the target patients in terms of response rates and survival rates for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Data was summarized as estimated pooled value regarding each evaluated index. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

The findings of 71 studies published from 2008 to 2020 were analyzed. For RVd induction, the overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate after induction were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.95), 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.29), and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.61), respectively. Indirect comparisons in efficacy were made between RVd and other traditional triplet regimens. RVd induction led to a better ≥ CR rate than bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) regimen in both postinduction and post-ASCT phase, ≥ CR rate 0.11 (95% CI 0.08-0.15) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.12-0.32), respectively. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year OS rate of RVd regimen were longer than that of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) vs 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.80), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.98) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RVd induction demonstrated confident response rates and survival benefits for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.

Drug Repurposing by Tumor Tissue Editing

The combinatory use of drugs for systemic cancer therapy commonly aims at the direct elimination of tumor cells through induction of apoptosis. An alternative approach becomes the focus of attention if biological changes in tumor tissues following combinatory administration of regulatorily active drugs are considered as a therapeutic aim, e.g., differentiation, transdifferentiation induction, reconstitution of immunosurveillance, the use of alternative cell death mechanisms. Editing of the tumor tissue establishes new biological ‘hallmarks’ as a ‘pressure point’ to attenuate tumor growth. This may be achieved with repurposed, regulatorily active drug combinations, often simultaneously targeting different cell compartments of the tumor tissue. Moreover, tissue editing is paralleled by decisive functional changes in tumor tissues providing novel patterns of target sites for approved drugs. Thus, agents with poor activity in non-edited tissue may reveal new clinically meaningful outcomes. For tissue editing and targeting edited tissue novel requirements concerning drug selection and administration can be summarized according to available clinical and pre-clinical data. Monoactivity is no pre-requisite, but combinatory bio-regulatory activity. The regulatorily active dose may be far below the maximum tolerable dose, and besides inhibitory active drugs stimulatory drug activities may be integrated. Metronomic scheduling often seems to be of advantage. Novel preclinical approaches like functional assays testing drug combinations in tumor tissue are needed to select potential drugs for repurposing. The two-step drug repurposing procedure, namely establishing novel functional systems states in tumor tissues and consecutively providing novel target sites for approved drugs, facilitates the systematic identification of drug activities outside the scope of any original clinical drug approvals.

Evidence-based recommendations for induction and maintenance treatment of newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients

There is increasing evidence regarding the role of various maintenance therapy (MT) strategies after initial induction to treat newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients with MM. We reviewed the literature on available regimens for patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Lenalidomide (R)-based regimens are still the front-line therapy, but there is an increasing use of bortezomib-based regimens. The MT regimen is mainly based on the initial induction regimen. MT has shown survival benefits compared with patients without maintenance therapy. The most common adverse effects of MT include anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infections, and peripheral neuropathy. In conclusion, induction followed by maintenance based on lenalidomide, bortezomib, ixazomib, or daratumumab-based regimens has shown promising results. Therefore, it is essential to conduct more clinical trials to better understand the role of MT in the treatment of NDMM patients who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation.

Depth of response and response kinetics of isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma

The IKEMA study (Randomized, Open Label, Multicenter Study Assessing the Clinical Benefit of Isatuximab Combined With Carfilzomib [Kyprolis®] and Dexamethasone Versus Carfilzomib With Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapse and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated With 1 to 3 Prior Lines; #NCT03275285) was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 3 study investigating isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) vs Kd in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. This subanalysis analyzed the depth of response of Isa-Kd vs Kd. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate, complete response (CR) rate, and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (assessed in patients with ≥VGPR by next-generation sequencing at a 10⁻⁵ sensitivity level). At a median follow-up of 20.7 months, deeper responses were observed in the Isa-Kd arm vs the Kd arm, with ≥VGPR 72.6% vs 56.1% and CR of 39.7% vs 27.6%, respectively. MRD negativity occurred in 53 (29.6%) of 179 patients in the Isa-Kd arm vs 16 (13.0%) of 123 patients in the Kd arm, with 20.1% (Isa-Kd, 36 of 179 patients) vs 10.6% (Kd, 13 of 123 patients) reaching MRD-negative CR status. Achieving MRD negativity resulted in better PFS in both arms. A positive PFS treatment effect was seen with Isa-Kd in both MRD-negative patients (hazard ratio, 0.578; 95% CI, 0.052-6.405) and MRD-positive patients (hazard ratio, 0.670; 95% CI, 0.452-0.993). Exploratory analysis indicates that both current CR and MRD-negative CR rates are underestimated due to M-protein interference (potential adjusted CR rate, 45.8%; potential adjusted MRD-negative CR rate, 24.0%). In conclusion, there was a clinically meaningful improvement in depth of response with Isa-Kd. The CR rate in Isa-Kd was 39.7%. Mass spectrometry suggests that the potential adjusted CR rate could reach an unprecedented 45.8% of patients treated with Isa-Kd.

Ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory myeloma: MUKeight phase II randomised controlled trial results

The all-oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (ICD) is well tolerated and effective in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). We carried out MUKeight, a randomised, controlled, open, parallel group, multi-centre phase II trial in patients with relapsed MM after prior treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor (ISRCTN58227268), with the primary objective to test whether ICD has improved clinical activity compared to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Between January 2016 and December 2018, 112 participants were randomised between ICD (n = 58) and CD (n = 54) in 33 UK centres. Patients had a median age of 70 years and had received a median of four prior lines of therapy. 74% were classed as frail. Median PFS in the ICD arm was 5.6 months, compared to 6.7 months with CD (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21, 80% CI 0.9–1.6, p = 0.3634). Response rates and overall survival were not significantly different between ICD and CD. Dose modifications or omissions, and serious adverse events (SAEs), occurred more often in the ICD arm. In summary, the addition of ixazomib to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone did not improve outcomes in the comparatively frail patients enroled in the MUKeight trial.

Impact of maintenance therapy post autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in early and delayed transplant

Based on phase 3 trials, maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has become the standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM). We examined the trends in maintenance therapy in a large group of patients (2530) transplanted at a single institution over two decades. Majority (n = 1958; 77%) had an ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis (early ASCT). Maintenance was employed in 39% of the patients; 42% among early ASCT and 30.5% among delayed ASCT. Most common maintenance approach was an IMiD (61%), followed by a PI (31%), or a PI + IMiD (4%). Patients with high-risk FISH received PI-based maintenance more frequently. The PFS was superior with maintenance (36 vs. 22 months, p < 0.001); 37 vs. 25 months for early ASCT (p < 0.001) and 29 vs. 17 months for delayed ASCT (p = 0.0008). OS from ASCT was higher with maintenance for the whole cohort at 93 vs. 73 months (p < 0.001). OS from diagnosis was also better for the whole cohort with maintenance therapy, 112 vs. 93 months (p < 0.001). The improvement in PFS and OS was seen in high-risk and standard risk disease. The experience with maintenance therapy post ASCT for myeloma in a non-clinical trial setting confirms the findings from the phase 3 trials.

Recent Research Progress of Chiral Small Molecular Antitumor-Targeted Drugs Approved by the FDA From 2011 to 2019

Chiral drugs usually contain chiral centers, which are present as single enantiomers or racemates. Compared with achiral drugs, they have significant advantages in safety and efficacy with high stereoselectivity. Of these drugs, chirality not only exerts influence on the solubility and pharmacokinetic characteristics but also has specific mechanistic characteristics on their targets. We noted that small molecules with unique chiral properties have emerged as novel components of antitumor drugs approved by the FDA in decade. Since approved, these drugs have been continuously explored for new indications, new mechanisms, and novel combinations. In this mini review, recent research progress of twenty-two FDA-approved chiral small molecular-targeted antitumor drugs from 2011 to 2019 is summarized with highlighting the potential and advantages of their applications. We believe that these updated achievements may provide theoretical foundation and stimulate research interests for optimizing drug efficacy, expanding clinical application, overcoming drug resistance, and advancing safety in future clinical administrations of these chiral targeted drugs.

Long term survival in multiple myeloma: a single institution experience in underprivileged circumstances

There is data suggesting that the clinical behavior of multiple myeloma (MM) may be different in Latin Americans than in Caucasian or African-Americans, consistent with a less aggressive course of MM in Latinos. We analyzed the overall survival (OS) of 139 persons with MM in a single institution in México, as well the variables which were associated with long-term OS. Of all patients, the median OS was 11 years whereas the 5-year and 10-year OS were 75% and 55% respectively. The analysis of variables showed that the variable related with five-year survival was having hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), whereas the variables related with 10-year survival were HSCT, age at diagnosis (patients younger than 50 survived longer), light chain type (kappa survived longer) and ISS stage (stage I patients survived longer). The only variable associated with both 5 and 10-year survival was HSCT. A plateau in the OS was reached after 10 years, both in grafted and non-grafted patients. We have confirmed the critical role of HSCT in the prognosis of persons with MM, independent of the induction treatment or the maintenance post-transplant, and we have identified a better prognosis in this cohort, as compared with African-Americans or Caucasians, since the proportion of long-term survivors in our group is seemingly better than those in other populations.

Non-selective proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

: The ubiquitination system is the most important cascade of protein degradation independently of lysosomal function. The proteasome system is actively involved in cell cycle regulation. Therefore, proteasome inhibition can lead to inhibition of tumor cell proliferation, and therefore it constitutes a potential therapeutic anticancer approach especially in the therapeutic algorithm of patients with multiple myeloma.

AREAS COVERED

Three different proteasome inhibitors are currently approved, bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib, and they have been investigated in multiple myeloma and other hematological malignancies. Multiple myeloma cells are extremely sensitive to this inhibition which leads to accumulation of proteins and endoplasmic reticulum stress, leading finally to apoptosis. However, these agents lack specificity, since they target both the constitutive proteasome and the immunoproteasome. Targeting the constitutive proteasome is the main reason for side toxicity due to the effect on normal tissues. In contrary, immunoproteasome inhibition may reduce the adverse events while maintaining the therapeutic efficacy. In this review the authors present the role of the available proteasome inhibitors in myeloma therapeutics and future perspectives of both selective and non-selective proteasome inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

The available non-selective proteasome inhibitors have changed the therapeutics of multiple myeloma the last 10 years and have significantly improved the clinical outcomes of the patients. Furthermore, selective proteasome inhibitors are now under preclinical investigation and there is hope that their optimization will come with an improved safety profile with at least comparable efficacy.

Ixazomib, Daratumumab, and Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Frail Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: The Hovon 143 Study

PURPOSE

Frail patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have an inferior outcome, mainly because of a high discontinuation rate due to toxicity. We designed a phase II trial specifically for frail patients, evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of ixazomib-daratumumab-low-dose-dexamethasone (Ixa-Dara-dex).

METHODS

Sixty-five patients, who were frail according to the International Myeloma Working Group frailty index, were treated with nine induction cycles Ixa-Dara-dex followed by maintenance with Ixa-Dara for a maximum of 2 years.

RESULTS

The overall response rate on induction therapy was 78%. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13.8 months and 12-month overall survival (OS) was 78%. Median PFS and 12-month OS were 21.6 months and 92% in patients who were frail based on age > 80 years alone, versus 13.8 months and 78%, and 10.1 months and 70% in patients who were frail based on additional frailty parameters either ≤ 80 or > 80 years of age, respectively. In 51% of patients, induction therapy had to be discontinued prematurely, of which 6% because of noncompliance to study treatment, 9% because of toxicity, and 9% because of death (8% within 2 months, of which 80% because of toxicity). Quality of life improved during induction treatment, being clinically meaningful already after three induction cycles.

CONCLUSION

Ixa-Dara-dex lead to a high response rate and improved quality of life. However, treatment discontinuation because of toxicity and early mortality, negatively influencing PFS and OS, remains a concern in frail patients. The outcome was heterogeneous across frail subpopulations. This should be taken into account in the design and interpretation of future studies in frail patients, to pave the way for more precise treatment guidance.

Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Addition of ixazomib to Rd in nontransplant NDMM patients resulted in a nonstatistically significant increase in PFS (HR, 0.830; P = .073).

Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible and tolerable all-oral triplet regimen in this setting, with a well-characterized and manageable safety profile.

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

A phase 1b study of once-weekly carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Twice‐weekly carfilzomib with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) is an effective regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here we evaluated once‐weekly carfilzomib with Rd (once‐weekly KRd) in NDMM patients. The NDMM patients were enrolled regardless of transplant eligibility. Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1‐21; and dexamethasone 40 mg on carfilzomib days (also day 22 for cycles 1‐8) for ≤18, 28‐day cycles. Enrollment initiated in a carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m² (20 mg/m² on cycle one, day 1; 70 mg/m² thereafter) NDMM dose‐expansion arm, which was suspended because of serious adverse events. After evaluation of dose‐limiting toxicities in a two‐step‐up dose‐evaluation cohort, an NDMM dose‐expansion arm (carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m²) was opened. Fifty‐one NDMM patients were enrolled in dose‐finding and dose‐expansion cohorts. Results are presented for the carfilzomib 56 mg/m² NDMM dose‐expansion arm (n = 33). The grade ≥ 3 treatment‐emergent AE (TEAE) rate was 63.6%. Twenty‐five patients underwent stem cell collection; 18 proceeded to auto stem cell transplant, and five resumed KRd on study after autoSCT. The overall response rate (ORR) based on best overall response by cycle four was 97.0% (≥very good partial response [VGPR], 69.7%) in the NDMM 20/56 mg/m² cohort. In patients who did not receive autoSCT (n = 15), the median number of cycles was 16.0; ORR was 93.3% (≥VGPR, 80.0%). At a median follow‐up of 8.1 months, median progression‐free survival was not reached. Once‐weekly KRd (carfilzomib 56 mg/m²) had a favorable safety profile and promising activity in NDMM, supporting the use of this regimen in this setting.

Bonanza of New Treatment Regimens for Multiple Myeloma: What Is Right for My Patient?

Although recent advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma have improved survival, it remains a chronic disease that requires a long-term treatment strategy. The key to achieving the best outcomes for patients is delivering the best “package” of treatment at a given stage. This means using optimal combinations that maximize benefit based on what patients have received previously and minimize treatment-related toxicity. Sequencing of regimens also plays an important role. As new agents and new classes of drugs continue to be approved for multiple myeloma, future strategies will use more individualized approaches to treatment.

The role of high-dose melphalan with autologous stem-cell transplant in multiple myeloma: is it time for a paradigm shift?

Recent advances in multiple myeloma include numerous approvals of novel therapies with unprecedented efficacy, a rapid and sustained tempo of new drug development, and further refinements to prognostication to include minimal residual disease (MRD) testing and improved risk stratification. The upfront use of immunomodulatory drug and proteasome inhibitor combinations followed by maintenance has resulted in transformative clinical benefit. Four-drug regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies are reporting unprecedented rates of complete response and MRD negativity in the absence of intensification. In the context of these advances, the added value of high-dose melphalan with autologous stem-cell transplant (HDM-ASCT) is a key question. From a safety standpoint, HDM-ASCT is associated with both acute toxicities that reduce quality of life and long-term toxicities that may limit life expectancy for some patients. The present review discusses the recent advances in induction therapy, the impact of these advances on HDM-ASCT, the evolving role of MRD testing and the short- and long-term risks of HDM-ASCT. Recognising that prospective data remains limited, we suggest that HDM-ASCT not be considered mandatory for eligible newly diagnosed patients who are treated with highly efficacious regimens and achieve deep responses, but rather be held in reserve without early exposure to the clinical and genomic toxicity inherent to this approach.

Three Drug Combinations in the Treatment of Fit Elderly Multiple Myeloma Patients

The multiple myeloma (MM) non transplant eligible (NTE) population is growing in line with the aging of the population in Western countries. Historically, this population has been known for having a greater risk of treatment related toxicity, and therefore drug development was slow and rather oriented towards the improvement of safety profile than the optimization of disease control. However, NTE MM patients, at least for the fit/non frail patients in recent years, seemed to have benefited more from a less palliative care to improve the depth of response and then prolong survival. NTE MM being a quite heterogeneous population, there are still a number of groups of patients that are in need of more efficient therapy, avoiding unnecessary toxicity, particularly for the frail patients. The use of triplet regimen with a melphalan-prednisone (MP) backbone has long been the standard of care for NTE MM, often dedicated to non-frail patients. New standards of care, triplet, and even quadruplet combinations, are emerging on the basis of the MP backbone but also on the more recently approved lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) backbone. These developments were largely possible in line with the development of antibody-based immunotherapies (IT) in MM. The objective to improve outcomes with an acceptable safety profile will see other key therapeutic developments such as the dropping of dexamethasone early in the disease course or various attempts to allow permanent treatment discontinuation with a prolonged disease control. In that context, it is possible that immunomonitoring, minimal residual disease (MRD), and genomic risk-adaptation will become key elements of the treatment decisions on triplet-based regimens.

Ixazomib-associated cardiovascular adverse events in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prolonged survival and expanded treatment options in myeloma patients have led to adverse events associated with treatment getting increased attention. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the incidence of ixazomib-associated cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) and to compare the rates of ixazomib-associated CVAEs and related therapies. CVAEs were defined as heart failure, hypertension, ischemia, and arrhythmia. All-grade and high-grade CVAEs and study characteristics were recorded. A total of 266 potentially relevant articles were identified, and 246 were excluded after review. Twenty studies of 1715 patients with multiple myeloma were thus considered in this study. The estimated rates of all-grade and high-grade ixazomib associated CVAEs were 11.2 and 3.7%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that median age ≥65 years, none phase 1 trial and combination regimen were associated with higher rates of high-grade ixazomib associated CVAEs. Ixazomib was association with increased high-grade CVAEs risk (RR = 1.679, 95% CI: 1.078-2.615, P = 0.022). Ixazomib was associated with a significant rate of high-grade CVAEs. Future studies are needed to identify patients at high risk for high-grade CVAEs.

Real-world Data on the Efficacy and Safety of Ixazomib-based Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: A Single-center Study in China

Objective

To assess the short-term efficacy and safety of ixazomib in Chinese multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the real world.

Methods

Fifty-nine MM patients who received at least one cycle of ixazomib-based therapy between 1 June 2018 and 30 September 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in Tianjin Medical University General Hospital. Thirteen newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), 13 refractory/relapsed MM (RRMM) and 33 continuous therapy (27 bortezomib peripheral neuritis (PN) intolerant and six maintenance therapy) MM patients were included. The indicated overall response rate (ORR), time to overall response (TOR), and adverse events (AEs) were investigated.

Results

The ORR in NDMM was 76.9%, with one complete response (CR), five very good partial response (VGPR), four partial response (PR), median PFS, and TOR were 122 (66–272) days and 49 (22–108) days. The ORR in RRMM was 46.2%, with one CR, two VGPR, three PR, median PFS, and TOR were 79 (28–169) days and 59 (23–88) days. The ORR in continuous therapy MM patients was 100%, with nine stringent CR, 15 CR, six VGPR and three PR, median TOR was 75 (25–141) days. There were no significant differences regarding ORR between patients with cytogenetic high risk and standard risk in three subgroups (all P>0.05). The most frequent hematological AEs were anemia (13.6%) and thrombocytopenia (10.2%). The most common nonhematological AEs were PN (25.0%) and diarrhea (13.6%).

Conclusion

The real-world data demonstrated that ixazomib-based therapy was generally effective and safe in the short term for MM patients.

Ixazomib-based frontline therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in real-life practice showed comparable efficacy and safety profile with those reported in clinical trial: a multi-center study

The induction therapy containing ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, has shown favorable efficacy and safety in clinical trials, but its experience in real-life remains limited. In routine practice, few patients received ixazomib-based induction therapy due to reasons including (1) patients’ preference on oral regimens, (2) concerns on adverse events (AEs) of other intravenous/subcutaneous regimens, (3) requirements for less center visits, and (4) fears of COVID-19 and other infectious disease exposures. With the aim of assessing the real-life effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-based induction therapy, we performed this multi-center, observational study on 85 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients from 14 medical centers. Ixazomib-based regimens included ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in 44.7% of patients, ixazomib-dexamethasone (Id) in 29.4%, and Id plus another agent (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, or daratumumab) in 25.9%. Different ixazomib-based therapies were applied due to (1) financial burdens or limitations on local health insurance coverage, (2) concerns on treatment tolerance, and (3) drug accessibility issue. Ten patients received ixazomib maintenance. The median age was 67 years; 43.5% had ISS stage III disease; 48.2% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≥ 2; and 17.6% with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Overall response rate for all 85 patients was 95.3%, including 65.9% very good partial response or better and 29.5% complete responses. The median time to response was 30 days. The response rate was similar across different ixazomib-based regimens. Median progression-free survival was not reached. Severe AEs (≥ grade 3) were reported in 29.4% of patients. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred. Patients received a median of 6 (range 1–20) cycles of ixazomib treatment; 56.6% remained on treatment at data cutoff; 15.3% discontinued treatment due to intolerable AEs. These results support that the ixazomib-based frontline therapy was highly effective with acceptable toxicity in routine practice and the ixazomib oral regimens could be good alternative options for NDMM patients.

The proteasome as a druggable target with multiple therapeutic potentialities: Cutting and non-cutting edges

Ubiquitin Proteasome System (UPS) is an adaptable and finely tuned system that sustains proteostasis network under a large variety of physiopathological conditions. Its dysregulation is often associated with the onset and progression of human diseases; hence, UPS modulation has emerged as a promising new avenue for the development of treatments of several relevant pathologies, such as cancer and neurodegeneration. The clinical interest in proteasome inhibition has considerably increased after the FDA approval in 2003 of bortezomib for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, which is now used in the front-line setting. Thereafter, two other proteasome inhibitors (carfilzomib and ixazomib), designed to overcome resistance to bortezomib, have been approved for treatment-experienced patients, and a variety of novel inhibitors are currently under preclinical and clinical investigation not only for haematological malignancies but also for solid tumours. However, since UPS collapse leads to toxic misfolded proteins accumulation, proteasome is attracting even more interest as a target for the care of neurodegenerative diseases, which are sustained by UPS impairment. Thus, conceptually, proteasome activation represents an innovative and largely unexplored target for drug development. According to a multidisciplinary approach, spanning from chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology to pharmacology, this review will summarize the most recent available literature regarding different aspects of proteasome biology, focusing on structure, function and regulation of proteasome in physiological and pathological processes, mostly cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, connecting biochemical features and clinical studies of proteasome targeting drugs.

Granisetron transdermal system and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemo-mobilization: An observational real-world study of effectiveness and safety

PURPOSE

Cyclophosphamide (CY) in a dose of 2-4 g/m² is widely used for hemopoietic progenitor stem cells mobilization. CY administration is associated with several adverse effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron transdermal system (GTDS) plus dexamethasone in the management of CINV in MM patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with CY.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, observational, real world study, GTDS plus dexamethasone was administered to MM patients receiving chemo-mobilization based on CY 2 g/m2 plus G-CSF in an outpatient setting. The rate of complete response was evaluated as the main outcome. Other outcomes were rate of complete control of CINV, incidence of nausea/vomiting of any grade and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were enrolled. A complete response was achieved in 45.5 % of patients; among them, 39.77 % attained complete control of CINV. Nausea and vomiting never occurred in 34.1 % and 45.5 % of patients, respectively. No episodes of grade 3-4 nausea and/or vomiting were documented. GTDS was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In real world, GTDS provided an innovative, effective, and well-tolerated control of CINV in MM patients after chemo-mobilization with CY. The study found out effectiveness of a non-invasive delivery system of antiemetic.

Cancer, immune suppression and Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19): Need to manage drug safety (French Society for Oncology Pharmacy [SFPO] guidelines)

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting our health environment. As expected, studies highlighted the great susceptibility of cancer patients to COVID-19 and more severe complications, leading oncologists to deeply rethink patient cancer care. This review is dedicated to the optimization of care pathways and therapeutics in cancer patients during the pandemic and aims to discuss successive issues. First we focused on the international guidelines proposing adjustments and alternative options to cancer care in order to limit hospital admission and cytopenic treatment in cancer patients, most of whom are immunocompromised. In addition cancer patients are prone to polypharmacy, enhancing the risk of drug-related problems as adverse events and drug-drug interactions. Due to increased risk in case of COVID-19, we reported a comprehensive review of all the drug-related problems between COVID-19 and antineoplastics. Moreover, in the absence of approved drug against COVID-19, infected patients may be included in clinical trials evaluating new drugs with a lack of knowledge, particularly in cancer patients. Focusing on the several experimental drugs currently being evaluated, we set up an original data board helping oncologists and pharmacists to identify promptly drug-related problems between antineoplastics and experimental drugs. Finally additional and concrete recommendations are provided, supporting oncologists and pharmacists in their efforts to manage cancer patients and to optimize their treatments in this new era related to COVID-19.

Management of multiple myeloma during COVID-19 pandemic

At the end of 2019, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, a city in the Hubei Province of China. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern and, in March 2020, began to characterize it as a pandemic. The virus that causes COVID-19 is designated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) In February 2020, the World Health Organization designated the disease COVID-19, which stands for coronavirus disease 2019.

Multiple Myeloma in the Time of COVID-19

We provide our recommendations (not evidence based) for managing multiple myeloma patients during the pandemic of COVID-19. We do not recommend therapy for smoldering myeloma patients (standard or high risk). Screening for COVID-19 should be done in all patients before therapy. For standard-risk patients, we recommend the following: ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) (preferred), cyclophosphamide lenalidomide and dexamethasone (CRd), daratumumab lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd), lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd), or cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD). For high-risk patients we recommend carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) (preferred) or RVd. Decreasing the dose of dexamethasone to 20 mg and giving bortezomib subcutaneously once a week is recommended. We recommend delaying autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), unless the patient has high-risk disease that is not responding well, or if the patient has plasma cell leukemia (PCL). Testing for COVID-19 should be done before ASCT. If a patient achieves a very good partial response or better, doses and frequency of drug administration can be modified. After 10–12 cycles, lenalidomide maintenance is recommended for standard-risk patients and bortezomib or ixazomib are recommended for high-risk patients. Daratumumab-based regimens are recommended for relapsed patients. Routine ASCT is not recommended for relapse during the epidemic unless the patient has an aggressive relapse or secondary PCL. Patients on current maintenance should continue their therapy.

Developments in continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

The evolving paradigm of continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches in multiple myeloma (MM) offers prolonged disease control and improved outcomes compared to traditional fixed-duration approaches. Potential benefits of long-term strategies include sustained control of disease symptoms, as well as continued cytoreduction and clonal control, leading to unmeasurable residual disease and the possibility of transforming MM into a chronic or functionally curable condition. "Continuous therapy" commonly refers to administering a doublet or triplet regimen until disease progression, whereas maintenance approaches typically involve single-agent or doublet treatment following more intensive prior therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or doublet, triplet, or even quadruplet induction therapy. However, the requirements for agents and regimens within these contexts are similar: treatments must be tolerable for a prolonged period of time, should not be associated with cumulative or chronic toxicity, should not adversely affect patients' quality of life, should ideally be convenient with a minimal treatment burden for patients, and should not impact the feasibility or efficacy of subsequent treatment at relapse. Multiple agents have been and are being investigated as long-term options in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), including the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide and thalidomide, the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab, and isatuximab. Here we review the latest results with long-term therapy approaches in three different settings in NDMM: (1) maintenance treatment post ASCT; (2) continuous frontline therapy in nontransplant patients; (3) maintenance treatment post-frontline therapy in the nontransplant setting. We also discuss evidence from key phase 3 trials. Our review demonstrates how the paradigm of long-term treatment is increasingly well-established across NDMM treatment settings, potentially resulting in further improvements in patient outcomes, and highlights key clinical issues that will need to be addressed in order to provide optimal benefit.

Clinical Applications and Future Directions of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma

In the last years, the life expectancy of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has substantially improved thanks to the availability of many new drugs. Our ability to induce deep responses has improved as well, and the treatment goal in patients tolerating treatment moved from the delay of progression to the induction of the deepest possible response. As a result of these advances, a great scientific effort has been made to redefine response monitoring, resulting in the development and validation of high-sensitivity techniques to detect minimal residual disease (MRD). In 2016, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updated MM response categories defining MRD-negative responses both in the bone marrow (assessed by next-generation flow cytometry or next-generation sequencing) and outside the bone marrow. MRD is an important factor independently predicting prognosis during MM treatment. Moreover, using novel combination therapies, MRD-negative status can be achieved in a fairly high percentage of patients. However, many questions regarding the clinical use of MRD status remain unanswered. MRD monitoring can guide treatment intensity, although well-designed clinical trials are needed to demonstrate this potential. This mini-review will focus on currently available techniques and data on MRD testing and their potential future applications.

Use of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed amyloid light-chain amyloidosis

With improving outcomes in amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, there is a need to study novel agents in this setting. We report outcomes of 40 patients with relapsed AL amyloidosis treated with ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (IRd). Haematological responses were assessed on an intention-to-treat basis at three months: complete response (CR) - 8 (20·5%), very good partial response (VGPR) - 8 (20·5%), partial response (PR) - 7 (17·9%) and no response (NR) - 16 (41·0%). One patient had missing data. Six patients subsequently improved response. Best responses were: CR - 10 (25·6%), VGPR - 8 (20·5%), PR - 7 (17·9%), NR - 14 (35·9%). Cardiac and renal organ responses occurred in 5·6% and 13·3% respectively. Median progession-free survival (PFS) was 17·0 months (95% CI 7·3-20·7 months), improving to 28·8 months (95% CI 20·6-37·0 months) in those achieving CR/VGPR. Median overall survival was 29·1 months (95% CI 24-33 months). Serious adverse events were seen in 14 (35·0%) patients inclusive of 15 admissions due to: infection (6/15, 40·0%), fluid overload (5/15, 33·3%), cardiac arrhythmia (2/15, 13·3%), renal dysfunction (1/15, 6·6%) and anaemia (1/15, 6·6%). In summary, IRd is an oral treatment option with a manageable toxicity profile leading to deep responses in 47% of patients with relapsed AL amyloidosis.

Pursuing a Curative Approach in Multiple Myeloma: A Review of New Therapeutic Strategies

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.

Stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: how far have we come?

High-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) has historically been an essential part of multiple myeloma (MM) management since early studies demonstrated its efficacy in relapsed disease, and subsequent phase III trials demonstrated better responses and improved survival with this modality compared with standard chemotherapy. With further advances in the MM treatment landscape, including the development of potent novel agents, there has been an increasing debate around various aspects of ASCT, including the optimal timing, role of single versus tandem ASCT, and the practice of consolidation and maintenance therapy post-ASCT. Routine incorporation of the novel agents at each of the treatment phases, induction, consolidation when used, and maintenance has led to better responses as reflected by increasing rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, longer progression-free survival (PFS) with improvement in overall survival (OS) and in some of the trials. The phase III trials over the last decade have provided significant clarity on the current approach, and have raised important questions regarding the applicability of this modality in all patients. This review aims to summarize the latest literature in the field and discusses how these findings impact the practice of ASCT today.