Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study

Busulfan, melphalan and carfilzomib high-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

The standard of care for fit, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients includes induction therapy followed by consolidative high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (AHSCT). Intensified preparative regimens, such as busulfan and melphalan (BuMel), have shown promise to lengthen progression-free survival (PFS). We previously reported that the addition of bortezomib to BuMel improved PFS compared to melphalan alone in CIBMTR-matched controls. We now integrate the second-generation protease inhibitor, carfilzomib, before and after BuMel (BuMelCar) in a phase I/II trial with carfilzomib. Patients with NDMM, relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and those failing prior AHSCT were eligible. Primary end-points were safety and tolerability. Secondary end-points included minimal residual disease negativity rates, PFS and OS. The study enrolled 19 patients. 73% were high risk either due to R-ISS III status, adverse genetics or relapsed after prior AHSCT. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of carfilzomib was determined to be 36 mg/m2. Noted grade 3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia (79%), mucositis (21%) and diarrhoea (16%). The 2-year PFS for the whole cohort and MTD was 89% and 100% respectively. 80% of all patients and 82% of patients in the MTD cohort achieved MRD negativity. Further studies regarding this regimen are planned.

In the era of Bortezomib-based Induction, intensification of Melphalan-based conditioning with Bortezomib does not improve Survival Outcomes in newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: a study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT

Bortezomib (Vel)- Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200) (Vel-Mel) has been utilised to intensify conditioning in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). This EBMT registry-based study compared Vel-Mel with Mel200 during upfront AHCT. Between 2010 and 2017, MM patients who received Vel-Mel (n = 292) conditioning were compared with 4,096 Mel200 patients in the same 58 centres. Pre-AHCT, compared to Mel200 patients, Vel-Mel patients had similar International Staging System (ISS) scores and cytogenetic risk profiles; a similar proportion had received bortezomib-based induction (85% and 87.3%, respectively) though they were younger with a better performance status. Vel-Mel patients were more likely to achieve CR post-induction (40.6% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001) and by day 100 of AHCT (CR/VGPR: 70.2 % vs. 57.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in 3-year PFS (49% vs 46%, p = 0.06) or early post-AHCT mortality. In multivariable analysis, Vel-Mel associated with inferior PFS (HR: 1.69 (1.27-2.25, p < 0.001) and OS (HR:1.46 (1.14-1.86,p = 0.002), similar to negative effects on PFS of advanced ISS (HR:1.56 (1.33-1.83, p < 0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR:1.43(1.18-1.74, p < 0.001) and poor post-induction response(<=PR)(HR: 1.43(1.25-1.62, p < 0.001) Overall, despite superior pre- and post-AHCT responses, there was no improvement in PFS or OS following Vel-Mel. This data supports the findings of the smaller prospective IFM study.

N6-methyladenosine-modified circ_0000337 sustains bortezomib resistance in multiple myeloma by regulating DNA repair

Studies have shown that bortezomib resistance in multiple myeloma (MM) is mediated by the abnormalities of various molecules and microenvironments. Exploring these resistance mechanisms will improve the therapeutic efficacy of bortezomib. In this study, bone marrow tissues from three patients with MM, both sensitive and resistant to bortezomib, were collected for circRNA high-throughput sequencing analysis. The relationship between circ_0000337, miR-98-5p, and target gene DNA2 was analyzed by luciferase detection and verified by RT-qPCR. We first found that circ_0000337 was significantly upregulated in bortezomib-resistant MM tissues and cells, and overexpression of circ_0000337 could promote bortezomib resistance in MM cells. circ_0000337 may act as a miR-98-5p sponge to upregulate DNA2 expression, regulate DNA damage repair, and induce bortezomib resistance. Furthermore, it was determined that the increased circ_0000337 level in bortezomib-resistant cells was due to an increased N6-methyladenosine (m6A) level, resulting in enhanced RNA stability. In conclusion, the m6A level of circ_0000337 and its regulation may be a new and potential therapeutic target for overcoming bortezomib resistance in MM.

Optimizing high dose melphalan

Melphalan, has been a major component of myeloma therapy since the 1950s. In the context of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), high dose melphalan (HDM) is the most common conditioning regimen used due to its potent anti-myeloma effects and manageable toxicities. Common toxicities associated with HDM include myelosuppression, gastrointestinal issues, and mucositis. Established approaches to reduce these toxicities encompass dose modification, nausea prophylaxis with 5HT3 receptor antagonists, cryotherapy, amifostine use, and growth factors. Optimization of melphalan exposure through personalized dosing and its combination with other agents like busulfan, or bendamustine show promise. Propylene glycol-free melphalan (Evomela) represents a novel formulation aiming to enhance drug stability and reduce adverse effects. This review explores strategies to enhance the efficacy and mitigate the toxicity of HDM in multiple myeloma. Future directions involve exploring these strategies in clinical trials to improve the safety and efficacy of HDM, thereby enhancing outcomes for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous HCT.

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.

Busulfan plus melphalan versus high-dose melphalan as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with high-risk features (KMM 2015)

Despite the development of effective agents for multiple myeloma (MM), the management of patients with high-risk MM (HRMM) is challenging. High-dose treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is regarded as upfront treatment for transplant-eligible patients with HRMM. In the present study, we retrospectively investigated the efficacies of two conditioning regimens for upfront ASCT in newly diagnosed patients with MM and high-risk features: high-dose melphalan (HDMEL; 200 mg/m²) and busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL). In total, 221 patients underwent ASCT between May 2005 and June 2021; among these 221 patients, 79 had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, BUMEL showed a tendency toward longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to HDMEL (median OS; not reached vs. 53.2 months; P = 0.091, median PFS; not reached vs. 31.7 months; P = 0.062). Additionally, multivariate analysis revealed that BUMEL was significantly associated with PFS (hazard ratio = 0.37, 95% confidence interval = 0.15-0.89, P = 0.026). We compared BUMEL with HDMEL in patients with other high-risk features, such as high lactate dehydrogenase level, extramedullary disease, and poor response to frontline therapy. Notably, among patients with less than very good partial response (VGPR) to frontline therapy, median PFS was significantly longer in the BUMEL group than in the HDMEL group (55.1 vs. 17.3 months, respectively; P = 0.011). These findings indicate that BUMEL may be an effective conditioning regimen for upfront ASCT in MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics; BUMEL may be more appropriate than HDMEL for patients with less than VGPR to frontline therapy.

First-line treatment of multiple myeloma in both transplant and non-transplant candidates

INTRODUCTION

The last decade's progress in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma has relied on the synergistic combination of agents with different mechanisms of action, basically proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal antibodies, in order to achieve the deepest possible response early in the course of treatment. Following induction, several therapeutic strategies aim to improve and maintain response.

AREAS COVERED

The manuscript reviews available data for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with a focus on most recent induction and maintenance combinations and the still important role of autologous stem transplantation. Future perspectives in the light of initial results from ongoing clinical trials are also addressed.

EXPERT OPINION

Remarkable progress has been made in myeloma treatment due to the integration of immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and high dose therapy in the frontline setting. Upfront therapy may be further improved intensifying induction combinations, adapting high dose therapy and consolidation strategies to the patient's profile, improving maintenance in high-risk individuals, or limiting maintenance duration in those with a better prognosis. Evidence needs to be reviewed, taking into account the therapeutic objectives at each treatment stage and patient specific risk factors.

Revisiting the Role of Alkylating Agents in Multiple Myeloma: Up-to-Date Evidence and Future Perspectives

From the 1960s to the early 2000s, alkylating agents (e.g., melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and bendamustine) remained a key component of standard therapy for newly-diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Later on, their associated toxicities (including second primary malignancies) and the unprecedented efficacy of novel therapies have led clinicians to increasingly consider alkylator-free approaches. Meanwhile, new alkylating agents (e.g., melflufen) and new applications of old alkylators (e.g., lymphodepletion before chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapy) have emerged in recent years. Given the expanding use of antigen-directed modalities (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T therapy), this review explores the current and future role of alkylating agents in different treatment settings (e.g., induction, consolidation, stem cell mobilization, pre-transplant conditioning, salvage, bridging, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy) to ellucidate the role of alkylator-based regimens in modern-day MM management.

Efficacy and Safety of High-Dose Chemotherapy with Treosulfan and Melphalan in Multiple Myeloma

(1) Background: Upfront treatment consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has relevantly contributed to achieving durable remissions following induction treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The optimization of HDCT regimens can, therefore, essentially contribute to improving the depth and duration of tumor remissions. To date, melphalan at 200 mg/m² is the standard HDCT regimen for fit MM patients. In our previous work, we showed promising efficacy and safety results for treosulfan (14 g/m²) and melphalan (200 mg/m²) (TreoMel) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients receiving ASCT. Based on these data, TreoMel became the standard of care for fit MM patients at our institution. (2) Methods: We identified 115 consecutive MM patients who underwent consolidation with TreoMel between 01/2020 and 08/2022 at the University Hospital of Bern. We analyzed the safety and efficacy data, as well as the treosulfan pharmacokinetics, correlating them with tumor responses. (3) Results: A complete response (CR) rate of 84% was achieved, which is comparable to the CR rate reported for the quadruplet combination. The median PFS was 30 months (95% CI: 20.4-not reached), and the 31-month OS rate was 83%. The median area under the curve (AUC) for treosulfan was 952.5 mg*h/L (range: 527.4-1781.4), and the median peak level was 332.3 mg/L (range: 168-554). The treosulfan pharmacokinetics showed no significant correlation with MM responses after HDCT and ASCT. However, female patients had a significantly higher AUC (p = 0.007) and peak value (p = 0.001), and the higher values were associated with longer hospitalizations. (4) Conclusions: Treatment consolidation with TreoMel HDCT demonstrated a promising efficacy and safety profile in our cohort of MM patients and deserves further investigation in prospective studies.

Bridging advanced myeloma patients to subsequent treatments and clinical trials with classical chemotherapy and stem cell support

Rapidly progressing relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with compromised marrow have limited treatment options. Thus, non-myeloablative chemotherapy with a stem cell boost (SCB) may provide disease control and hematopoietic improvement as bridge to subsequent therapies. We identified 96 patients who received a SCB between January 2011 and December 2019 at the Mount Sinai Hospital. Patients had a median age of 64 years, received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy and 68 and 42% were triple-class and penta-drug refractory, respectively. Chemotherapy included melphalan (MEL) (n = 16), melphalan + carmustine (BCNU/MEL) (n = 52) or a variant of DCEP (dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin) (n = 28). Median time to neutrophil recovery was 10 days and was significantly lower with DCEP (8 days) compared to MEL and BCNU/MEL (10-11 days) (p = 0.0047). Time to progression, progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.19, 2.7 and 8.38 months, respectively. The BCNU/MEL group had the highest response rate of 85% (p = 0.05), clinical benefit rate of 94% (p = 0.0014), progression-free survival of 3.3 months (p = 0.4) and overall survival of 8.7 months (p = 0.5). Sixty-six patients (69%) were bridged to new lines of therapy, including clinical trials. Non-myeloablative chemotherapy with SCB provides rapid disease control and marrow recovery with potential to receive further therapy.