Gupta, Samiksha

BackgroundDespite routine evaluation of cytogenetics in myeloma, little is known regarding the impact of high‐dose therapy (HDT) consolidation on overall survival (OS) or progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients who have high‐risk cytogenetics. The authors performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the heterogeneity of HDT efficacy according to cytogenetic risk.MethodsAll RCTs in patients who had newly diagnosed myeloma from 2000 to 2021 that compared upfront HDT versus standard‐dose therapy (SDT) consolidation were included. The primary objective was to assess the difference in HDT efficacy between standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics in terms of the OS or PFS log(hazard ratio) (HR). The pooled OS and PFS HR was calculated according to cytogenetic‐risk subgroup using a random‐effects model, and heterogeneity (I2) (the percentage of total observed variability explained by between‐study differences) was assessed using an interaction test.ResultsAfter screening 3307 citations, 6 RCTs were included for PFS analysis, and 4 were included for OS analysis. The median follow‐up ranged from 3.1 to 7.8 years. The pooled OS HR for HDT versus SDT consolidation in patients with standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70‐1.17; I2 = 0%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45‐0.97; I2 = 0%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of OS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was statistically significant in favor of the high‐risk group (P for interaction = .03). The pooled PFS HR for HDT versus SDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56‐0.76; I2 = 0%) versus 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33‐0.83; I2 = 55%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of PFS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was not significant (P for interaction = .25).ConclusionsThe magnitude of OS benefit with upfront HDT is cytogenetics‐dependent. Patients with high‐risk cytogenetics should preferably receive upfront rather than delayed HDT consolidation.Lay Summary Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma harboring high‐risk cytogenetics.

e20037 Background: Several treatment options are available for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma(RRMM). However, in the absence of direct-comparative trials, it is unclear how to choose optimal therapy in RRMM. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative efficacy of different treatment options in RRMM. Methods: Standard electronic databases were searched for abstract and full-text publications of phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment regimens in RRMM. Progression free survival (PFS) , overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), and very good partial response (VGPR) were analyzed. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using fixed-effect network meta-analysis (NMA) within the frequentist framework due to sparse direct evidence. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the Bayesian approach. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of comparison-adjusted funnel plots. P-score plots were used to assess relative rankings of the treatments. R statistical software v 4.0.3 was used to conduct the analyses. Results: After a review of 1137 citations, A total of 37 relevant studies were included in systematic review and 30 studies were analyzed in the network meta-analysis (29 contributed for PFS; 18 for OS; 23 for CR; 25 for VGPR). Mixed treatment comparisons showed high likelihood of PFS benefit with triplet regimens; Isatuximab-Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone (Isa-Kd; P-score: 0.98), followed by Daratumumab-Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone (DKd; P-score: 0.93), Daratumumab-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone (DVd P-score: 0.92), Elotuzumab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone (EPd); P-score: 0.84), and Isatuximab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; P-score: 0.80) when compared to monotherapy and different doublet regimens. Isa-Kd and DKd continued to show significant PFS advantage when compared to Kd doublet. High likelihood of OS benefit was observed with Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (KRd); P-score: 0.86) followed by Kd (P-score: 0.83), and DVd (P-score: 0.82). However, trials did not consistently report data for OS and most of the mixed treatment comparisons were statistically insignificant. Similar results were observed for CR and VGPR with triplet regimens showing better likelihood for achieving CR and VGPR. Conclusions: This NMA provide most updated evidence on different treatment options in RRMM and can serve as a contemporary guidance in the absence of head-to-head trials. The weight of current evidence favors the use of triplet regimens. Isa-Kd, DKd, DVd, EPd and Isa-Pd showed no statistically significant difference in terms of PFS in RRMM.