McCaughan, Georgia

Aim: The definition of high-risk (HR) in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is ever evolving with the discovery of new genomic abnormalities and increasing therapeutic options. There are various stratification models incorporating laboratory and genetic features with different definitions of high-risk and varied emphasis on individual risk factors. Recognized high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) include t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) with recent inclusion of del(1p) and gain/amplification (amp) of 1q (+1q) . In addition to del(17p), the presence of biallelic del(1p) and ≥2 HRCAs (“double-” or “triple-hit”) appear to confer poorer outcomes. A new definition proposed by the International Myeloma society (IMS) defines HR as the presence of del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; an IgH translocation - t(4;14), t(4;16) or t(14;20) along with +1q and/or del(1p); monoallelic del(1p32) along with +1q; bi-allelic del(1p32); or β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 with normal creatinine (<1.2mg/dL). Herein, we report real-world outcomes on these HRCAs and the new IMS consensus definition of HR MM. Method: We retrospectively reviewed newly diagnosed MM patients from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry across 4 Australian states. Patients with FISH and/or SNP microarray testing for IgH translocations, 1q21 (CKS1B), del(1p32) (CDKN2C) and del(17p) (TP53) were identified. Positive threshold was 30%. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to compare progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups and first performed univariate analysis (UA) for each HRCA. We next analyzed patients with gain1q vs amp1q and monoallelic vs biallelic del(1p). In the final analysis, two risk groups were formed: cases meeting the new IMS-defined HR criteria were considered IMS-HR and the rest were considered standard risk (IMS-SR). Indeterminate cases with missing variables that could influence risk classification were excluded. Results: Of 839 newly diagnosed patients (pts) included, 31% had ISS (International staging system) stage 3 disease. High-risk IgH translocations t(4;14) and t(14;16) were present in 8% and 4%. Secondary HRCAs del(17p), del(1p), gain1q and amp1q were present in 9%, 14%, 30% and 11% respectively. In this cohort, 41% received ASCT. Of the transplant eligible pts, 41% received triplet therapy (PI, IMiD and corticosteroid) and 57% received PI-based induction. Of the transplant ineligible pts, 31% received triplet therapy, 47% PI-based and 19% IMiD-based therapy. Frontline Anti-CD38 antibody use was <1%. Median follow up was 35 months[m] (IQR 18-60). On UA, the risk of progression and/or death was increased with ISS III vs I, amp1q, del(17p), t(14;16), del(1p) and gain1q in descending order by hazard ratio. The risk remained significant in ISS III, del(17p), amp1q and gain1q after multi-variate analysis (MVA). The risk of death was increased with ISS III vs I, del(17p), amp1q, del(1p) and t(14;16), ISS II vs I in descending order by hazard ratio. After MVA, the risk remained significant for ISS stage III, del(17p), amp1q and t(14;16). Of the 117 pts with del(1p32), 108 had monoallelic and 9 had biallelic loss. Pts with biallelic del(1p32) had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 23.2m, p<0.001) and OS (median 24.8m vs NR, p<0.001) compared to those with monoallelic del(1p32). In pts with 1q+, pts with amp1q had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 27.5m, p<0.001) and OS (median 37.0m vs NR, p<0.001) vs pts with gain1q. Based on the new definition of HR myeloma - 385 pts met the criteria for IMS-HR and 216 for IMS-SR. There were 238 indeterminate cases due to missing data. The IMS-HR group had an inferior PFS (median 20.2 vs 39.7m, p<0.001) and OS (median 44.2m vs NR, p<0.001) when compared to IMS-SR. Noting that the IMS-HR group had a higher median age, poorer performance status and lower rates of ASCT use, adjusted analysis for these variables still showed an inferior PFS (aHR 1.68; 95% CI 1.30-2.16, p<0.001) and OS [aHR 1.72; 95% CI 1.21-2.44, p=0.002). Conclusion: ISS III, del(17p), amp1q are the strongest predictor of OS and PFS. Differentiating between monoallelic vs biallelic del(132p) and gain vs amp1q21 has important prognostic value. The IMS- HR definition which takes into account del(1p), “double-” and “triple-hit” disease predicts for a group of patients with a PFS of ~20 months and inferior OS, and provides a standardized approach to risk stratification in MM.

Introduction: Most induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) contain bortezomib. In most clinical trials, bortezomib has been prescribed either intravenously or subcutaneously twice per week in 21-day or 28-day cycles. However, several retrospective single-center studies have shown that once-weekly bortezomib has comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy compared to twice-weekly bortezomib ( Sidana et al, PLoS One 2017; Cook et al, AJH 2021). These findings have also been confirmed by a secondary analysis of data from three prospective Phase 3 randomized studies ( Mateos et al, Haematologica 2014). As such, many clinicians have adopted once-weekly bortezomib regimens in routine care in the past decade. However, the real-world (RW) prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly vs twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in a larger population have not yet been characterized. Methods: This study used US nationwide longitudinal Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified data. We included patients aged 18-70 years with newly diagnosed MM between 2017-2022 with ≥ 6 months of follow-up and ≥ 2 clinical visits who were treated with a first-line (1L) bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients aged >70 were excluded a priori given the likelihood of altered practice patterns and more frequent comorbidities. Twice-weekly bortezomib was defined as patients for whom the most frequent interval between two doses of 1L bortezomib within a cycle was 3.0-4.9 days, while once-weekly bortezomib was defined as a corresponding interval of 5.0-9.9 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with once-weekly vs twice-weekly (reference) bortezomib. RW progression free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) from 1L treatment initiation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model including transplant as a time-varying covariate and adjustment for other demographic and clinical factors. Results: Of 2,522 patients included, 927 (36.8%) received twice-weekly while 1,522 (63.2%) received once-weekly bortezomib. Approximately half of patients (50.3%) were non-Latinx White, 21.7% non-Latinx Black, and 8.0% Latinx. Most patients were treated in the community setting (78.8%). Rates of once-weekly bortezomib administration were 66.2% and 62.1% among patients treated at academic and community practices, respectively. The frequency of weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 58.0% between 2017-2019 to 68.8% between 2020-2022. In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; [95% CI 1.14 to 1.99] vs ECOG PS 0), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.14; [95% CI 1.08 to 1.20] per year) were associated with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Conversely, Latinx patients vs non-Latinx White (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.82]) and patients with ≥ 2 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) vs 0 HRCA (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.91]) had lower odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib administration. No significant associations were found between gender, ISS stage, practice setting, insurance category, or baseline creatinine. There was no statistically significant difference in rwPFS among patients receiving once-weekly (median 37.3 months, 95% CI 33.8 to 42.5) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 39.2 months, 95% CI 32.9 to 42.8) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00]) (Figure 1A). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in rwOS with median 25.5 months follow-up (Figure 1B). Median rwOS was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.07]). Discussion: We evaluated US bortezomib prescribing patterns for the first time in the modern era using a large nationwide RW-study. Whereas prescribing patterns have shifted towards once-weekly bortezomib over time, over 30% of patients diagnosed in the last three years received twice-weekly bortezomib. Importantly, once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib performed comparably with regard to rwPFS and rwOS. While our study did not analyze neuropathy or patient quality of life, once-weekly bortezomib is known to be associated with less neuropathy and less time in clinic. These data further support the conclusion that once-weekly bortezomib should be considered the standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with MM.

Background: Bortezomib (Velcade), a mainstay of treatment regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), is often dosed twice-weekly in trials (i.e., Days 1, 4, 8, 11 in 21-day cycles). However, several analyses have shown that once-weekly bortezomib performs comparably and is associated with less peripheral neuropathy (Sidana PLoS One 2017, Mateos L&L 2020, Cook AJH 2021). Many centers thus use once-weekly bortezomib in MM induction regimens regardless of transplant eligibility, e.g. modified VRd or Dara-VRd in 28-day cycles with once-weekly subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 (McCaughan BJH 2022). Physician attitudes and perceptions regarding how bortezomib should be dosed, an important step toward establishing a global standard of care in MM, have not been investigated. Methods: We conducted a global online survey of hematologists/oncologists who had treated ≥1 patient with MM in the past 12 months. The survey was distributed via social media platforms as well as targeted emails to MM physicians, IMWG members, and outreach through professional societies. The survey comprised 14 questions including usage of once- vs twice-weekly bortezomib, usage of SC vs IV bortezomib, attitudinal questions about potential benefits/disadvantages of each approach, and perceived barriers to using once-weekly bortezomib. Statistics were analyzed descriptively with Wilcoxon rank-sum and signed-rank tests. Results: Of 317 webpage visits, 205 responses were recorded (65% completion rate).Most respondents were from US academic practices (25%, n=52), US community practices (22%, n=46), or Australian academic practices (6%, n=13); however, responses were recorded from 38 countries including 22 low- or middle-income countries (LMICs: 29% of responses, n=60).Over a third of respondents (37%, n=76) practiced in community settings, and most respondents (58%, n=119) reported >20 patients with MM under their personal care . 93 respondents (45%) had previously helped write institutional or societal guidelines, including 21 IMWG members.Respondents reported using once-weekly bortezomib most of the time (median 95% of patients, IQR 80%-100%) and almost always used SC bortezomib (IQR 100%-100%).There were no significant differences in bortezomib frequency or route based on academic vs community practice, experience with MM, US vs non-US, or LMIC vs non-LMIC. Large majorities of respondents (Table 1) felt that once-weekly bortezomib is preferred by patients (94%), associated with comparable durations of response (79%), and associated with less peripheral neuropathy (89%). Conversely, 61% of respondents felt that twice-weekly bortezomib in superior in newly diagnosed MM with acute cast nephropathy.Physician estimates of the incidence of any-grade peripheral neuropathy were significantly lower with once-weekly bortezomib (median 30%, IQR 20-43%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 50%, IQR 40-73%). Similarly, Grade 3+ neuropathy estimates were significantly lower with once-weekly (median 10%, IQR 5-17%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 25%, IQR 15-38%), with p<0.001 in all cases . The most common cited barriers to ordering once-weekly bortezomib (Table 2) were perceived lack of prospective data (31%), difficulty modifying treatment orders (24%), and resistance from pharmacist colleagues who prefer adhering to trial-studied regimens (13%). Discussion: In our survey of over 200 MM-treating physicians from 38 countries (including 22 LMICs), once-weekly subcutaneous bortezomib was overwhelmingly preferred regardless of practice setting or country. The only exception was acute cast nephropathy, where twice-weekly bortezomib may expedite renal recovery and is reasonable to use initially. Neuropathy estimates were similar to published incidences (32% with once-weekly bortezomib vs 47% with twice-weekly bortezomib) from prospective data collected from the ALCYONE, GIMEMA-QW, and VISTA randomized trials (Mateos L&L 2020). Our findings highlight the widening mismatch between what physicians routinely prescribe to patients versus what registrational trials typically require. Given that >90% of physicians personally prefer once-weekly bortezomib and that >90% report that their patients feel similarly, once-weekly bortezomib appears to have become the global standard of care. This consensus should be taken into consideration for clinical trial design in the future.