Al Hadidi, Samer

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide updated guidance regarding the therapy for multiple myeloma. METHODS ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) convened a joint Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The updated review identified a total of 161 relevant randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS Daratumumab therapy may be offered to patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma. Quadruplet therapy with daratumumab or isatuximab, combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, should be offered as initial therapy for transplant eligible patients. They should also be offered at least lenalidomide maintenance, with or without daratumumab, carfilzomib, and/or dexamethasone. Quadruplet therapy with daratumumab or isatuximab, combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, should be offered as therapy for suitable transplant-ineligible patients. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma should be offered triplet therapy or T-cell redirecting therapies according to a set of recommended principles. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines .

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment outcomes in developing countries may be impacted by resource constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes of MM treatments across developing regions. Comprehensive searches in five major databases identified 37 eligible studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Newer novel agents including daratumumab, carfilzomib, and pomalidomide showed limited use across studies. For patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the pooled overall survival rate at longest follow-up (2.5-12.5 years) was 62% (95% CI: 48-75%), with high heterogeneity (I²=92%), while the progression-free survival rate at longest follow-up (3-8 years) was 44% (95% CI: 23-67%). Comparative analyses demonstrated ASCT was associated with significantly superior 5-year survival compared to conventional chemotherapy (RR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). Bortezomib-based regimens showed better outcomes than thalidomide-based therapies (HR for overall survival (OS) at 4 years: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.0) and alkylating agent-based regimens (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28-0.83). Despite resource limitations, ASCT and certain novel agents are associated with improved survival outcomes for MM patients in developing countries. However, substantial heterogeneity in outcomes suggests variability in healthcare infrastructure, treatment accessibility, and clinical expertise across these regions.

Introduction: With improving overall survival among MM patients, there is an increasing need to both understand the absolute risk and identify risk factors for developing a second primary malignancy (SPM). Understanding these risk and potential modulation factors may help guide decisions regarding treatment options, monitoring surveillance strategies, and patient counselling. Furthermore, understanding this baseline SPM risk will help contextualize the future SPM risk associated with newer therapeutics, including chimeric antigen receptor therapies. Thus, we conducted a population-based study with following objectives: 1) to evaluate the rate and distribution of SPMs, and 2) to identify risk factors including a history of prior malignancy associated with an increased risk of SPMs in patients with MM. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study using data from Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), an administrative database that captures all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated for newly diagnosed MM between 2007-2022 were identified using ICD-O-3 code 9732/3 (MM). The list of secondary cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) were identified from pathology codes maintained in the Cancer Care Ontario Registry. Additional risk factors were also collected including a history and type of any pre-existing cancer (at least 1 year prior to MM diagnosis), treatment details including history of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and lenalidomide usage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median overall survival (OS). We estimated the cumulative incidence of secondary cancer accounting for death as a competing risk. To identify the association of prognostic factors on the risk of developing a SPM, we performed competing risks regression and estimated the subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) accounting for death as a competing risk. Results: A total of 12123 patients . The median age at diagnosis was 70 (IQR 61-77) years, 6860 (57%) of our cohort had a male sex. In our 4511 (37%) received at least one ASCT, 8062 (67%) were lenalidomide exposed and 6917 (57%) were cyclophosphamide exposed at any time post MM diagnosis, and 3017 (16%) received oral melphalan based induction regimens. The median follow up for cohort was 4.53 (95% CI 4.4-4.7) years. A total of 2079 patients (17%) had a prior cancer diagnosis at least 1 year prior to their MM diagnosis. Of these patients, 665 (32%) had received chemotherapy and 553 (27%) had received radiation to treat their prior malignancy. The three most common prior cancers were: prostate cancer (25%), breast cancer (13%) and heme malignancies (4%).The median time from diagnosis of a prior malignancy to MM diagnosis was 6.4 (IQR 2.04-13.26) years. A total of 1070 (8.8%) of the cohort developed a SPM. The cumulative incidence of SPM post MM diagnosis, accounting for death as a competing risk, was 3.7% at 2 years, 7.6% at 5 years, and 11.5% at 10 years. The three most common SPMs were hematologic (21%), prostate (7%), and lung (7%) cancer. The three most common hematological SPMs were acute myeloid leukemia (37%), B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (16%), and myelodysplastic syndrome (19%). The median OS following after any SPM diagnosis was 1.64 (95% CI 1.36-1.92) years, was 1.85 (95% CI 1.54-2.28) years for patients that developed a non-hematologic SPM, and was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88-1.40) years for patients that developed a hematologic SPM. Conclusion: This study represents one of the largest real-world cohort studies examining the rates, risk factor and outcomes of MM patients developing secondary cancers. We show that a prior malignancy diagnosis increased the risk of SPM after adjusting for ASCT and lenalidomide exposure, sex, and age at MM diagnosis. These data are important for patients and physicians to understand the risks associated with treatment of MM.

Introduction: The outcomes of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) have improved significantly with the advent of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Further advancements include immune-based approaches such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen T-cell receptor therapy. However, most of these therapies are predominantly available in developed countries, with limited access globally. Our study aimed to ascertain the landscape of interventions being used in developing countries for MM, and their efficacy. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on March 13, 2023, using Embase via Elsevier, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. We included retrospective and prospective studies that were evaluating interventions for patients with plasma cell dycrasias in the developing country setting. We defined developing country according to the United Nations. For comparative studies, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes such as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooling data using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. For non-comparative studies, we calculated overall event rates and transformed them using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine method, then pooled the data using the same random effects model. All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.0. Results: A total of 448 records were identified, of which 37 studies met the eligibility criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. The included studies evaluated induction treatments using doublet and triplet-based therapies, including TD (thalidomide and dexamethasone), VD (bortezomib and dexamethasone), MP (melphalan and prednisone), CTD (cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), and VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone). Lenalidomide was notably absent in the induction regimens apart from one non-comparative study reported on the use of RVD (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone). Studies were divided into comparative (n=11) and non-comparative groups (n=26). Comparative studies included: HSCT vs. no HSCT, induction with alkylating agents vs. thalidomide or bortezomib, and thalidomide vs. bortezomib or CTD vs. VTD. Lenalidomide use in comparative studies was reported only post-HSCT, compared against observation. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT was commonly utilized, with most studies reporting outcomes for patients who underwent autologous HSCT. Two comparative studies from 2 countries (Colombia and India) compared the overall survival of autologous HSCT in patients diagnosed with MM (N=130) vs. patients who never received ASCT (N=293). At one year of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who received autologous HSCT and those who did not (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.93-1.33). However, a significant improvement in OS was observed at five years post-autologous HSCT (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). The pooled estimate for five-year OS in single-arm studies, which included nine cohorts from seven countries (Pakistan, India, Colombia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Mexico, and Peru), was 62% (95% CI: 48-75). Progression-free survival (PFS) at five years post-HSCT, reported in three cohorts from three countries (India, Algeria, and Mexico), was 44% (95% CI: 23-67). Conclusions: Most of the recent advancements in MM treatment, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, were not widely utilized globally, particularly in developing countries. This limited access is a major issue, hindering the potential improvement in patient outcomes. However, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT showed good outcomes, demonstrating a significant survival advantage at five years follow-up. The lack of survival benefits at one-year post-HSCT may be due to high toxicity and/or limited resources to manage side effects in developing countries. Addressing the disparity in treatment availability is crucial for improving MM management and patient survival globally.

Abstract Background Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), carries a variable risk of progression to MM. There is little consensus on the efficacy or optimal timing of treatment in SMM. We systematically reviewed the landscape of all clinical trials in SMM. We compared the efficacy of treatment regimens studied in SMM to results from these regimens when used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to determine whether the data suggest deeper responses in SMM versus NDMM. Methods All prospective interventional clinical trials for SMM, including published studies, meeting abstracts, and unpublished trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov up to April 1, 2023, were identified. Trial-related variables were captured, including treatment strategy and efficacy results. Relevant clinical endpoints were defined as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Results Among 45 SMM trials identified, 38 (84.4%) assessed active myeloma drugs, while 7 (15.6%) studied bone-modifying agents alone. Of 18 randomized trials in SMM, only one (5.6%) had a primary endpoint of OS; the most common primary endpoint was progression-free survival (n = 7, 38.9%). Among 32 SMM trials with available results, 9 (28.1%) met their prespecified primary endpoint, of which 5 were single-arm studies. Six treatment regimens were tested in both SMM and NDMM; 5 regimens yielded a lower rate of very good partial response rate or better (≥VGPR) in SMM compared to the corresponding NDMM trial (32% vs 63%, 43% vs 53%, 40% vs 63%, 86% vs 89%, 92% vs 95%, and 94% vs 87%, respectively). Conclusion In this systematic review of all prospective interventional clinical trials in SMM, we found significant variability in trial design, including randomization status, primary endpoints, and types of intervention used. Despite the statistical limitations, comparison of treatment regimens revealed no compelling evidence that the treatment is more effective when introduced early in SMM compared to NDMM.

Introduction Despite the remarkable success of combination treatments, multiple myeloma (MM) still poses significant challenges, with a high percentage of patients experiencing relapse over time. Additional metabolic alterations are found in relapsed and refractory MM; however, their impacts have not been fully elucidated. Expression of thyroid hormone receptor interactor 13 (TRIP13) has been identified by Gene Expression Profile (GEP)-70 to correlate with poor prognosis in MM. TRIP13 is an AAA ATPase that regulates the spindle assembly checkpoint in mitosis. Based on GEP data from 34 paired baseline and relapse samples, TRIP13 continuously increased from baseline to first and to second relapse. Overexpression of TRIP13 induces bortezomib resistance. In this study, we aimed to investigate how TRIP13 might regulate MM cell metabolism and to use this information to develop a novel combination strategy to overcome MM resistance. Methods Knockout (KO) of TRIP13 in OPM2 and MM1.S cells was generated by dual gRNAs CRISPR-Cas9 editing deleting a fragment between exon 4 and exon 5. Cell growth curves and response to bortezomib were recorded in the control and TRIP13-KO cells. Metabolomics was performed to reveal cellular metabolic alterations. Seahorse analysis was used to test the mitochondrial stress and glycolysis stress. To investigate whether TRIP13 KO promotes ferroptosis, an intracellular iron-dependent cell death characterized by the accumulation of lipid peroxides, we applied C11-BODIY staining after treatment with Erastin, a ferroptosis-inducer. Expression levels of cyclooxygenase 2 (encoded by PTGS2, a hallmark of ferroptosis), cystine transporter (xCT), and intracellular glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) were analyzed. In addition, the protein levels of iron metabolic molecules, including iron importer transferrin receptor protein 1 (TFRC), iron exporter ferroportin 1 (FPN1), ferritin heavy chain 1 (FTH1), and nuclear receptor coactivator 4 (NCOA4) were assessed. To study whether TRIP13 KO delays MM progression in an immune-competent MM mouse model, Vκ12653 murine MM cells were genetically modified by CRISPR-mediated TRIP13-KO and then injected into C57BL/6 mice. Mouse survival was monitored. Results The cell-doubling rate of TRIP13-KO cells was decreased by 50% compared to control cells. After 24 hours of treatment with 5 nM bortezomib, cell viability of TRIP13-KO cells decreased by 31% compared with control cells. The metabolomic studies revealed that TRIP13-KO OPM2 and MM1.S cells both had significantly decreased intracellular L-serine (FC = 0.57) but increased pyruvate (FC = 1.79), citric acid (FC = 1.76), and isocitric acid (FC = 1.64), indicating TRIP13 may regulate serine metabolism, mitochondrial function, and cellular redox balance. Seahorse analysis indicated that TRIP13-KO MM cells showed decreased glycolysis (decreased by 30%, p < 0.001) and glycolytic capacity (decreased by 33%, p < 0.001) while oxidative phosphorylation showed little change. Moreover, lipid peroxidation and PTGS2 were increased in TRIP13-KO cells after Erastin treatment, indicating that these cells were more vulnerable to ferroptosis. Mechanistically, inhibition of TRIP13 decreased GPX4, FPN1, FTH1, and increased NCOA4, while overexpression of TRIP13 showed the opposite changes, suggesting that targeting TRIP13 sensitizes MM cells to ferroptosis by impairing cellular redox balance and increasing the labile-iron pool. Lastly, TRIP13-KO significantly prolonged mouse survival in the Vκ12653 mouse model (median survival: TRIP13-KO 93 days vs. Control 60.5 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion Our study revealed that TRIP13 plays a critical role in regulating MM cell metabolism. By suppressing TRIP13, we observed increased sensitivity of MM cells to bortezomib, leading to enhanced ferroptosis-mediated cell death and prolonged mouse survival. These findings strongly suggest that targeting TRIP13 could be a promising approach in MM therapy. Moving forward, our future investigations will concentrate on unraveling the precise molecular mechanisms underlying TRIP13-mediated alterations in cell metabolism. Additionally, we plan to explore the potential synergistic effects of TRIP13 inhibition in combination with metabolic targeted treatments, such as venetoclax, to further enhance therapeutic outcomes in MM.

Abstract The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P < .001 and HR 5.01, P < .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P < .001 and HR 8.13, P < .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post–auto-HSCT.

Abstract Participation of women and early-career faculty in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series has not been studied previously. We aimed to evaluate gender and early-career faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series. Speakers at major hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series meetings in the United States were analyzed in this cross-sectional study during a 5-year period from the years 2017 through 2021. Data about the lecture topic, field, speaker’s gender, years of experience, and the frequency at which the lecture was given by the speaker were collected. Of 386 speakers participating, 315 (81.6%) were ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine)-certified. A total of 1,224 board review lectures were given in the studied period, of which 1,016 (83%) were given by an ABIM-certified speaker. Women constituted 37.7% of all speakers, with less than 50% representation in five out of six courses. Lectures discussing malignant hematology topics had the lowest proportion of women presenters (24.8%), followed by solid tumors (38.9%) and benign hematology lectures (44.1%). Faculty with more than 15 years since initial certification presented more than 50% of lectures. The median time from initial hematology or medical oncology certification to lecture presentation was 12.5 years and 14 years, respectively. A positive trend in the participation of women was found at all board review conferences across the studied period. Our data suggest that women and early-career faculty participation in hematology and oncology board review series is inadequate.