Zanwar, Saurabh

8043 Background: Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma (EMM) has an aggressive clinical course and can present at diagnosis [primary EMM, (pEMM)] or relapse [secondary EMM, (sEMM)]. Here, we report clinical characteristics and outcomes of EMM, and predictive factors for the development of sEMM. Methods: We identified 299 patients with biopsy-proven EMM between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2021. Patients with solitary plasmacytomas, paraskeletal MM and primary plasma cell leukemia were excluded. A 1:1 matched pair analysis (matched for year of diagnosis of MM for comparable follow-up and treatment eras) was performed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes for patients with and without sEMM. Results: The median follow-up from the diagnosis of MM was 11.5 years (95%CI: 9.3-14.8). Of 299 patients, 204 (68%) patients had sEMM and 95 (32%) had pEMM, with largely comparable baseline characteristics (Table). The median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of sEMM was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6-0.9) years compared to 3.6 (95%CI: 2.4-5.6) years for pEMM (p<0.0001). For sEMM, mutlvariable analysis (MVA) for OS identified visceral organ involvement (eg. liver, lung/pleura, brain, pancreas, etc.) to be associated with inferior OS [HR 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1-2.4), p=0.01]; high-risk cytogenetics (HR-CTG), ISS-3 stage, and age did not impact OS from sEMM. For pEMM, HR-CTG [HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 -4.8), p=0.03] and ISS-3 stage [HR 3.1 (95% CI 1.5-6.7), p=0.003] were associated with inferior OS on MVA whereas visceral EMM or age did not impact OS from pEMM. On univariate analysis, patients with sEMM were younger (median age 58.7 vs 61 years, p=0.006), had a higher proportion of 1q duplication (32% vs 17%, p=0.001), t(4;14) [16% vs 9%, p=0.047] and elevated LDH (30% vs 19%, p=0.04), compared to the matched cohort of patients without sEMM. On MVA, younger age at diagnosis, t(4;14) and 1q duplication at diagnosis of MM were independent predictors of development of sEMM. The median OS from diagnosis of MM was 5.4 years (95%CI: 4.1-6.2) for patients with sEMM versus 7.5 years (95% CI: 6.4-10.1; p <0.001) for the matched cohort. Secondary EMM was an independent poor prognostic marker for OS from the diagnosis of MM [HR 1.6 (95%CI: 1.2-2.1); p=0.004] in addition to age, ISS3 disease and HR-CTG. Conclusions: Outcomes of patients with EMM, especially sEMM, remain dismal. Patients with sEMM have higher rates of 1q duplication and t(4;14) at diagnosis of MM and carried an independent adverse prognosis in a matched cohort. [Table: see text]

8022 Background: Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma (EMM) is an aggressive entity with a dismal prognosis. Immune effector therapies (IETs), including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies and bispecific T-cell engaging antibodies (BsAb), have demonstrated excellent efficacy in relapsed/refractory MM with limited data for efficacy in EMM. Here, we report the treatment outcomes for patients with EMM. Methods: We identified 299 patients with EMM diagnosed between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2021 after excluding solitary plasmacytomas, paraskeletal MM and primary plasma cell leukemia. The IMWG criteria were used for response definition. Results: Of the 299 patients, 204 (68%) patients had secondary EMM (sEMM) and 95 (32%) patients had primary EMM (pEMM). For sEMM (n=204), the median progression free survival (PFS) with initial therapy was 2.9 (95% CI: 2.4-3.2) months. Initial treatment strategies for sEMM were heterogenous and demonstrated in the table; 44% patients achieved ≥partial response (PR) with initial treatment for sEMM. The median PFS in patients with ≥PR was 5.8 (95%CI: 4.5-6.9) months vs 1.8 (95%CI: 1.4-2; p <0.0001) months for <PR. For patients with pEMM (n=95), the median PFS was 12.9 (95% CI: 6.7-18) months; the median PFS was 17.4 (95%CI: 12.9-25.4) months for patients with ≥PR versus 1 month (95%CI: 0.8-2) in patients with <PR. Thirty patients (all sEMM and triple class refractory) were treated with IET after development of EMM: 18 with BCMA-directed CAR-T, 10 with BsAbs, and 2 with both CAR-T and BsAbs. In patients receiving CAR-T therapy, 75% (15/20) achieved ≥PR with 40% (n=8) achieving MRD negative (by flowcytometry) complete response. Fifteen (75%) patients receiving CAR-T had progressive disease (PD); 7 with systemic and EMM PD and 4 patients each with isolated EMM or systemic PD. The median PFS for patients treated with CAR-T was 4.9 months [3.1- not reached (NR)]. Among patients achieving a ≥PR with CAR-T, the median PFS was 5.8 (95%CI: 4.7-NR) months vs 1.4 months [(95%CI: 0.8-NR), p<0.001] for <PR. Among patients treated with BsAbs (10-BCMA, 1 each against FcRH5 and GPRC5D), 33% (4/12) achieved a ≥PR. Ten (83%) patients had PD on BsAb; 8 with both EMM and systemic PD and 1 patient each with isolated EMM or PD. The median PFS with BsAb was 2.9 months (95%CI: 2.2-NR). Conclusions: Patients with EMM continue to have dismal outcomes with conventional therapies. High response rates were noted with CAR-T therapy, but these tend to be short-lived. [Table: see text]

Immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a clonal plasma cell disorder with multiple clinical presentations. The diagnosis of AL amyloidosis requires a high index of suspicion, making a delay in diagnosis common, which contributes to the high early mortality seen in this disease. Establishing the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis requires the demonstration of tissue deposition of amyloid fibrils. A bone marrow biopsy and fat pad aspirate performed concurrently have a high sensitivity for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and negate the need for organ biopsies in most patients. An accurate diagnosis requires amyloid typing via additional testing, including tissue mass spectrometry. Prognostication for AL amyloidosis is largely driven by the organs impacted. Cardiac involvement represents the single most important prognostic marker, and the existing staging systems are driven by cardiac biomarkers. Apart from organ involvement, plasma cell percentage on the bone marrow biopsy, specific fluorescence in situ hybridization findings, age at diagnosis, and performance status are important prognostic markers. This review elaborates on the diagnostic testing and prognostication for patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis.