Lipe, Brea

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 .

Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and EU for the treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with len-refractory MM after ≥1 line based on the randomized, phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827). At the first interim analysis (15.9-month [mo] median follow-up), cilta-cel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs SoC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26 [protocol-specified weighted analysis]; P<0.0001). At the second interim analysis, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with cilta-cel vs SoC (HR, 0.55; P=0.0009). MRD negativity is a prognostic marker of prolonged survival outcomes for pts with MM. We report MRD negativity, including overall and sustained MRD negativity, overall MRD-negative complete response or better (≥CR), and MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, from the prespecified second interim analysis of CARTITUDE-4. Methods: Eligibility criteria were previously described. Pts were assigned 1:1 to cilta-cel or SoC (pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [PVd]/daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DPd]). Pts in the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis, received bridging therapy (PVd/DPd), and then a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose, 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg) 5-7 days (d) after the start of lymphodepletion. PFS was the primary endpoint; ≥CR rate, overall response rate, overall MRD-negativity rate, and OS were key secondary endpoints. MRD was assessed centrally via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ v2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies). MRD was evaluated at d 56 post infusion in the cilta-cel arm; and in both arms at suspected ≥CR and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo post infusion (cilta-cel arm) or cycle 1 d 1 (SoC arm), as well as yearly until progression/start of subsequent therapy in pts in ≥CR. Sustained MRD negativity (10−5) was defined as confirmed MRD negativity ≥12 mo apart and without MRD positivity in between. Pts were evaluable for sustained MRD negativity if they achieved MRD negativity and had ≥1 evaluable MRD sample ≥12 mo after the first negative result or progressed/died/started subsequent tx <12 mo after the first negative result. Results: 419 pts were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] set; cilta-cel, n=208; SoC, n=211); 176 pts in the cilta-cel arm received cilta-cel as study tx. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up for the study was 33.6 mo. At the 10−5 threshold, 145 pts in the cilta-cel arm and 103 in the SoC arm were evaluable for MRD. MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set and the MRD-evaluable subset were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (ITT, 62% vs 18%; MRD evaluable, 89% vs 38%; both P<0.0001). Across subgroups, cilta-cel vs SoC consistently increased overall MRD-negativity rates (10−5). In the ITT set, 48% of the cilta-cel arm achieved MRD negativity (10−5) by d 56, with the MRD-negative rate rising to 60% by 6 mo post cilta-cel infusion. Overall MRD-negativity rates at the 10−6 threshold in the ITT set were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (57% vs 9%; P<0.0001). In the cilta-cel arm, 119 (57%) pts vs 26 (12%) in the SoC arm achieved overall MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR (P<0.0001). At the 12-mo MRD assessment, 92 (44%) pts in the cilta-cel arm vs 17 (8%) in the SoC arm (P<0.0001) had MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR. In pts with MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR at mo 12, median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not estimable [NE]-NE) with cilta-cel and 37.8 mo (95% CI, 25.0-NE) with SoC; median OS was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) and NR (95% CI, 37.8 mo-NE), respectively. Sustained MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set were 40% in the cilta-cel arm vs 6% in the SoC arm (P<0.0001); among 110 and 26 evaluable pts for sustained MRD, sustained MRD-negativity rates were 75% vs 50% (P=0.0159). Among the 176 pts who received cilta-cel as study tx, overall MRD negativity at 10−5 was achieved by 129 (73%) pts (89% of 145 evaluable pts). Conclusions: At 33.6-mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel vs SoC significantly increased overall MRD-negativity rates >3-fold in the ITT set, with pts achieving MRD negativity rapidly post cilta-cel. The prognostic value of MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12 was shown, as median PFS was >3 years in pts with MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, regardless of tx. These data further underscore the benefit of cilta-cel, which led to significant >3-fold increases vs SoC in rates of MRD-negative ≥CR at any time and at mo 12, and sustained MRD negativity. Our MRD data demonstrate higher rates of deep and sustained MRD negativity achieved with cilta-cel vs SoC in tx of len-refractory MM as early as first relapse.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer of plasma cells with nearly 70% of all new diagnoses occurring in adults aged ≥ 65 years. For older adults, medical comorbidities and functional deficits become increasingly more prevalent with increased age and can impact disease outcomes and survival. There are unmet medical needs in this vulnerable patient population who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation to optimize the frontline therapy for better survival and less toxicity. This randomized phase 3 clinical trial is designed to focus on real world patient population to identify an optimal frontline three drug regimen in frail or a subset of intermediate fit newly diagnosed MM patients. Diagnostic criteria and response criteria will be based on IMWG guidelines. Participants must have a calculated myeloma frailty index (Myeloma Frailty Score Calculator (http://www.myelomafrailtyscorecalculator.net/) categorized as frail or intermediate fit (regardless of age) within 28 days prior to registration (NCT05561387). The two most commonly used induction/maintenance regimens in this patient population will be compared, including RVd-Lite (lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), and dexamethasone (dex) followed by R maintenance) and DRd (Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dex followed by R or R-daratumumab maintenance). The study will include three cohorts: (1) RVd-Lite induction followed by Rev maintenance (2) DRd induction followed by Rev maintenance (3) DRd induction followed by D-R maintenance. Induction phases will be 9 cycles in total of 28 days each, followed by maintenance for cycle 10 and beyond in all cohorts until disease progression: V 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22, R 15 mg days 1-21, dex 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 for induction phase and R 10 mg days 1-21 for maintenance phase in cohort 1 (VRd-Lite); SubQ Dara 1800 mg (on days 1, 8, 15, 22 for C1-2, on days 1, 15 for C3-6, on day 1 for C7-9), R 15 mg day 1-21, dex 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 for induction phase and R 10 mg days 1-21 for maintenance in cohort 2 (DRd-R); SubQ Dara 1800 mg (on days 1, 8, 15, 22 for C1-2, on days 1, 15 for C3-6, on day 1 for C7-9), R 15 mg day 1-21, dex 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 for induction phase and Dara 1800mg on day 1 and R 10mg days 1-21 for maintenance in cohort 3 (DRd-DR). The dual primary objectives are (A) to compare progression free survival (PFS) between cohorts 1 (VRd-Lite) and 2 (DRd-R); (B) to compare overall survival (OS) between cohorts 1 (VRd-Lite) and 3 (DRd-DR). Quality of life objectives are to compare patient reported global health status between treatment arms at the end of induction therapy using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire. A total of 459 eligible patients will be enrolled in this randomized three cohort trial. It is hypothesized that Cohort 1 will have a median PFS of 2.667 years and a median OS of 5 years. With 153 eligible participants per cohort accrued over 5 years, and an additional follow-up period of 3 years, this trial has 80% power to detect an increase in the median PFS in Cohort 2 from 2.667 years to 4 years, and 83.4% power to detect an increase in the median OS in Cohort 3 from 5 years to 8.5 years, each with a one-sided type I error rate of 2%. This trial will be conducted among the NCI cooperative groups SWOG, ALLIANCE, and ECOG/ACRIN and incorporate substantial involvement from NCORP and VA member sites. This study is anticipated to provide practice changing data for this transplant-ineligible real world population to achieve deeper and longer remissions with less side effects and better quality of life.

Background HPN217 is a B Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA)-targeting tri-specific T cell engager (TCE). HPN217 contains three binding domains including anti-BCMA for MM cell binding, anti-albumin for half-life extension, and anti-CD3 for T cell engagement and activation. HPN217 is a small (~50 kDa) globular protein, designed to increase the therapeutic window by minimizing off-target toxicities and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). HPN217 is under investigation in patients (pts) with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Methods This study is designed to assess the safety, pharmacology and early clinical activity of HPN217 using fixed and step-dose (prime dose followed by target doses) regimens in dose escalation cohorts along with expansion of selected regimens for further evaluation. Pts with RRMM who have received at least 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and CD38-targeted therapy are eligible. Prior exposure to a BCMA-targeting agent is permitted. Primary objectives include evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of the Recommended Phase 2 Dose(s) (RP2D). Secondary objectives include preliminary efficacy. HPN217 is administered IV once weekly or once every 2 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by CTCAE 5.0, and ASTCT for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and ICANS. Clinical activity is assessed per IMWG Response Criteria. Results Dose escalation has been completed. 97 pts were enrolled across 15 dose escalation cohorts and expansion of 3 regimens with the highest target dose levels from dose escalation (12mg weekly; 24mg every 2 weeks; 24mg weekly for 1 cycle followed by 24mg every 2 weeks). As of 26 June 2023, across all cohorts, 94 pts were treated and had received a median (range) of 6 (2-19) prior lines of treatment (62% penta-exposed, 17% BCMA-targeted therapy, 68% prior transplantation). Median age was 70 (38-85) years. 36 pts (38%) remain on treatment. The most common (≥25%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across all cohorts and in the 12mg and 24mg cohorts are summarized in Table 1. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) of reversible transaminitis (Gr 3, n=1; Gr 4, n=1) in 2 pts at 2.86 mg fixed dose during dose escalation informed the choice of 2.15 mg as priming dose in the highest step dose cohorts; a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) has not been reached in step dose cohorts. All CRS events were grade 1-2 except one event of grade 3 CRS at 24 mg. Grade 1 ICANS was reported in 2 pts. Responses were observed at doses ≥ 2.15 mg. Among the 12mg and 24mg cohorts, 55% (22/40) of efficacy-evaluable pts currently have had a confirmed response (PR or better) including 2 pts with prior BCMA directed CAR-T cell therapy; disease assessments for recently enrolled patients are pending. Among pts with a response, 73% (16/22) have had a confirmed response of VGPR or better. Across all dose levels, the median time on treatment for pts with a confirmed response was 40 weeks (range 8.3-114 weeks), including 9 patients on treatment for over 12 months, with data maturing to include longer follow-up on patients recently enrolled. HPN217 exhibited linear and dose proportional PK across all dose groups with a median half-life of 68 hours (range 26-197 hours). Transient cytokine increases were higher with the initial/priming dose compared to subsequent/target doses. Conclusions Dose escalation of HPN217, a novel half-life extended BCMA-targeting T-cell engager, has been completed; the MTD was not reached in step dose cohorts. The 12mg and 24mg target doses are well tolerated with manageable adverse event profiles similar to those at lower dose levels and are associated with robust and durable clinical responses. Additional follow up of recently enrolled pts in 12 mg and 24 mg cohorts will inform the choice of the RP2D(s), and complete data on all pts enrolled will be presented. NCT04184050

8054 Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but those with high risk MM (HRMM) have a poor long-term prognosis. Herein we provide survival outcomes on the first randomized trial in newly diagnosed HRMM, S1211, to follow-up on the previously reported progression-free survival (PFS) (NCT01668719, Usmani SZ et al, Lancet Haem 2021). Methods: S1211 is a randomized phase II trial comparing 8 cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (RVd-Elo). Stem cell collection was allowed, but ASCT was deferred until progression. HRMM was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high-risk (GEPhi), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p), amplification 1q21, primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL), or elevated serum LDH (> 2X ULN). Median PFS was the primary endpoint, using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.1. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) and OS. Response was assessed using the IMWG 2009 criteria. Results: S1211 enrolled 103 evaluable patients, RVd n=54, RVd-Elo n=49. 74% had ISS II/III, 48% amp1q21, 38% del(17p), 11% t(14;16), 9% GEPhi, 7% pPCL, 5% t(14;20) and 4% elevated LDH (17% >1 feature). With median follow-up of 72 months (mos.), no difference in median PFS was observed [RVd-Elo=29 mos., RVd= 34 mos., HR = 1.11 (80% CI=0.82, 1.49, p=0.66]. No difference in OS was observed [RVd-Elo = median not reached (NR), RVd= 68 mos., HR = 0.85 (80% CI: 0.59, 1.23), p-value = 0.58]. 76% pts had >Grade 3 AEs, no differences in the safety profile were observed. Amongst patients with gain/amp 1q21, median PFS was [RVd-Elo=31 mos., RVd= 37 mos., HR = 1.48 (80% CI= 0.95, 2.31), p=0.25], median OS was [RVd-Elo = 61 mos., RVd= 68 mos., HR = 1.23 (80% CI: 0.72, 2.10), p-value = 0.63]. In patients with del(17p), median PFS was RVd-Elo=41 mos., RVd= 30 mos.[HR = 0.98 (80% CI= 0.60, 1.58), p=0.95], median OS RVd-Elo = NR, RVd= 72 mos., [HR = 0.77 (80% CI: 0.40, 1.48), p-value = 0.61]. Conclusions: In the first randomized HRMM study reported to date, the addition of Elo to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve PFS and OS with a median follow-up of 6 years. Although the median PFS for Del17p subgroup on RVd-Elo arm is higher than RVd, it did not achieve statistical significance. The PFS and OS observed for gain/amp 1q21 and del17p in the RVd control arm may serve as important benchmarks for future enrichment design HRMM clinical trials. The PFS and OS in both arms of the study exceeded the original statistical assumptions and support the role for PI/IMiD combination induction/maintenance therapy for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT01668719.

Abstract Background: Phospholipid ethers (PLE) provide a novel mechanism to target tumor cells. Tumor cells contain increased amounts of lipid rafts in their cell membranes, which are thought to enhance signaling and resist apoptosis. Phospholipid drug conjugates (PDC) are specifically designed to have high affinity for lipid rafts which upon binding results in trans-membrane inversion with the ability to deliver an attached therapeutic directly to the cytosol. Iopofosine I-131 (formerly identified as CLR 131) is a novel PDC delivering I-131 as a targeted tumor cell radiotherapy. Iopofosine I-131 is being examined in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients through an open-label, Phase 2 trial, CLOVER-1 (NCT02952508). Methods: The primary objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of Iopofosine I-131 in heavily pretreated MM patients. Eligibility criteria for MM patients include progression or relapsed disease that is refractory to at least 1 proteasome inhibitor and 1 immunomodulatory agent unless intolerable/ineligible to receive such agents with no upper limit to the number of prior lines of therapy. Iopofosine I-131 is administered in up to 4 IV infusions (15-20 min) over 3 months, with doses given 1-2 weeks apart each cycle for a maximum of 2 cycles, along with dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (20 mg in patients > 75), for up to 12 weeks. Following iopofosine I-131 administration, no other antineoplastic or targeted therapy was given until clinically indicated by the investigator. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03; responses are assessed by the 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: Eleven patients with at least triple class refractory (immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor and monoclonal antibody) MM have been enrolled in this Phase 2 study with data current as of 28 May 2021. Patients had a median age of 72 (range 34-77), mean prior regimens of 7.2 (range 3-17) and received a mean total body dose of 75.4 mCi (range 59.7-118.7) of iopofosine I-131. The overall response rate (ORR) was 45.5% (5/11), the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 72.7% (8/11) and disease control rate (DCR) was 100%. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. In a subset of patients who are quad/penta drug refractory, efficacy increased with an ORR of 80.0% (4/5) and CBR of 100% (5/5). The primary treatment emergent AEs in patients with MM included cytopenias (87.5%), in line with prior experience with iopofosine I-131. The most commonly observed cytopenias included Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (62.5%), anemia (62.5%), neutropenia (62.5%) and decreased white blood cell count (50%). There were no infusion-related reactions or AEs. Conclusions: Initial results for iopofosine I-131 show efficacy with a promising ORR of 45.5% and a CBR or 72.7% in heavily pretreated triple class refractory multiple myeloma patients. Interestingly, iopofosine I-131 showed its highest efficacy in patients that were quad/penta drug refractory with ORR of 80%, highlighting its potential as a later line therapy. Iopofosine I-131 is a novel cancer radiotherapeutic that may provide benefit to patients that are refractory/unresponsive to traditional MM therapies. CLOVER-1 is actively enrolling MM patients that are at least triple class refractory across the United States. Disclosures Ailawadhi: AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy. Stiff: CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding. Green: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; bristol myers squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Cellectar Biosciences: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Neoleukin Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; SpringWorks Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lipe: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Harpoon: Research Funding. Cull: Aptevo: Research Funding. Friend: Cellectar: Current Employment. Longcor: Cellectar: Current Employment. Oliver: Cellectar: Current Employment.

Context.— The process for identifying patients with monoclonal gammopathies is complex. Initial detection of a monoclonal immunoglobulin protein (M protein) in the serum or urine often requires compilation of analytical data from several areas of the laboratory. The detection of M proteins depends on adequacy of the sample provided, available clinical information, and the laboratory tests used. Objective.— To develop an evidence-based guideline for the initial laboratory detection of M proteins. Design.— To develop evidence-based recommendations, the College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts in the diagnosis and treatment of monoclonal gammopathies and the laboratory procedures used for the initial detection of M proteins. The panel conducted a systematic literature review to address key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, strength of that evidence, and key judgements as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework. Results.— Nine guideline statements were established to optimize sample selection and testing for the initial detection and quantitative measurement of M proteins used to diagnose monoclonal gammopathies. Conclusions.— This guideline was constructed to harmonize and strengthen the initial detection of an M protein in patients displaying symptoms or laboratory features of a monoclonal gammopathy. It endorses more comprehensive initial testing when there is suspicion of amyloid light chain amyloidosis or neuropathies, such as POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, M protein, and skin changes) syndrome, associated with an M protein.