Chakraborty, Rajshekhar

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.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

e19503 Background: The risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) despite mandatory thromboprophylaxis (TPx) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving contemporary lenalidomide (Len)-based regimens is not well-defined. Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were queried to identify phase 1-3 clinical trials of Len-based regimens with mandatory TPx published until April 2018. Random effects meta-analysis was performed using CMAv3 software to obtain crude, and per 100 patient-cycle incidence rate (IR). Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to obtain IR for VTE by (1) line of treatment (newly diagnosed [ND], relapsed/refractory [RR] and maintenance [Mx] phase) and (2) different Len-based regimens. Results: We screened 1069 citations and analyzed data from 43 trials with 8696 patients, including 17 in ND, 23 in RR and 3 in Mx phase. 12 out of 43 were Phase 3 randomized controlled trials. The overall incidence of VTE in 8696 patients was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.7-5.8%), with 1.0 event (95% CI, 0.7-1.4%) per 100 patient cycles. In patients with NDMM (n = 3295), 193 (5.9%) experienced VTE with a pooled IR of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.3-2.3) per 100 patient-cycle. Among RRMM patients (n = 3981), 251 (6.3%) experienced VTE with a pooled IR of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.4-2.3) per 100 patient-cycle. The incidence of VTE was highest with the following triplet regimens: Rd + Proteasome inhibitor (PIs) and Rd + Anthracycline (Ac) [+/- Vincristine], with the latter having a high risk of VTE regardless of the treatment phase (table). With Len Mx (n = 1420), 38 (2.7%) patients had VTE, with a pooled IR of 0.2 (95% CI, 0-2.1) per 100 patient-cycle. Conclusions: Patients with MM undergoing treatment with Len-based regimens remain at risk of VTE despite current TPx strategies. The estimates of VTE IR provided by this analysis can guide clinicians in assessing treatment-related risk of VTE in this setting. [Table: see text]

Background Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide‐based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide‐based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide‐based regimens in patients with myeloma. Methods The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: “lenalidomide,” “venous thromboembolism,” and “multiple myeloma.” Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide‐based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random‐effects model. Results The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk‐stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%‐7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles (95% CI, 0.9‐1.7 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1‐0.6] events/100 patient‐cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0‐0.7] events per 100 patient‐cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7‐2.3] events per 100 patient‐cycles). Conclusions Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide‐based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.