Bladé, Joan

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered incurable. Despite improved outcomes with novel agents, including BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and bispecific antibodies, patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) often have poor prognoses. LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a global, single-arm, Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with RRMM who were either triple-class exposed (TCE; previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody) during ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOTs), or triple-class refractory to these therapies. Here, we present comparisons of clinical outcomes from LINKER-MM1 with those of a current, international, real-world (RW) external control arm (ECA; NCT05673967). Methods The ECA was derived from 16 academic sites of the International Myeloma Foundation International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) (N=203; 309 eligible LOTs) and compared with linvoseltamab (N=105; Phase 2 200 mg cohort). Patients in the ECA initiated ≥1 anti-MM therapy after meeting key LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to select 1 LOT per patient and balance the ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; IMWG criteria) determined by an independent central review committee (ICRC) based on myeloma laboratories. An independent data review committee reviewed comparability of cohorts and endpoint assessments prior to conducting comparative analyses. Results Median follow-up was 14.3 months for the linvoseltamab cohort (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2024) and 13.4 months for the ECA. After weighting, 15 prognostic factors were balanced between cohorts. Patients in the ECA received 68 distinct regimens, most commonly CAR T-cell therapies (11.3%) and ADCs (10.3%). After balancing the cohorts, patients in the ECA evaluable for response had ICRC-assessed ORR of 46.3% (40.8% by treating physician assessment), among whom 24.0% had very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). When including patients who died without evaluable response, ECA ICRC-assessed ORR was 44.2%. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher ICRC-assessed ORR (69.5% vs 46.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-3.69]) and rate of ≥VGPR (62.9% vs 24.0%, OR 5.37 [95% CI 3.61-8.49]) compared with ECA regimens. Conclusion Despite current use of novel therapies, there is no well-established RW standard of care (SOC) for patients with TCE RRMM treated at IMWG sites. To our knowledge, this is the first RW ECA study in MM with a high percentage of anti-BCMA therapies and response ascertainment for all patients by ICRC. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher response rates, including rate of ≥VGPR, compared with current RW SOC therapies, highlighting its potential as a highly effective treatment in patients with TCE RRMM.

ImportanceKidney light chain (AL) amyloidosis is associated with a risk of progression to kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and death. Several studies have shown that a greater reduction in proteinuria following successful anticlonal therapy is associated with improved outcomes.ObjectiveTo validate graded kidney response criteria and their association with kidney and overall survival (OS).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, multicenter cohort was conducted at 10 referral centers for amyloidosis from 2010 to 2015 and included patients with kidney AL amyloidosis that was evaluable for kidney response and who achieved at least hematologic partial response within 12 months of diagnosis. The median follow-up was 69 (54-88) months. Data analysis was conducted in 2023.ExposureFour kidney response categories based on the reduction in pretreatment 24-hour urine protein (24-hour UP) levels: complete response (kidCR, 24-hour UP ≤200 mg), very good partial response (kidVGPR, >60% reduction in 24-hour UP), partial response (kidPR, 31%-60% reduction), and no response (kidNR, ≤30% reduction). Kidney response was assessed at landmark points (6, 12, and 24 months) and best kidney response.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.ResultsSeven-hundred and thirty-two patients (335 women [45.8%]) were included, with a median (IQR) age of 63 (55-69) years. The median (IQR) baseline 24-hour proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 5.3 (2.8-8.5) g per 24 hours and 72 (48-92) mL/min/1.73m2, respectively. In a competing-risk analysis, the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of progression to KRT decreased with deeper kidney responses as early as 6 months from therapy initiation (11%, 12%, 2.1%, and 0% for kidNR, kidPR, kidVGPR, and kidCR, respectively; P = .002) and were maintained at 12 months and 24 months and best kidney response. Patients able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR by 24 months and at best response had significantly better OS compared with kidPR/kidNR. Kidney progression, defined as a 25% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, was associated with cumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that graded kidney response criteria offers clinically and prognostically meaningful information for treating patients with kidney AL amyloidosis. The response criteria potentially inform kidney survival based on the depth of reduction in 24-hour proteinuria levels and demonstrate an OS advantage for those able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR compared with kidPR/kidNR. Taken together, achievement of at least kidVGPR by 12 months is needed to ultimately improve kidney and patient survival.

AbstractThe presence of a serum immunoglobulin D (IgD) monoclonal protein (M‐protein) is seen in < 1% of patients with monoclonal gammopathies and is usually indicative of a malignant plasma cell disorder. Only a few cases of well‐documented benign monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) of IgD subtype have been reported, and only 2 of those had over 5 years of follow‐up at the time they were reported. Herein we describe longer‐term follow‐up of one of those 2 patients who has subsequently passed away from unrelated causes but never developed multiple myeloma or amyloidosis after 26 years of follow‐up. Although IgD MGUS is extremely rare, this case confirms that presence of an IgD M‐Protein is not always synonymous with a malignant plasma cell process.

Background: Liver involvement in light chain amyloidosis (AL) is seen in up to 20% of patients and is typically encountered as part of multi-organ involvement. Liver involvement is associated with a poor prognosis. The goal of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of the hepatic response criteria, which were published in 2005 and were not broadly assessed for their prognostic value. Patients and methods: Ten centers across the USA and Europe participated in this study.AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, had liver involvement with serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) &gt;1.5 upper reference limit (URL), and achieved hematologic response to therapy were included in this study. Hepatic response was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation and at best response. Based on a receiver operation characteristic analysis, a 50% reduction in AP was set as the optimal cut point for discrimination of 5-year overall survival (OS) in the 12-months response assessment landmark (area under the curve 0.67). Therefore, hepatic response was defined as a reduction in AP &gt;50% from baseline value in addition to AP normalization, regardless of AP percentage reduction. Hepatic progression was defined as &gt;50% increase in serum AP. OS was assessed from therapy initiation until death or last follow-up and was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test used to compare survival between groups. For fixed-time point survival analysis, patients who died before the landmark were excluded. Hepatic response at a fixed time points, when missing, was imputed based on available data from adjacent time points (imputation of hepatic response was performed in 15%, 23%, and 22% of evaluable patients at 6-, 12-, and 24-month landmarks, respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional models were set to determine independent prognostic factors for OS using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. P-values &lt;0.05 were considered significant. Results: One hundred and sixteen patients (n=116) are included. The median age was 60 years, and the median serum AP was X2.6 URL. Concomitant kidney involvement was present in 63.8% of patients, while coexisting heart involvement was seen in 56% of patients. Hematologic VGPR or better was achieved in 69% of patients. AP decrease deepened with time, with a median reduction at 6-, 12-, 24-months and best response being 22%, 34%, 53%, and 56%, respectively. Overall, 65% of patients (n=75) achieved hepatic response, of whom 71 patients based on reduction in AP &gt;50% and 4 patients for reaching AP within normal reference but not meeting &gt;50% reduction in AP (40- 46% reduction in AP). The median time to hepatic response was 13.8 months, longer for patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their primary therapy compared to non-transplant therapies (24 vs 12.6 months, P=0.1). With a median follow-up of 105 months, 42 patients died (36.2% of the study cohort). The 2-, 5- and 10-year OS rates were 83%, 67%, and 61%, respectively. Achievement of hepatic response as early as 12 months and at best response was associated with a longer survival (Figure). Hepatic response was an independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis, after adjusting for other known prognostic factors (age, cardiac stage, hematologic response, and primary therapy). Predictors of hepatic response include higher baseline AP level, lower total bilirubin, hematologic ≥VGPR, and cardiac and renal responses, when applicable. Hepatic progression was borderline associated with inferior OS (5-year OS 47% vs 70% among non-progressors, P=0.08). Conclusions: Hepatic response and progression measured by the change in alkaline phosphatase are prognostic in AL amyloidosis. These criteria are independent of other prognostic markers, and thus may have clinical implications for patients' care.

PURPOSE Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P < .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P < .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as &gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria &gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P&lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP &gt;650 pg/mL or BNP &gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P&lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P&lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P&lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (&gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

SummaryThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is primarily manifested as a respiratory tract infection, but may affect and cause complications in multiple organ systems (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidneys, haematopoietic and immune systems), while no proven specific therapy exists. The challenges associated with COVID‐19 are even greater for patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare multisystemic disease affecting the heart, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal and nervous system. Patients with AL amyloidosis may need to receive chemotherapy, which probably increases infection risk. Management of COVID‐19 may be particularly challenging in patients with AL amyloidosis, who often present with cardiac dysfunction, nephrotic syndrome, neuropathy, low blood pressure and gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, patients with AL amyloidosis may be more susceptible to toxicities of drugs used to manage COVID‐19. Access to health care may be difficult or limited, diagnosis of AL amyloidosis may be delayed with detrimental consequences and treatment administration may need modification. Both patients and treating physicians need to adapt in a new reality.

Abstract MM has a median age at presentation of 65–68 years, rarely occurring in pts before age 40. Here, we present clinical, laboratory and survival data in the largest ever-analyzed cohort of young pts compared with pts aged ≥ 40 years. 259 pts aged &lt; 40 and 8,296 aged ≥ 40 years were enrolled. These 8.555 pts were part of the cohort analyzed for the ISS staging project. Previously untreated pts entered into randomized trials with standard (SDT) or high dose treatment (HDT). Clinical data were available for all pts, 526 pts had karyotypic analysis and 454 pts testing for Del 13 testing by FISH. The Chi-Square test was used to identify significant prognostic factors. A maximum likelihood model was used to estimate relative excess risk (RER) for younger versus older pts treated with SDT or HDT. Observed survival was adjusted by life expectancy depending on age, gender, and nationality. Young pts had significantly lower ISS stage I than older pts (stage I; 39% vs. 28%, stage II: 28 vs. 39%, stage III 33% vs. 33%, p&lt;. 001, p&lt;001, p=0.863, respectively) due primarily to a lower prevalence of high ß2m levels and low albumin levels in the younger age group. Paradoxically, the younger pts more frequently presented with higher M-component levels and Durie Salmon stage III (65% vs. 54%, p&lt;0.001). Prevalence of other important prognostic parameters like Hb, platelet count, creatinine, calcium, CRP, LDH and bone marrow PC infiltration was similar in both groups. Younger pts had more frequently good ECOG performance status (PS) (0–2), (87% vs. 81%, p&lt;0.01). Karyotypic abnormalities and Del 13 were similarly distributed between both cohorts. Median OS was significantly longer in young pts (median: 4.8 years vs. 3.7 years; hazard ratio (HR): 1.46; 95%, CI (1.27, 1.68); p=&lt;0.001). Better outcome in the younger cohort was seen in all three ISS stages, independent of gender. Median OS survival was significantly longer after SDT in the young cohort (median: 49 months (mos) vs. 39 mos; HR 1.49; CI (1.27, 1.75); p&lt;0.001). Median survival: 86 mos in young and 68 mos in older pts on HDT; this did not translate into a statistical difference (HR 1.8; CI (0.81,1.44); p=0.6). Risk estimates in a maximum likelihood analysis revealed that, apart from ISS Stage, young age followed by female sex was statistical significant for a good outcome for pts treated with SDT (Age RER: 1.43, CI (1.20, 1.70), p&lt;0.001; Sex RER: 1.07, CI (1.02, 1.14); p &lt; 0.013). For pts treated with HDT, only ISS Stage was found to be a risk factor, but not age or gender. Conclusions: Patients &lt; 40 have better prognosis and survival than older patients. The most important features of young patients are low SßM, normal S. Alb, and good performance status.

Abstract Background: Patients (Pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) who relapse within 12 months of autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) have a poor prognosis. As reported by Mahmood et al. (ASCO 2007), of 432 pts who received SCT at the Mayo Clinic between 1994–2005, those with early relapse within 12 months (94/432– 22%) showed poorer median overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month survival from the date of first relapse were 37% for pts relapsing within 12 months after SCT as compared to 85% for those relapsing after 12 months. In that study, pts had received regimens other than B. In a recent report of a large, phase III study (DOXIL-MMY3001), the combination of PLD+B improved time to progression (TTP) as compared to B alone (Orlowski et al. JCO 2007). The present analysis examined the 12-month post-randomization survival of patients who had early (<12 months) vs. late (≥12 months) relapse following SCT, as well as the effect of PLD+B vs. B alone in pts who had relapsed early. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 646 pts who received intravenous B, 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1,4,8 and 11 of every 21-day cycle ± PLD, 30 mg/m2 on day 4. Results: 359 pts had previously received transplant, 114 (32%) of whom relapsed within 12 months from SCT. The median age, gender distribution, time from diagnosis trial enrollment, measures of disease burden (M-Protein levels and B2M) and renal function were comparable between the early and late relapse groups. There was no difference in overall response rates [complete + partial response (CR+PR)] or very good PR (VGPR) rates between the two groups, or between treatment arms within each group. There was no significant difference in TTP between early vs. late relapse groups (HR=0.94). 12-month survival from randomization was significantly lower in the early relapse group as compared to late relapse (83% vs. 92% respectively, p=0.009). However, within the early relapse group 12-months post-randomization survival rate was significantly superior following treatment with PLD+B as compared to B alone [52/56 patients (93%) vs. 43/58 patients (74%) respectively, p=0.01]. Correspondingly, TTP was better in this group with PLD+B vs. B alone (276 days vs. 205 days respectively, p=0.13). Overall, the toxicity profiles of the combination and B alone were comparable regardless of early or late relapse following SCT. Conclusions: The present analysis of the MMY3001 study corroborates the prior Mayo observation of lower survival in MM pts relapsing within 12 months of SCT. Importantly, it demonstrates that PLD+B may provide a therapeutic advantage for high-risk MM pts with early relapse following SCT.