Citations

Abstract Extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMM) can present either at initial diagnosis (de novo) or at disease relapse (secondary) and confers an aggressive clinical course. Limited data exist for choosing the optimal therapy for EMM and this remains an area of unmet clinical need. After excluding paraskeletal multiple myeloma and primary plasma cell leukemia, we identified 204 (68%) patients with secondary EMM and 95 (32%) with de novo EMM between January 01, 2000 and 31 December, 2021. The median overall survival (OS) was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6–0.9) years for secondary EMM and 3.6 (95%CI: 2.4–5.6) years for de novo EMM. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) with initial therapy was 2.9 months (95% CI: 2.4–3.2 months) for secondary EMM and 12.9 months (95% CI: 6.7–18 months) for de novo EMM. Patients with secondary EMM treated with CAR‐T therapy ( n = 20) achieved a partial response (PR) or better in 75% with a median PFS of 4.9 months (3.1 months‐not reached; NR). Patients with EMM treated with bispecific antibodies ( n = 12) achieved a ≥ PR in 33%, with a median PFS of 2.9 months (95%CI: 2.2 months‐NR). In a matched cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated younger age at diagnosis, 1q duplication, and t (4;14) at diagnosis of MM to be independent predictors of development of secondary EMM. Presence of EMM was independently associated with inferior OS in the matched cohorts for both de novo (HR 2.9 [95% CI: 1.6–5.4], p = .0007) and secondary EMM (HR 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1–2], p = .001).

AbstractIn this phase 1/2 study, carfilzomib was added to high‐dose melphalan conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with multiple myeloma that had been treated with ≤2 prior lines of therapy. Carfilzomib was escalated at doses of 27, 36, 45, and 56 mg/m2 on days −6, −5, −2, and −1 before ASCT in the phase 1 component of the study. In addition, all the patients received melphalan 100 mg/m2 on days −4 and −3. The primary endpoint of the phase 1 component was to identify the maximum tolerated dose, and the primary endpoint of the phase 2 component was the rates of complete response (≥CR) at 1 year after ASCT. The phase 1 dose escalation cohort included 14 patients, and 35 patients were included in the phase 2 cohort. The maximum tested dose was 56 mg/m2 (MTD). The median time from diagnosis to study enrollment was 5.8 (range 3.4–88.4) months, and 16% of patients had obtained a ≥CR prior to ASCT. The best response within 1 year after ASCT was a ≥ CR rate in 22% for the entire cohort, and 22% for patients treated at the MTD. The ≥VGPR rates improved from 41% before ASCT to 77% by 1 year after ASCT. One patient had a grade 3 renal adverse event, and renal function returned to baseline with supportive care. The rate of grade 3–4 cardiovascular toxicity was 16%. The addition of carfilzomib to melphalan conditioning was safe and resulted in deep responses after ASCT.

Abstract Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who do not respond to initial therapy have worse outcomes than primary responders, and effective treatments are lacking in this population. However, the outcomes of primary refractory disease in the modern treatment era have not yet been studied. We reviewed patients with MM treated with triplet/quadruplet therapy at our institution to assess the incidence of primary refractory disease and the impact of salvage therapies in this population. We identified 1127 patients, of whom 1086 were evaluated for hematologic responses after 4 to 6 cycles. Of these, 93.3% (1013) had evidence of response, whereas 6.7% (73) had primary refractory disease. With a median overall survival (OS) of 51.3 months, patients with primary refractory disease had an increased risk of shorter survival in univariable and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.5-4.9]; HR, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.6-6.9], respectively). In the subgroup analysis of patients with primary refractory disease, those who received second-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) had increased second progression-free survival (20.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .01) and second OS (74.7 vs 31.3 months; P = .02) compared with patients who did not. We conclude that early progression remains a significant factor for shorter OS in the current era, and salvage ASCT could be the most beneficial option for this population.

e20032 Background: The introduction of anti-CD38 antibodies (daratumumab) in the treatment landscape of multiple myeloma (MM) has increased the progression-free survival (PFS) in recent years. Still, the ideal combination (Dara-IMiD vs. Dara-PI) of these drugs in patients with relapsed MM is unclear. Methods: We reviewed MM patients treated with daratumumab as second-line therapy at our institution from 2016 to 2022 to assess the outcomes with the different combination therapies. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate PFS from the first relapse. Results: We identified 329 patients with a median age of 63.6 years (range: 27.1 – 90.4). Most of the patients received triplet induction therapy (95%) and upfront transplant (67%) as primary therapy. At the time of Dara initiation, 41% were refractory to IMiDs, 22% to PIs, 18% to both, and 18% to neither drug. Patients treated with Dara-IMiD had significantly better PFS than Dara-PI (28.7 months vs. 18.5 months, p < 0.01, respectively). In a subgroup analysis based on the FISH results, high-risk patients had similar PFS outcomes (24.3 vs. 10.2 months, p = NS, respectively), while standard-risk patients benefited significantly from the Dara-IMiD regimen (48.3 vs. 19.2 months, p < 0.01, respectively). Among patients treated with Dara-IMiD, those already refractory to IMiDs from the first line had significantly shorter PFS than those without IMiD resistance (14.9 vs. 43.3 months, p < 0.01, respectively). In addition, the lenalidomide-based combination resulted in significantly better PFS compared to pomalidomide in our cohort (40.5 vs. 19.2 months, p < 0.01, respectively). However, no difference was found in the IMiD refractory population (12.3 vs. 15.1 months, respectively). Finally, no significant differences were seen between Dara-IMiD and Dara-PI in patients only refractory to IMiDs (16.1 vs. 12.8 months, p = NS, respectively). Conclusions: While further studies are required to adjudicate the best combination, we conclude that Dara-IMiD might be more effective in patients with relapsed MM, especially for patients not refractory to IMiD at first line. [Table: see text]

e20011 Background: Drug refractoriness is an important factor determining choice of next therapy and prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM). It is debatable whether refractoriness to a drug varies among patients (pts) with MM progressing on different administration schedules of the drug. Outcomes of MM pts refractory to different doses of lenalidomide have been previously described, but similar data about proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are limited. In this study, we assessed the impact of refractoriness to different schedules of bortezomib (V) on outcomes with subsequent therapies in MM pts. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MM pts at our center diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2018, who progressed on/ after receiving first line therapy with V containing regimens. At first relapse, we divided pts into 3 groups- MM progressing on or within 60 days of receiving (1) 1-1.3 mg/m2 V once weekly or more frequently (Standard Dose Refractory), (2) 1-1.3 mg/m2 V once every 2 weeks or less frequently (Low Dose Refractory), and (3) MM progressing at least 60 days after stopping V (Not Refractory). In addition to V, we classified pts as being refractory to cyclophosphamide and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) at first relapse. We classified salvage regimens into daratumumab (Dara), PI, IMiD, PI+IMiD, and VDTPACE like regimens. We then assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for next line therapy, and for next V containing therapy using Kaplan Meier and Cox models. Results: A total of 302 pts were included. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years and 60% pts were male. Overall, 23%, 31%, and 27% were International Staging System (ISS) stage I, II, and III respectively; 40% had high risk FISH as per mSMART. Of the 302 pts, 134 (44%) pts received another V containing regimen after the first line therapy at any time during the disease course. Using a multivariable Cox model to adjust for ISS, high risk FISH, refractoriness to other drugs, duration of first line therapy, and treatment received at relapse, the Not Refractory Group had a better PFS for both 2nd line therapy and the next V containing line of therapy, while no significant differences were seen between the Standard Dose Refractory and Low Dose Refractory groups. OS differences followed the same trend but were not statistically significant (Table). Conclusions: On multivariable analysis, the PFS did not differ among standard dose vs low dose refractory pts, and both were significantly inferior to pts not refractory to V. These data suggest that refractoriness to V might not be a dose dependent phenomenon. [Table: see text]

8051 Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that do not respond to initial therapy have worse outcomes compared to primary responders, and effective treatments are lacking in this population. However, the outcomes of primary refractory disease in the modern treatment era have not been studied. Methods: From 2007-2019, we reviewed MM patients treated with triplet/quadruplet therapy in our institution to assess the incidence of primary refractory disease and the impact of salvage therapies in this population. Primary refractory disease was defined as either progressive disease or stable disease at 4-6 cycles. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for survival probabilities. PFS and OS were calculated from MM diagnosis to progression, escalation/change of treatment, or death, respectively. For the primary refractory group, the second PFS and second OS were measured from the start of second-line therapy. The Cox regression model was used for multivariable analysis with the following variables (age, ISS, induction therapy, FISH, and bone marrow plasma cells at diagnosis). Results: We identified 1127 patients, of which 1086 were evaluated for hematologic response after 4-6 cycles. Of these, 93.3% (1013) had evidence of response, while 6.7% (73) had primary refractory disease. With a median OS of 50.7 months, patients with primary refractory disease had an increased risk for shorter survival in univariable and multivariable analysis (HR: 3.6, 95% CI = 2.61 – 4.96, HR = 3.89, 95% CI = 2.68 – 5.65, respectively). In subgroup analysis of primary refractory patients, the median second PFS and second OS from the first relapse were 11.9 months (95% CI: 8.7 – 17.3 months) and 43.4 (95% CI: 31.4– 75.9 months), respectively. Patients that received 2nd line ASCT had increased second PFS (20.9 vs. 8.1 months, respectively, p < 0.01) and second OS (74.7 vs. 31.3 months, respectively, p = 0.02) compared to patients that did not. Patients that took daratumumab as the second line did not have any significant survival differences compared to those who did not, p = NS. Conclusions: We conclude that early progression remains a significant factor for shorter OS in the current era, and salvage ASCT could be the most beneficial option for this population. [Table: see text]

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]

AbstractDaratumumab is an anti‐CD38 antibody that is increasingly incorporated in induction regimens for treating patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Previous reports have demonstrated a lower yield of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) after induction with daratumumab; however, none of them reported a failure to collect an adequate number of HSCs. We describe a case of adequate HSC mobilization failure in a patient who inadvertently received excessive doses of daratumumab and was confirmed by higher‐than‐expected circulating levels of daratumumab by mass spectrometry. Eventual clearance of circulating daratumumab was associated with the successful mobilization and harvesting of HSCs.

Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 mAb, used frequently in combination with lenalidomide and pomalidomide. No studies compared daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) to daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) in lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma. We identified 504 consecutive multiple myeloma patients who received daratumumab at Mayo Clinic between January 2015 and April 2019. We excluded patients who received daratumumab in the first line, received more than four lines of therapy prior to daratumumab use, did not receive lenalidomide prior to daratumumab, or had an unknown status of lenalidomide exposure, and patients who received daratumumab combinations other than DRd or DPd. We examined the impact of using DRd compared to DPd on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Out of 504 patients, 162 received DRd or DPd and were included; 67 were lenalidomide-exposed and 95 were lenalidomide-refractory. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) patients. In lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 34.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.8–44.6] for DRd compared to 25.2 months (95% CI, 4.9–35.3) for DPd, P = 0.2. In lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 18.6 months (95% CI, 13–32) for DRd compared to 9 months (95% CI, 5.2–14.6) for DPd, P = 0.09. No difference in median OS was observed in DRd compared to DPd. Our study shows combining daratumumab with lenalidomide in patients with prior lenalidomide use is a viable and effective treatment option.