Citations

7558 Background: Survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) continues to improve with the newer therapies, but there is no clear evidence of a cure and patients continue to relapse. However, most patients have the most extended period without progression with their first-line therapy, and subsequent therapies often provide a shorter duration of response due to the use of drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and, more importantly, a shorter first remission, pointing toward more aggressive disease biology. With newer immunotherapies being used at 1st relapse, this may change. We designed this study to explore the natural history of MM after the 1st relapse and define the predictors of outcome after the initial relapse. Methods: We identified all patients in the Mayo Clinic database diagnosed between Jan 2004-June 2019 who had had initial disease progression. The study cohort included 2005 patients. We explored the overall survival (OS) from the time of documented disease progression or the start of second-line treatment in patients who had not met IMWG criteria before second-line therapy. Front-line therapy was grouped into those with either an IMiD or PI, both IMiD and PI, daratumumab with IMiD and PI, and none of these agents. The IMiD and PI were always used with dexamethasone with or without an alkylator. Results: The median age was 63 (range 24-95) years and 60% were male. The median estimated follow-up from diagnosis for all patients was 86 mos. (95% CI; 82, 88) and the median time to progression from the start of therapy was 25 mos. (95% CI; 24, 26). The median OS from the first progression was 45 mos. (95% CI; 42, 50), 36 mos. for those diagnosed before 2009, and 52-53 mos. for those diagnosed later. On univariate analysis, age <70 at 1st relapse, RISS I, novel agents in initial therapy, CR in the first line, diagnosis after 2009, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse (Table). On multivariate analysis, age <70, RISS I, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse. Conclusions: The study provides an estimate of the outcomes and significant predictors of outcomes after 1st relapse in patients with MM. These factors should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials in this patient population. In particular, these factors identify a high-risk group of patients not always identified by baseline characteristics and should be the focus of future trials. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) have disparate outcomes. Newer therapies have emerged since the development of International Prognostic Scoring System, and MYD88 L265P mutation is now frequently assessed at diagnosis, warranting reexamination of the prognostic parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed records of 889 treatment-naïve patients with active WM, consecutively seen between January 01, 1996, and December 31, 2017, to identify clinical predictors of overall survival (OS) in univariate analyses. Patients with complete data for the parameters significant on the univariate analyses (n = 341) were included in a multivariable analysis to derive a prognostic model, subsequently validated in a multi-institutional cohort. RESULTS In the derivation cohort (n = 341), age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.1]; P = .0009), serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above upper limit of normal (HR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5]; P = .007), and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.99 to 2.3]; P = .056) were independently prognostic. By assigning a score of 1 point each to albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR, 1.5) and age 66-75 years (HR 1.4) and 2 points for age >75 years (HR, 2.6) or elevated LDH (HR, 2.3), four groups with distinct outcomes were observed on the basis of the composite scores. Five-year OS was 93% for the low-risk (score 0), 82% for low-intermediate risk (score 1), 69% for intermediate-risk (score 2), and 55% for the high-risk (score ≥3; P < .0001) groups. In the validation cohort (N = 335), the model maintained its prognostic value, with a 5-year OS of 93%, 90%, 75%, and 57% for the four groups, respectively ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION Modified Staging System for WM (MSS-WM), utilizing age, albumin, and LDH is a simple, clinically useful, and externally validated prognostic model that reliably risk-stratifies patients with symptomatic WM into four groups with distinct prognosis.

AbstractSeveral tools exist for assessing frailty in multiple myeloma (MM), but most are based on clinical trial datasets. In this study, we evaluate the prognostic impact of frailty based on the cumulative deficit frailty index (FI), and the prognostic impact of relationship and socioeconomic status (SES) in newly diagnosed MM patients. This is a retrospective study including 515 patients with MM seen at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) at diagnosis between 2005–2018. The FI was calculated using patient-reported data on activities of daily living and comorbidity data. Items were scored as 0/0.5/1, with 1 indicating deficit. The FI was calculated by adding individual scores and dividing that by the number of non-missing items. Frailty was defined as FI ≥ 0.15; 61% were non-frail and 39% were frail. Frailty and non-married/relationship status were associated with higher disease stage, decreased likelihood of early transplantation, and independently associated with decreased survival. SES was not independently associated with survival. Frail patients reported worse scores for fatigue, pain, and quality of life. In conclusion, a cumulative deficit FI was associated with higher symptom burden and decreased survival in a real-world cohort of newly diagnosed MM patients. Social support has prognostic value and should be assessed in clinical practice.

AbstractSmoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor stage that precedes multiple myeloma (MM). SMM is heterogenous with nearly 40% of patients progressing to MM in the first 5 years. The high rate of progression of SMM patients highlights the need for early intervention, which underscores the importance of identifying SMM patients with the highest risk of progression. Several risk stratification models showed utility in identifying high‐risk SMM patients; however, these systems showed limited sensitivity. To date, identifying high‐risk SMM patients remains an important clinical need. In this study, we present the 3‐dimensional telomere profiling as a structural biomarker capable of stratifying SMM patients as a function of genomic instability. Quantifying telomere dysfunction using the TeloView technology showed utility in risk stratification of cancer patients, particularly hematological malignancies. In this study, we analyzed 168 SMM patients. We report an AUC in ROC analysis of 0.8 using a subset of the patients as a training dataset. We then conducted a blind validation on a different cohort and demonstrated a positive predictive value of 85% and negative predictive value of 73%, with sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 76%, respectively. We examined the correlation between the TeloView prediction and the 20‐2‐20 scoring system, and cytogenetic abnormalities. We report a correlation of 53% with the 20‐2‐20 scores and over 60% correlation with cytogenetic abnormalities. The result of this study presents the telomere profiling as an effective biomarker able to stratify SMM patients to their respective risk groups with high sensitivity and specificity.

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Background:Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare, indolent B‐cell lymphoplasmacytic malignancy. Patient outcomes are highly heterogeneous, with a proportion of patients surviving less than 5 years (short survivors) and another proportion that survive longer than 10 years. The laboratory parameters in the currently used International Prognostic Scoring System for WM (IPSSWM) include hemoglobin, serum IgM, platelet count, and serum β2‐microglobulin.Aims:We aim to identify unique patient characteristics and prognostic features associated with short survival in WM.Methods:The medical records of patients with active WM that were diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida between January 1st, 1996 and December 31st, 2013 were reviewed. The patients with smoldering WM were excluded. Cohorts of patients who either survived ≤ 5 years (Short Survival Group) or those with an overall survival (OS) ≥ 10 years (Long Survival Group) from the diagnosis of active disease were compared. Survivors with a follow‐up of ≤ 5 years were not included in the analyses. Two‐sided Wilcoxon rank sum test and Chi square/Fisher's exact test were used to compare the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The variables that were statistically significant on univariate analysis (P < 0.05) were included in a multivariate logisitic regression analysis.Results:Of 893 consecutively seen WM patients (median follow‐up of 9 years [95% CI 8.4–9.7]), we identified 387 patients who could be categorized into either the Short Survival Group (n = 171 patients, 44%) or the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%). The Short Survival Group had a median OS of 2.4 years (2.1–2.8) and median age at diagnosis of 73 years (42–93), while the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%) had a median OS of 18.9 years (16‐NR) and median age at diagnosis of 62 years (31–85). The baseline characteristics and significant findings between the two groups are listed in the Table. Parameters significant on univariate analysis included age >65 years, albumin < 3.5 g/dL, β2‐microglobulin >3 μg/ml, and LDH > upper limit of normal (ULN). On multivariate analysis, albumin <3.5 g/dL and LDH > ULN were independently associated with short survival. Among the Long Survivors, 60 (28%) patients survived 15 years or more.Summary/Conclusion:Lactate dehydrogenase above the ULN and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL are independent biomarkers of short survival in WM. The MYD88 L265P status and the size of serum IgM are not prognostic in WM. Our data suggest the need for simplification of the current staging system with the use of widely available markers: serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase.image

Introduction: Most induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) contain bortezomib. In most clinical trials, bortezomib has been prescribed either intravenously or subcutaneously twice per week in 21-day or 28-day cycles. However, several retrospective single-center studies have shown that once-weekly bortezomib has comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy compared to twice-weekly bortezomib ( Sidana et al, PLoS One 2017; Cook et al, AJH 2021). These findings have also been confirmed by a secondary analysis of data from three prospective Phase 3 randomized studies ( Mateos et al, Haematologica 2014). As such, many clinicians have adopted once-weekly bortezomib regimens in routine care in the past decade. However, the real-world (RW) prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly vs twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in a larger population have not yet been characterized. Methods: This study used US nationwide longitudinal Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified data. We included patients aged 18-70 years with newly diagnosed MM between 2017-2022 with ≥ 6 months of follow-up and ≥ 2 clinical visits who were treated with a first-line (1L) bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients aged &gt;70 were excluded a priori given the likelihood of altered practice patterns and more frequent comorbidities. Twice-weekly bortezomib was defined as patients for whom the most frequent interval between two doses of 1L bortezomib within a cycle was 3.0-4.9 days, while once-weekly bortezomib was defined as a corresponding interval of 5.0-9.9 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with once-weekly vs twice-weekly (reference) bortezomib. RW progression free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) from 1L treatment initiation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model including transplant as a time-varying covariate and adjustment for other demographic and clinical factors. Results: Of 2,522 patients included, 927 (36.8%) received twice-weekly while 1,522 (63.2%) received once-weekly bortezomib. Approximately half of patients (50.3%) were non-Latinx White, 21.7% non-Latinx Black, and 8.0% Latinx. Most patients were treated in the community setting (78.8%). Rates of once-weekly bortezomib administration were 66.2% and 62.1% among patients treated at academic and community practices, respectively. The frequency of weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 58.0% between 2017-2019 to 68.8% between 2020-2022. In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; [95% CI 1.14 to 1.99] vs ECOG PS 0), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.14; [95% CI 1.08 to 1.20] per year) were associated with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Conversely, Latinx patients vs non-Latinx White (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.82]) and patients with ≥ 2 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) vs 0 HRCA (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.91]) had lower odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib administration. No significant associations were found between gender, ISS stage, practice setting, insurance category, or baseline creatinine. There was no statistically significant difference in rwPFS among patients receiving once-weekly (median 37.3 months, 95% CI 33.8 to 42.5) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 39.2 months, 95% CI 32.9 to 42.8) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00]) (Figure 1A). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in rwOS with median 25.5 months follow-up (Figure 1B). Median rwOS was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.07]). Discussion: We evaluated US bortezomib prescribing patterns for the first time in the modern era using a large nationwide RW-study. Whereas prescribing patterns have shifted towards once-weekly bortezomib over time, over 30% of patients diagnosed in the last three years received twice-weekly bortezomib. Importantly, once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib performed comparably with regard to rwPFS and rwOS. While our study did not analyze neuropathy or patient quality of life, once-weekly bortezomib is known to be associated with less neuropathy and less time in clinic. These data further support the conclusion that once-weekly bortezomib should be considered the standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with MM.

Background: Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent lymphoma with heterogeneous outcomes. The recently developed, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System for WM (rIPSS-WM) did not examine the prognostic impact of MYD88L265P, a somatic alteration present in most patients with WM. Moreover, rIPSS-WM could only be partially validated in an external cohort. Here, we report the performance of rIPSS-WM and propose a refined prognostic model with external validation. Methods: We reviewed medical records of treatment-naïve patients with active WM consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MCR) between 01/01/1996 and 12/31/2017. We applied the rIPSS-WM model in patients with data available for all required parameters, including age, serum beta-2 microglobulin (β2M), serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum albumin at diagnosis to assess the prognostic utility of this model. We then identified the dichotomized clinical and laboratory parameters prognostic for overall survival (OS) by univariate analyses (UVA) in our cohort. The significant parameters were analyzed to independently predict OS in a multivariable analysis (MVA) and to create a prognostic model, which was subsequently validated in an independent multi-institutional cohort. Results: We identified 889 patients with active WM at MCR, with a median follow-up of 8.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5-9] years. The estimated median OS for this cohort was 10.6 (95%CI: 9.7-11.4) years. Patients with available data in this cohort for the validation of rIPSS-WM (n=241) were risk stratified into very low (n=46), low (n=64), intermediate (n=58), high (n=46) and very-high risk groups (n=27) per rIPSS-WM, with the respective 5-year OS rates of 96%, 76%, 72%, 77% and 32%, demonstrating overlapping survival curves for the low, intermediate and the high-risk groups. Because rIPSS-WM could not be validated, we used the data from the MCR cohort and identified age at diagnosis of active WM, LDH &gt;upper limit of normal (ULN), β2M &gt;3µg/mL and albumin &lt;3.5g/dL as statistically significant prognostic markers for OS on UVA. Notably, the presence of MYD88 L265P did not impact OS [median 11.4 years (95%CI: 10.1-not reached (NR) for MYD88 L265P genotype (n=231) versus 10 years (95% CI: 8.1-NR) for MYD88 WT genotype (n=65); p=0.33]. On MVA, LDH &gt;ULN (HR 2.34), serum albumin &lt;3.5 g/dL (HR 1.5) and age groups 65-75 years (HR 1.4) and &gt;75 years (HR 2.6) were independently prognostic. Based on comparable HRs, we assigned a score of 1 point each to serum albumin &lt;3.5 g/dL and age group 66-75 years and similarly, 2 points each for age &gt;75 years and serum LDH &gt;ULN per their impact on OS. Patients with the composite scores of 0, 1 and 2 were categorized as low risk, low- intermediate risk and intermediate risk, respectively. Due to similar OS for the scores of 3 to 5, these were combined to form the high-risk group of our proposed model: Modified Staging System for WM (MSS-WM). The median OS was 14.6 years [95%CI: 9.1 years-NR] for low-risk (score 0, n=71, 21%), 11.2 years (95% CI: 9.1-15.2 years) for low-intermediate risk (score 1, n=110, 32%), 8.1 years (95% CI: 6.4-12.2) for intermediate risk (score 2, n=81, 24%) and 5.5 years (95 % CI: 3.9-11 years) for the high-risk group (score ≥3, n=79, 23%); p&lt;0.0001. In this derivation cohort, the 5-year OS rate was 93%, 82%, 69% and 55% and 10-year OS rate was 60%, 53%, 45% and 30% for the low, low-intermediate, intermediate, and high-risk cohort, respectively ( Figure 1A). We also validated MSS-WM using competing risk analysis (p=0.001) and in the cohort of rituximab treated patients (p&lt;0.0001). We then used data from an independent series of 335 treatment-naïve symptomatic patients from academic institutions (n=5) across the US and Europe for external validation of the MSS-WM model. The median follow-up for the validation cohort was 6.3 years (95% CI: 5.5-7.2 years). The 5-year OS was 93%, 90%, 75% and 57% and the estimated 10-year OS was 91%, 80%, 64% and 35% for the low risk (n= 86, 26%), low-intermediate (n=107, 32%), intermediate (n=86, 26%) and high-risk (n=59, 18%) cohorts, respectively (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1B). Conclusions: Our proposed model, MSS-WM, is a simple, clinically useful, externally validated model that reliably risk stratifies previously untreated patients with active WM into four groups that have distinct outcomes based on the composite scores derived from the patients' age, serum albumin and serum LDH at diagnosis.

Background: Bortezomib (Velcade), a mainstay of treatment regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), is often dosed twice-weekly in trials (i.e., Days 1, 4, 8, 11 in 21-day cycles). However, several analyses have shown that once-weekly bortezomib performs comparably and is associated with less peripheral neuropathy (Sidana PLoS One 2017, Mateos L&L 2020, Cook AJH 2021). Many centers thus use once-weekly bortezomib in MM induction regimens regardless of transplant eligibility, e.g. modified VRd or Dara-VRd in 28-day cycles with once-weekly subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 (McCaughan BJH 2022). Physician attitudes and perceptions regarding how bortezomib should be dosed, an important step toward establishing a global standard of care in MM, have not been investigated. Methods: We conducted a global online survey of hematologists/oncologists who had treated ≥1 patient with MM in the past 12 months. The survey was distributed via social media platforms as well as targeted emails to MM physicians, IMWG members, and outreach through professional societies. The survey comprised 14 questions including usage of once- vs twice-weekly bortezomib, usage of SC vs IV bortezomib, attitudinal questions about potential benefits/disadvantages of each approach, and perceived barriers to using once-weekly bortezomib. Statistics were analyzed descriptively with Wilcoxon rank-sum and signed-rank tests. Results: Of 317 webpage visits, 205 responses were recorded (65% completion rate).Most respondents were from US academic practices (25%, n=52), US community practices (22%, n=46), or Australian academic practices (6%, n=13); however, responses were recorded from 38 countries including 22 low- or middle-income countries (LMICs: 29% of responses, n=60).Over a third of respondents (37%, n=76) practiced in community settings, and most respondents (58%, n=119) reported &gt;20 patients with MM under their personal care . 93 respondents (45%) had previously helped write institutional or societal guidelines, including 21 IMWG members.Respondents reported using once-weekly bortezomib most of the time (median 95% of patients, IQR 80%-100%) and almost always used SC bortezomib (IQR 100%-100%).There were no significant differences in bortezomib frequency or route based on academic vs community practice, experience with MM, US vs non-US, or LMIC vs non-LMIC. Large majorities of respondents (Table 1) felt that once-weekly bortezomib is preferred by patients (94%), associated with comparable durations of response (79%), and associated with less peripheral neuropathy (89%). Conversely, 61% of respondents felt that twice-weekly bortezomib in superior in newly diagnosed MM with acute cast nephropathy.Physician estimates of the incidence of any-grade peripheral neuropathy were significantly lower with once-weekly bortezomib (median 30%, IQR 20-43%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 50%, IQR 40-73%). Similarly, Grade 3+ neuropathy estimates were significantly lower with once-weekly (median 10%, IQR 5-17%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 25%, IQR 15-38%), with p&lt;0.001 in all cases . The most common cited barriers to ordering once-weekly bortezomib (Table 2) were perceived lack of prospective data (31%), difficulty modifying treatment orders (24%), and resistance from pharmacist colleagues who prefer adhering to trial-studied regimens (13%). Discussion: In our survey of over 200 MM-treating physicians from 38 countries (including 22 LMICs), once-weekly subcutaneous bortezomib was overwhelmingly preferred regardless of practice setting or country. The only exception was acute cast nephropathy, where twice-weekly bortezomib may expedite renal recovery and is reasonable to use initially. Neuropathy estimates were similar to published incidences (32% with once-weekly bortezomib vs 47% with twice-weekly bortezomib) from prospective data collected from the ALCYONE, GIMEMA-QW, and VISTA randomized trials (Mateos L&L 2020). Our findings highlight the widening mismatch between what physicians routinely prescribe to patients versus what registrational trials typically require. Given that &gt;90% of physicians personally prefer once-weekly bortezomib and that &gt;90% report that their patients feel similarly, once-weekly bortezomib appears to have become the global standard of care. This consensus should be taken into consideration for clinical trial design in the future.