Citations

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Abstract As patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) continue to live longer, they might get exposed to most available drugs and drug classes during the disease course. For such late line RRMM or among patients without access to novel therapies, retreatment with a drug that the disease had previously been refractory to might be one option. In this retrospective study, we describe 315 patients with RRMM at our institution who were retreated with a drug that the disease had been previously refractory to. We found an overall response rate of 56.2% and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 11 months with retreatment. Patients with a longer time on initial therapy with the index drug (>28.4 months) had a superior PFS with retreatment (median PFS, 16.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .001). Similarly, patients with a longer time gap between the initial line of therapy with index drug and retreatment with index drug (>46.1 months) had better PFS with retreatment (28.2 vs 8.9 months; P = .016). In conclusion, retreatment with a previously refractory drug is a viable therapeutic option for RRMM, with the most significant benefit derived in disease demonstrating sensitivity to initial drug exposure and among those with a longer gap between initial drug exposure and retreatment.

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]

e13683 Background: Access to specialized cancer care varies by place of residence, partly due to differences in geographic proximity to designated cancer centers. Telehealth services can help alleviate some of these geographic disparities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare telehealth services were expanded rapidly. In this study, we sought to describe the geographic variations in Medicare telehealth utilization and their relationship with locations of designated cancer centers in the United States. We hypothesized that differences in telehealth utilization might be reflective of barriers to telehealth access for Medicare beneficiaries in these regions. Methods: We used the Medicare Telehealth Trends data file and calculated the proportion of Medicare users who used a telehealth service (% Telehealth Users) across all quarters of 2021. To obtain % Telehealth Users in a state, the number of telehealth users were divided by the total number of telehealth-eligible users. Then, using % Telehealth Users as a metric of telehealth utilization, we ranked all US states by overall % Telehealth Users, and % Telehealth Users in rural and urban locations. Finally, we correlated these ranks with the presence of an NCI (National Cancer Institute) Designated Cancer Center within the states. Results: The % Telehealth Users ranged from 15%-53% overall, 16%-54% for rural locations, and 14%-54% for urban locations, across lowest ranked to highest ranked states. The 5 lowest ranking states and their respective % Telehealth Users overall were- Wyoming (20%), Montana (20%), Iowa (20%), South Dakota (18%), Nebraska (17%), and North Dakota (15%). The lowest ranking states in terms of rural % Telehealth Users were Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Tennessee, Wyoming (19% each), and South Dakota and Nebraska (16% each). The lowest ranking states in terms of urban % Telehealth Users were Montana (20%), Wyoming (20%), Nebraska (19%), South Dakota (16%), and North Dakota (14%). 4 out of 6 states overall, 3 out of 7 in the rural category, and 4 out of 5 states in the urban category that were ranked the lowest in telehealth utilization did not have an in-state NCI designated cancer center. Conclusions: Telehealth services can bridge gaps in access to specialty cancer care for patients that do not live in geographic proximity of cancer centers. However, regions lacking geographic proximity to cancer centers were also regions with poorest telehealth utilization. Advocacy and policy efforts directed towards increasing access to telehealth can ensure equitable and timely access to specialized cancer care in these regions of need.

Abstract Lenalidomide‐containing (R) triplet and quadruplet regimens are the standard of care for multiple myeloma (MM) and have been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis. The association between thromboembolism (TE) and survival in the novel multidrug era is not yet delineated. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of TE during the first year of MM diagnosis, its association with the type of induction regimen, and its impact on overall survival. We studied 672 newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients who received a triplet or quadruplet lenalidomide‐based induction at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. TE was diagnosed in 83 patients (12.4%). Of these, 56 (8.3%) had a deep venous thrombosis (DVT), 23 (3.4%) had a pulmonary embolism (PE) with or without the DVT, and 4 (0.6%) patients had a stroke. Carfilzomib‐Rd (KRd) had the highest risk of TE (21.1%, 18/85), followed by quadruplets (11.1%, 5/45), bortezomib‐Rd (9.6%, 51/531), and 0/11 (0%), treated with other lenalidomide‐containing regimens. The difference in TE risk between KRd and the other regimens was statistically significant (OR = 2.6, p < .01). Nine patients developed a TE before being exposed to any treatment. Survival was significantly lower among patients that developed a TE (66 vs. 133 months, p < .01). The association of TE with reduced survival demonstrated in univariate analysis (HR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.6–3.3) was maintained in the multivariable analysis adjusted for high‐risk interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), sex, age, receipt of an upfront transplant, the response at induction, and the International Staging System (ISS) (HR = 2.61, CI = 1.74–3.9). We conclude that TE is an important aspect of MM management, and effective management is especially relevant in the novel treatment era.