Citations

Introduction: The bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) clone burden is typically low in light chain (AL) amyloidosis and some patients do not have a detectable serum monoclonal spike (M-spike). Increased BMPC% and serum free light chain (FLC) are associated with poorer outcomes. However, the outcomes of patients with AL amyloidosis based on the presence or an absence of a measurable serum M-spike before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been explored. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. The serum M-spike was recorded before ASCT and patients were divided according to the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Results: Seven-hundred and sixteen patients were identified and 521 (73%) had a measurable serum M-spike. Patients who had a measurable serum M-spike were more likely to have BMPC≥ 10% than patients without a measurable serum M-spike (46% vs. 34%, P=0.002) and they were more likely to have a difference in FLC ≥18 mg/dl (47% vs. 29%, P=0.0001). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients who had a measurable serum M-spike compared to patients without a measurable serum M-spike (Figure 1 A,B). The shorter survival was irrespective of the administration of induction therapy before ASCT. We also evaluated the difference in survival in patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 based on the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. The PFS and OS were also significantly different in these patients (Figure 1 C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.5, P=0.003), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.4,P=0.004), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.6, P=0.001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.8, P=0.03), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR: 1.82, P<0.0001). For OS, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 2, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.4, P<0.0001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.6, P=0.002), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: The presence of a measurable serum M-spike before ASCT is a negative independent predictor for PFS and OS in AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Disclosures Sidiqi: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other.

Introduction Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been used for treating multiple myeloma (MM) for over three decades and is generally reserved for patients younger than 65 years of age. The definition of transplant eligible is ill-defined and different centers have different policies to determine which patients are transplant eligible. Some centers have an age cut-off, others use clinical judgment, and some use various frailty scores (a scoring system based on comorbidities and physical and cognitive assessments) aiming to objectively assess transplant eligibility. There are limited data about outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years. Aim To report on outcomes of ASCT in a cohort of patients with MM aged 75 years or older. Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive MM patients aged ≥ 75 years that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Stem cell transplantation at our center is routinely performed as an outpatient, with patients being hospitalized when deemed clinically necessary upon physician review. Results Between October 2005 and March 2020, 46 patients aged 75 years or older, received an ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The median hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was 0 (range 0-6) with 8 patients having HCT-CI of 5 or 6. Median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 6.45 months (IQR 5.2-10.52) and 54% received reduced intensity conditioning with melphalan 140 mg/m2. All patients except one (that was treated with dexamethasone only) received induction with novel agents (listed in table 1) and 6 patients (13%) received doublet induction. All others received triplet induction. 46% of patients completed the ASCT without requiring hospitalization and 54% (n=25) of patients required hospitalization with a median duration of hospital admission of 9 days (IQR 5-13). Reasons for hospitalization included fever or infection (32%), cardiac arrhythmia (36%) and dehydration (32%). Overall response rate was 100% with a complete response seen in 57% of patients and 16 patients achieving MRD negative sCR. Median overall survival and progression free survival for the cohort were 82 months and 33 months, respectively. One patient died within 100 days of transplant representing a 2% 100-day mortality rate. Univariable cox regression model that evaluated the effect of gender, high risk cytogenetics, hemoglobin, renal function and melphalan dose did not detect any variable that was predictive of OS or PFS (Table 3). Conclusions ASCT is efficacious and can be safely delivered in the outpatient setting in carefully screened patients aged 75 or above. An arbitrary cutoff for age should not be used to exclude patients from ASCT, rather a careful assessment of "physiological age" including performance status and co-morbidities is required by an experienced treating team. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other.

Introduction: The routine incorporation of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibody drugs (mAbs) in managing multiple myeloma (MM) has improved patients' prognosis. Unfortunately, triple refractory patients continue to do poorly. Immunotherapeutic approaches (mAbs, CAR-T cells) have shown the most promise in these patients. However, the efficacy of these therapies depends on a functional tumor immune microenvironment (iTME), which is extensively reshaped by existing MM therapies and disease evolution. Understanding how the iTME and malignant clone co-evolve over the disease course is crucial to optimize the use of immune-based treatments and understand their mechanisms of action. Methods: Newly diagnosed MM patients (NDMM), MM patients relapsing prior to anti-CD38 antibody exposure (RMM), and triple refractory MM patients (TRMM) were identified from the Mayo Clinic biospecimen database. We performed CyTOF (with a 37 marker lymphoid panel on CD138- bone marrow [BM] mononuclear cell samples) to assess the cellular iTME, Luminex (using BM plasma) to assess the humoral iTME (cytokines and chemokines) and RNAseq analysis (using BM CD138+ cells) to assess the malignant clone transcriptome. Astrolabe was used to identify immune cell clusters. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was used to identify gene pathways with differential expression across groups. JMP was used to perform unsupervised hierarchical clustering and descriptive statistics. An FDR corrected p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons. Results: This study included 39 patients (13 NDMM, 11 RMM, and 15 TRMM). Samples were hierarchically clustered by cellular iTME, humoral iTME and malignant cell transcriptome, separately. The cellular iTME best recapitulated known disease biology and was used as the "anchoring" variable for subsequent analyses. Three distinct immune clusters were identified (figure 1): cluster 1, comprised mainly of NDMM and RMM patients; and clusters 2 and 3, comprised primarily of TRMM patients. In cluster 2, 4/5 patient samples were collected immediately after progression on daratumumab-IMID therapy, whereas all 7 TRMM patient samples in cluster 3 were collected at a median of 2.8 (range 0-17.2) months after last daratumumab exposure (table 1). Most naïve T cell subsets (including the TIGIT+ T5 and the C38/CD127+ subsets T1, T2, and T12) were highest in cluster 1 compared to clusters 2 and 3. Several unfavorable T cell subsets were elevated in Cluster 2: 1) CD161+ T6, T7 and T17 subsets, which are thought to be Th17 polarized cells that promote MM growth; 2) T7, T9 CCR5+ subsets, which are thought to represent tumor-specific exhausted (PD-1+) T cell subsets; 3) senescent subsets (T-10, T14, T16,T18, T19); and 4) TCR-gd subsets with features of senescence (KLR, CD57), exhaustion (PD-1, TIGIT) and Th17 polarization (CD161). There were no significant differences in cytokine and chemokine expression based on disease status (NDMM, RMM, or TRMM) or iTME (immune clusters 1, 2, or 3). GSEA was performed to compare clusters 2 and 3 (TRMM enriched) with cluster 1. The most up-regulated gene pathways in clusters 2 and 3 related to cell cycle targets of E2F transcription factors and MYC proliferation pathways. The most down-regulated gene pathways in clusters 2 and 3 were IFN-gamma, IFN-alpha and TNF-alpha response and signalling. Conclusion: Changes in the cellular iTME mirror the disease course better than changes in the malignant clone or humoral iTME. Patients with more refractory MM have a smaller pool of naïve T cells which express TIGIT or CD127 and could be "revived" with anti-TIGIT antibodies or IL-7 prior to manufacturing CART cells or administering BCMA-based therapies. Significant heterogeneity exists within the more refractory subgroups, with some patients having more dysfunctional T cell subsets which may be less responsive to immunotherapeutic approaches. The malignant transcriptome of samples in clusters 2 and 3 parallels the aggressive clinical course, with myc upregulation and downregulation of cytokine pathways that mediate an antitumor immune response. This study suggests that the MM iTME becomes more dysfunctional with therapy and may explain the differential sensitivity of patients to immunotherapeutic approaches. Disclosures Kumar: MedImmune: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments.

Abstract In the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study, carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Kd) improved survival over bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), regardless of baseline renal function. This real-world study compared renal response in patients with RRMM (1-3 prior lines) and renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤50 mL/min) treated with Kd vs Vd. Electronic medical records data from the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records database were assessed (from January 2012 through February 2018). Time to renal response (defined according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for renal overall response (ROR) and renal complete response (RCR) using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline covariates. Included were 543 Kd-treated and 1005 Vd-treated patients. In line 2 (2L), compared with Vd, Kd achieved significantly higher ROR (51.4% vs 39.6%; P < .0001) and RCR (26.6% vs 22.2%; P = .0229). After baseline covariate adjustment, 2L patients receiving Kd vs Vd were 45% more likely to achieve ROR (IRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78), and 68% were more likely to achieve RCR (IRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.24-2.28). The renal response benefit with Kd remained consistent in 2L to line 4 (4L). In a combined analysis of patients receiving Kd and Vd (2L and 2L-4L), renal responders had longer overall survival and time to next treatment than renal nonresponders. These results demonstrate improved real-world effectiveness of Kd over Vd in RRMM renal rescue, and the positive association between renal response and improved survival.

AbstractThree sets of criteria (International Society of Amyloidosis [ISA], Palladini and Kastritis) were independently developed for staging, progression and response criteria to predict renal survival in patients with AL amyloidosis. We evaluated these criteria using a cohort of 495 newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients with renal involvement using time to event competing risk analysis at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Only Palladini and Kastritis had a staging system and both predicted a higher risk of end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the stage III vs stage I patients but only the Palladini model was predictive for stage II patients. At 3 months, risk of ESRD was significantly higher for Palladini and ISA renal progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5–5.3, p = .001] and 2.5 [CI: 1.4–4.6, p = .004, respectively]), but renal response was not significantly protective; conversely, the risk of ESRD was not significantly higher for the Kastritis renal progression, but was significantly protective for the Kastritis renal responders (HR 0.38 [95% CI: 0.17–0.84], p = .017). Both progression and response with ISA, Palladini and Kastritis criteria were predictive of ESRD at 6 months and 12 months. While the Palladini staging criteria at baseline, and the ISA and Palladini criteria for progression at 3 months performed better than the Kastritis criteria at baseline and 3 months post‐treatment, the Kastritis criteria performed better for response 3 months after treatment. All three sets of criteria performed well at and after 6 months post‐treatment. These differences are important when choosing endpoints for clinical trials.

AbstractVenetoclax (Ven) is a selective small‐molecule inhibitor of BCL‐2 that exhibits antitumoral activity against MM cells with t(11;14) translocation. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of Ven and dexamethasone (VenDex) combination in patients with t(11;14) positive relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). This open‐label, multicenter study had two distinct phases (phase one [P1], phase two [P2]). Patients in both phases received VenDex (oral Ven 800 mg/day + oral Dex 40 mg [20 mg for patients ≥75 years] on days 1, 8, and 15, per 21–day cycle). The primary objective of the P1 VenDex cohort was to assess safety and pharmacokinetics. Phase two further evaluated efficacy with objective response rate (ORR) and very good partial response or better. Correlative studies explored baseline BCL2 (BCL‐2) and BCL2L1 (BCL‐XL) gene expression, cytogenetics, and recurrent somatic mutations in MM. Twenty and 31 patients in P1 and P2 with t(11;14) positive translocation received VenDex. P1/P2 patients had received a median of 3/5 lines of prior therapy, and 20%/87% were refractory to daratumumab. Predominant grade 3/4 hematological adverse events (AEs) with ≥10% occurrence included lymphopenia (20%/19%), neutropenia (15%/7%), thrombocytopenia (10%/10%), and anemia (5%/16%). At a median follow‐up of 12.3/9.2 months, ORR was 60%/48%. The duration of response estimate at 12 months was 50%/61%, and the median time to progression was 12.4/10.8 months. In biomarker evaluable patients, response to VenDex was independent of concurrent del(17p) or gain(1q) and mutations in key oncogenic signaling pathways, including MAPK and NF‐kB. VenDex demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in heavily‐pre‐treated patients with t(11;14) R/R MM.

AbstractInduction therapy for multiple myeloma with bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (d) (VRd) was traditionally administered as bortezomib given twice weekly on a 3 week cycle. A modified schedule of weekly bortezomib has been adopted over time to decrease treatment burden for patients and reduce treatment‐emergent neuropathy. This study evaluates the response rates and outcomes with different schedules of bortezomib in VRd administered for first‐line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with upfront VRd from June 30th 2008 to December 31st 2018, for variations of bortezomib administration. Five hundred and fifty‐five (555) NDMM patients met inclusion criteria; median age 63 years and 61% men. Bortezomib was administered twice weekly every 21 days in 43%, once weekly every 21 days in 41% and once weekly every 28 days in 16%. Though peripheral sensory neuropathy was more frequent with twice weekly dosing (P = .002), this group achieved shorter time to best response (P = .01). Weekly every 21‐day treatment saw higher VGPR or better rates (P = .02). However, with median follow up time of 37 months (IQR 22–56), we found no difference in PFS or OS among the groups. While small differences in response rates were found among the varying administration schedules of bortezomib administration, there was no significant effect on PFS or OS. Given that VRd remains a first line standard of care option for newly diagnosed MM, in the absence of a large trial comparing bortezomib dosing schedule modifications, these results are helpful in supporting current practices of once weekly administration.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study. PATIENTS AND METHODS PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs. RESULTS A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score. CONCLUSION D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

Multiple myeloma is a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells that accumulate in bone marrow, leading to bone destruction and marrow failure. This manuscript discusses the management of patients with solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering multiple myeloma, and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.