Citations

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

Patients with plasma cell leukemia (PCL) are generally excluded from pivotal T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody (BsAb) trials. We evaluated real-world outcomes in a multicenter retrospective study of 122 patients with primary or secondary PCL across 15 academic centers, categorized as 'active' (≥5% circulating plasma cells within 30 days of BsAb initiation) or 'historical'. In a heavily pretreated population, patients received teclistamab (37%), elranatamab (11%), talquetamab as a line of therapy (Tal LOT, 42%), or talquetamab as bridging therapy to CAR-T (Tal Bridge, 11%). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was grade 1-2 in 56% and grade 3-4 in 4%, whereas neurotoxicity was grade 1-2 in 16% and grade 3-4 in 5%. Among 110 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 55%, including 61% with Tal LOT, 58% with Tal Bridge, 46% with elranatamab, and 33% with teclistamab. With a median follow-up of 8.3 months, talquetamab demonstrated superior survival. Tal LOT showed a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.5 months and a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.5 months, and both were unreached in the Tal Bridge cohort. In contrast, teclistamab and elranatamab showed a mPFS of 1.2 and 1.6 months and mOS of 8.1 and 3.6 months, respectively (P=0.007, P=0.023). In active PCL, Tal LOT achieved mPFS/mOS of 6.9/12.2 months versus 0.7/1.4 months with teclistamab and 1.0/3.1 months with elranatamab, respectively (P<0.001, P=0.002). Multivariable analysis associated active PCL with worse survival and Tal LOT with improved outcomes. BsAbs were safe in PCL, with talquetamab showing superior outcomes compared with BCMA-directed BsAbs.

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

Summary Functional high‐risk (FHR) multiple myeloma (FHRMM) is often defined as progression within 12–24 months of front‐line autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). For patients with early progression after suboptimal front‐line therapies, it is challenging to assign the disease progression to a true FHR phenotype versus less effective front‐line therapy. In this study, we combined data from three Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research studies (MM18‐02, MM19‐01 and MM20‐03). We included patients who received front‐line AHSCT between 2008 and 2018 and had progression <12 (FHR12, n = 465), <18 (FHR18, n = 672) or <24 months (FHR24, n = 853) after AHSCT. We classified induction therapy as standard lenalidomide‐containing triplets (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [VRD]/carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [KRD]) versus other (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone [VTD]/bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone [VCD]/bortezomib, dexamethasone [VD]/lenalidomide, dexamethasone [RD]) and studied the impact of front‐line therapy on post‐FHR overall survival (OS). In the FHR12 cohort (follow‐up 48 months), the OS after VRD/KRD ( n = 238) was 21 versus 17 months with other regimens ( n = 227, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6–1.06). In a multivariable model, the HR for OS was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.7–1.3, p = 0.69) for VRD/KRD versus other regimens. There was no significant interaction between type of first‐line (1L) therapy and time from 1L AHSCT to first relapse in predicting OS. Similar results were seen for FHR18 and FHR24. FHRMM remains a negative prognostic factor irrespective of front‐line therapy and warrants consideration of T‐cell engagers' second‐line therapy.

Abstract Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecific antibodies (bsAbs), have improved outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, early mortality (EM) remains a significant challenge, even in the era of novel immunotherapies. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of real-world patients with RRMM treated with commercial bsAbs to evaluate the incidence and causes of EM. Between May 2022 and June 2025, a total of 441 patients were treated across 7 countries. EM, defined as death within 12 months of therapy initiation, occurred in 148 patients (34%), with a median time from bsAb initiation to death of 2.87 months (interquartile range, 1.38-6.85). The leading cause of EM was progressive disease (72%), followed by infection (13%); regardless of the cause of death, 82% had active disease at the time of death. Our findings highlight that despite encouraging efficacy, EM remains high among real-world bsAb recipients, emphasizing the need for improved disease control strategies and supportive care interventions.

Abstract Introduction Epicardial fat is known to be elevated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the clinical significance of this fat deposition is not fully understood. Purpose We assessed the epicardial adipose tissue in patients with T2DM and diabetic retinopathy (DR) without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) when compared to healthy controls, and assessed the associations with cardiac function and severity of retinopathy. Methods 101 T2DM patients without history of CVD who underwent eye assessment for stages of retinopathy and 92 healthy controls underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of epicardial & pericardial adipose tissue, cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction – LVEF, and strain), native T1 mapping, liver fat and liver iron corrected T1 (cT1). Results When compared to controls, DR had increased epicardial adipose tissue, lower LVEF, indexed LV end-diastolic & stroke volumes, impaired global longitudinal & circumferential strains, increased myocardial T1, liver fat and liver cT1 (all adjusted for age, gender and BMI). There were no significant differences in left atrial size, LV wall thickness, pericardial fat in DR, compared to controls after adjustment for age, gender and BMI. Increased epicardial fat was associated with reduced global longitudinal strain and severe (proliferative) retinopathy. Conclusions Patients with T2DM and retinopathy have elevated epicardial fat which is associated with reduced cardiac function, and presence of advanced retinopathy. T2DM with retinopathy without history of CVD may have underlying cardiac diseases and therefore should be considered for further cardiac evaluation. Epicardial fat may be a potential risk marker and therapeutic target in T2DM.Demographics and MRI parameters Epicardial adipose tissue and strains

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide updated guidance regarding the therapy for multiple myeloma. METHODS ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) convened a joint Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The updated review identified a total of 161 relevant randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS Daratumumab therapy may be offered to patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma. Quadruplet therapy with daratumumab or isatuximab, combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, should be offered as initial therapy for transplant eligible patients. They should also be offered at least lenalidomide maintenance, with or without daratumumab, carfilzomib, and/or dexamethasone. Quadruplet therapy with daratumumab or isatuximab, combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, should be offered as therapy for suitable transplant-ineligible patients. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma should be offered triplet therapy or T-cell redirecting therapies according to a set of recommended principles. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines .

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy that has shown remarkable efficacy in patients with RRMM. As real-world (RW) experience with cilta-cel continues to expand, and with the recent FDA guidance reducing the recommended proximity to the CAR T center from four to two weeks post-infusion, there is growing interest in identifying patients at low risk for severe early complications who may be safely managed in the outpatient setting and potentially ‘discharged’ home earlier. Methods Data were collected from 769 patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel at 15 institutions in the U.S. via the Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium.Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients who could be managed in the outpatient setting (low-risk group). Based on expert consensus within the Consortium, low-risk patients were defined as: grade ≤1 CRS, no ICANS, and no IEC-HS. The remaining patients were categorized as high-risk. We evaluated baseline characteristics with missingness &lt; 20% as predictors, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, ECOG performance status (PS) at time of lymphodepletion (LD), extramedullary disease, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) percentage, high-risk cytogenetics, bridging therapy including response, penta-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, prior anti-BCMA therapy, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and baseline ferritin. The cohort was restricted to patients with complete data on all predictors (n=455) and split into a training and testing cohort (80/20 split, n=364/91). Bidirectional stepwise regression was used to build the predictive model using variables with significance of p&lt;0.15 selected for entry. The best model was selected based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and a significance level of p&lt;0.05. Results Among the 455 patients with complete data included in the final model, 290 (64%) were categorized as low-risk and 165 (36%) as high-risk. Compared to the low-risk group, high-risk patients were more likely to have an ECOG PS ≥2 at time of LD (20% vs 9%, p&lt;0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (47% vs 35%, p=0.009), and penta-refractory disease status (34% vs 24%, p=0.031). High-risk patients also had a higher median BMPC percentage (15% vs 5%, p&lt;0.001), and higher baseline pre-LD CRP and ferritin. Overall response rates were high, at 95% vs 90% (p=0.047) for the low vs high risk groups, with complete response or better achieved in 73% vs 66% of patients, respectively (p=0.14). With a median follow-up of approximately 11 months, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI: 27-NA) in the low-risk group and 18.2 months (95% CI: 13.1-NA) in the high-risk group. In terms of safety, non-ICANS neurotoxicity (NINT) occurred less frequently in the low-risk group (6.6% vs 13%, p=0.015). Specifically, Parkinsonism was observed in 1.7% vs 6.1% (p=0.013), and cranial nerve palsy in 4.5% vs 5.5% (p=0.7), respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was lower in the low-risk group (4.2%) compared to the high-risk group (14%; p &lt; 0.001). The most common causes of NRM in the low- and high-risk groups were acute toxicities (0% vs 36%, including CRS, IEC-HS, and ICANS), delayed toxicities (0% vs 8%, including colitis, NINT, and Parkinsonism), infections (50% vs 48%), and other unrelated causes (50% vs 8%). The best model to predict low-risk patients that could be managed in the outpatient settingincluded BMPC percentage and ECOG PS at LD. In the training cohort, patients with a higher pre-LD BMPC percentage and an ECOG PS ³2 were less likely to be in the low-risk group(OR per 1-unit change in BMPC percentage = 0.99, 95% CI=0.98-0.99, p&lt;0.001 and OR for ECOG PS 2-4 = 0.38, 95% CI=0.20-0.72, p=0.003). The AUC for this model was 0.663 in the training cohort and 0.659 in the testing cohort. Conclusion In this large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel, we identified clinical factors associated with lower risk for early severe toxicities, supporting outpatient administration and the potential for earlier discharge in selected patients, particularly those who are fit and have low disease burden. Our findings provide a practical framework to guide risk stratification and outpatient CAR T management strategies, particularly in light of evolving regulatory guidance and growing RW experience with cilta-cel.