Faculty Bibliography

Measurement of overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for interpreting the impact of new therapies for multiple myeloma in phase 3 trials. However, as outcomes have improved, it is increasingly challenging to use OS as the primary endpoint if timely approval of novel agents is to be ensured to enable maximum benefit for patients. Surrogate endpoints of OS, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and response to treatment, have contributed to approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency as endpoints demonstrating clinical benefit, and the FDA has recently supported the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma. This review aims to address situations in which the use of PFS as a surrogate endpoint warrants careful interpretation especially for specific subgroups of patients and considers ways to ensure that studies can be designed to account for possible discordance between PFS and OS. The utility of subgroup analyses, including the potential for those not pre-specified, to identify target populations for new agents is also discussed.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS:INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA, and REMIX. RESULTS:Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide-naïve/-exposed/-refractory and 37/411/110 were PI-naïve/-exposed/-refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide- and/or PI-nonrefractory versus refractory patients.

BACKGROUND:Obesity is an established modifiable risk factor for multiple myeloma (MM). However, associations of obesity and MM risk in Black populations, for whom obesity and MM are more common, is less clear. METHODS:Using participants enrolled in the Integrative Molecular And Genetic Epidemiology study, we evaluated the association of anthropometric traits with MM risk overall, stratified by race and sex. Among cases, we assessed the association of BMI with the presence of myeloma-defining events. RESULTS:) were more likely to present at diagnosis with low renal function (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.09-2.40), deletion 13q (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.08-2.76) and lytic lesions or compression fractures (OR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.82-7.01) and less likely to present with severe diffuse osteopenia (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.81). CONCLUSIONS:Findings underscore the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for MM, particularly in high-risk populations, and for the clinical presentation of disease.

While the current approach to precursor hematologic conditions is to "watch and wait," this may change with the development of therapies that are safe and extend survival or delay the onset of symptomatic disease. The goal of future therapies in precursor hematologic conditions is to improve survival and prevent or delay the development of symptomatic disease while maximizing safety. Clinical trial considerations in this field include identifying an appropriate at-risk population, safety assessments, dose selection, primary and secondary trial endpoints including surrogate endpoints, control arms, and quality-of-life metrics, all of which may enable more precise benefit-risk assessment.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are heterogenous, with overall survival (OS) ranging from months to over 10 years. METHODS:To decipher and predict the molecular and clinical heterogeneity of NDMM, we assembled a series of 1,933 patients with available clinical, genomic, and therapeutic data. RESULTS:translocations, APOBEC mutational signatures, and copy-number signatures (reflecting the complex structural variant chromothripsis). IRMMa accuracy and superiority compared with other prognostic models were validated on 256 patients enrolled in the GMMG-HD6 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02495922) clinical trial. Individualized patient risks were significantly affected across the 12 genomic groups by different treatment strategies (ie, treatment variance), which was used to identify patients for whom HDM-ASCT is particularly effective versus patients for whom the impact is limited. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Integrating clinical, demographic, genomic, and therapeutic data, to our knowledge, we have developed the first individualized risk-prediction model enabling personally tailored therapeutic decisions for patients with NDMM.

Improving the outcome of high-risk myeloma (HRMM) is a key therapeutic aim for the next decade. To achieve this aim, it is necessary to understand in detail the genetic drivers underlying this clinical behavior and to target its biology therapeutically. Advances have already been made, with a focus on consensus guidance and the application of novel immunotherapeutic approaches. Cases of HRMM are likely to have impaired prognosis even with novel strategies. However, if disease eradication and minimal disease states are achieved, then cure may be possible.

Deeper responses are associated with improved survival in patients being treated for myeloma. However, the sensitivity of the current blood-based assays is limited. Historical studies suggested that normalisation of the serum free light chain (FLC) ratio in patients who were negative by immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) was associated with improved outcomes. However, recently this has been called into question. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based FLC assessments may offer a superior methodology for the detection of monoclonal FLC due to greater sensitivity. To test this hypothesis, all available samples from patients who were IFE negative after treatment with carfilzomib and lenalidomide-based induction and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the Myeloma XI trial underwent FLC-MS testing. FLC-MS response assessments from post-induction, day+100 post-ASCT and six months post-maintenance randomisation were compared to serum FLC assay results. Almost 40% of patients had discordant results and 28.7% of patients with a normal FLC ratio had residual monoclonal FLC detectable by FLC-MS. FLC-MS positivity was associated with reduced progression-free survival (PFS) but an abnormal FLC ratio was not. This study demonstrates that FLC-MS provides a superior methodology for the detection of residual monoclonal FLC with FLC-MS positivity identifying IFE-negative patients who are at higher risk of early progression.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) are critical to the hematology workforce. However, there is limited knowledge about APPs in hematology regarding specialty-specific training, scope of practice, challenges and opportunities in APP-physician interactions, and involvement with the American Society of Hematology (ASH). We conducted APP and physician focus groups to elucidate major themes in these areas and used results to inform development of 2 national surveys, 1 for APPs and 1 for physicians who work with APPs. The APP survey was distributed to members of the Advanced Practitioner Society of Hematology and Oncology, and the physician survey was distributed to physician members of ASH. A total of 841 APPs and 1334 physicians completed the surveys. APPs reported most hematology-specific knowledge was obtained via on-the-job training and felt additional APP-focused training would be helpful (as did physicians). Nearly all APPs and physicians agreed that APPs were an integral part of their organizations and that physician-APP collaborations were generally positive. A total of 42.1% of APPs and 29.3% of physicians reported burnout, and >50% of physicians felt that working with APPs had reduced their burnout. Both physicians and APPs reported interest in additional resources including "best practice" guidelines for APP-physician collaboration, APP access to hematology educational resources (both existing and newly developed resources for physicians and trainees), and greater APP integration into national specialty-specific professional organizations including APP-focused sessions at conferences. Professional organizations such as ASH are well positioned to address these areas.

BACKGROUND:Daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are preferred regimens for transplant ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Both DRd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy versus Rd in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but there is no head-to-head (H2H) clinical trial comparing their efficacy. Differing populations in the MAIA and S0777 trials make an unadjusted comparison of outcomes challenging and biased. The current TAURUS study is the first real-world H2H study comparing progression-free survival (PFS) among TIE NDMM patients treated with DRd or VRd as first-line (1L) in similar clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A multicenter chart review study was conducted at nine sites across the United States. All TIE patients treated with DRd and a randomly selected population of VRd patients were included. TIE NDMM patients aged ≥65 were included if they initiated 1L DRd/VRd between January 2019 and September 2021. PFS was defined as the time from DRd/VRd initiation until disease progression or death. A doubly-robust multivariable Cox regression model combined with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology was used to compare PFS between cohorts. RESULTS:Weighted cohorts comprised 91 DRd and 87 VRd patients. Thirteen DRd and 24 VRd patients experienced progression/death. Patients treated with DRd had a lower risk of progression/death versus VRd (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95% confidence interval: [0.17; 0.73]). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:DRd is associated with a significantly lower risk of disease progression or death compared to VRd as 1L treatment for TIE NDMM patients.