Gain of chromosome 1q (+1q) is commonly identified in multiple myeloma and has been associated with inferior outcomes. However, the prognostic implication of +1q has not been evaluated in the setting of standard triplet regimens. We retrospectively analyzed 201 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who received induction with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) and were tested for +1q at diagnosis by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Patients with +1q (n = 94), compared to those without +1q (n = 107), had shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) (41.9 months vs 65.1 months, p = 0.002, HR = 1.90) and overall survival (median not reached (NR) for either arm, p = 0.003, HR 2.69). In subgroup analyses, patients with co-occurring +1q and t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p) or with 4 or more copies of 1q had significantly worse PFS (25.1 months and 34.6 months, p < 0.001 and p = 0.0063, respectively), whereas patients with three copies and no other high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities had no significant difference in PFS. These data suggest that when treated with RVD induction, patients with +1q should be considered at very high risk for early progression in multiple myeloma when ≥4 copies are detected or in the context of other high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.

PURPOSE The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is a highly effective and convenient induction regimen for both transplantation-eligible and -ineligible patients with myeloma. Here, we present the largest cohort of patients consecutively treated with RVD induction therapy followed by risk-adapted maintenance therapy with the longest follow-up and important information on long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS We describe 1,000 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma treated with RVD induction therapy from January 2007 until August 2016. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes data were obtained from our institutional review board–approved myeloma database. Responses and progression were evaluated per International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria. RESULTS The overall response rate was 97.1% after induction therapy and 98.5% after transplantation, with 89.9% of patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) or better and 33.3% achieving stringent complete response after transplantation at a median follow-up time of 67 months. The estimated median progression-free survival time was 65 months (95% CI, 58.7 to 71.3 months) for the entire cohort, 40.3 months (95% CI, 33.5 to 47 months) for high-risk patients, and 76.5 months (95% CI, 66.9 to 86.2 months) for standard-risk patients. The median overall survival (OS) time for the entire cohort was 126.6 months (95% CI, 113.3 to 139.8 months). The median OS for high-risk patients was 78.2 months (95% CI, 62.2 to 94.2 months), whereas it has not been reached for standard-risk patients. Five-year OS rates for high-risk and standard-risk patients were 57% and 81%, respectively, and the 10-year OS rates were 29% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSION RVD is an induction regimen that delivers high response rates (VGPR or better) in close to 90% of patients after transplantation, and risk-adapted maintenance can deliver unprecedented long-term outcomes. This study includes the largest cohort of patients treated with RVD reported to date with long follow-up and demonstrates the ability of 3-drug induction regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to result in a substantial survival benefit.

The development of effective monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of myeloma has been a long journey of clinical and drug development. Identification of the right target antigen was a critical part of the process. CD38 as a target has been considered for some time, but clinically, daratumumab, a CD38 monoclonal antibody, was the first to be tested, and it has delivered the best clinical responses as a single agent to date. Its proven safety and efficacy in combination with other antimyeloma agents have led to several US Food and Drug Administration approvals for treating myeloma. Furthermore, the results of early trials in the induction therapy setting have demonstrated a beneficial role when it is added to the existing induction regimens. This review summarizes the importance of CD38 as a target and examines the clinical development of the CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab and its clinical significance in combination regimens in both patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy of daratumumab (DARA) both as a monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens in multiple myeloma (MM) has been established in clinical trials. This article presents a retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of DARA in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (ie, daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DARA-POM-D]) and, more importantly, the long-term follow-up of a cohort that was naive to DARA and POM as well as a cohort in which the utility of re-treatment was evaluated among patients who were DARA-and/or POM-refractory. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM treated with DARA-POM-D at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from January 2015 through July 2016 were included in the analysis. The study was approved by Emory University's institutional review board. All received prior proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and were refractory to their last line of therapy. RESULTS: All patients were lenalidomide-refractory, and 91% were bortezomibrefractory. Two cohorts were identified on the basis of prior exposure to DARA and/or POM. Cohort 1 (12 patients) was DARAand POM-naive, and cohort 2 (22 patients) was DARA-and/or POM-refractory. A subgroup of 12 patients in cohort 2 (cohort 3) was DARA-and POM-refractory. The combination's tolerability was consistent with the results of the published phase 1b study (EQUULES) that evaluated the combination and no new safety signals were observed. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 91.7%, 40.9%, and 33.3% in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Deep responses, including 4 stringent complete responses, were observed in cohort 1. In cohort 2, the ORR comprised 8 partial responses (PRs) and 1 very good PR. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in cohort 1 at a median follow-up of 41 months, and it was 3.2 months in cohort 2. DARA-POM-D not only was effective in DARA-and POM-naive patients but also produced clinical responses in a third of patients re-treated with these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: A better than quadrupled PFS benefit observed in cohort 1 in comparison with the previously reported benefit in the EQUULEUS trial (which led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of the DARA-POM-D combination) highlights the fact that the introduction of monoclonal antibody combination strategies and IMiDs as earlier lines of therapeutic options potentially could deliver better clinical outcomes. One-third of patients refractory to separate lines of DARA and/or POM responded when they were re-treated with a combination, and this resulted in survival benefits equivalent to those of other antimyeloma agents/combinations available for DARA-refractory patients. Cancer 2019;125:2991-3000.

Venetoclax is a highly potent, selective BCL2 inhibitor capable of inducing apoptosis in cells dependent upon BCL2 for survival. Most myeloma is MCL1 dependent, however a subset of myeloma enriched for translocation t(11;14) is co-dependent on BCL2 and thus sensitive to venetoclax. The biology underlying this heterogeneity remains poorly understood. We demonstrate that knockdown of CCND1 does not induce resistance to venetoclax, arguing against a direct role for CCND1 in venetoclax sensitivity. To identify other factors contributing to venetoclax response, we studied a panel of 31 myeloma cell lines and 25 patient samples tested for venetoclax sensitivity. In cell lines, we corroborated our previous observation that BIM binding to BCL2 correlates with venetoclax response, and further demonstrated that knockout of BIM results in decreased venetoclax sensitivity. RNA-seq analysis identified expression of B cell genes as enriched in venetoclax sensitive myeloma, though no single gene consistently delineated sensitive and resistant cells. However, a panel of cell surface makers correlated well with ex vivo prediction of venetoclax response in 21 patient samples and may serve as biomarker independent of t(11;14). ATAC-seq of myeloma cell lines also identified an epigenetic program in venetoclax sensitive cells that was more similar to B cells than that of venetoclax resistant cells, as well as enrichment for bZIP binding motifs such as the BATF transcription factor. Together these data indicate remnants of B cell biology are associated with BCL2 dependency and point to novel biomarkers of venetoclax sensitive myeloma independent of t(11;14).