Characteristics and Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with and without Extramedullary Disease after Autologous Transplant and Maintenance Therapy: A Study from the Cmwp-EBMT

Patient selection becomes crucial for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to identify those who may benefit the most from specific treatments. This is particularly important for patients for whom evidence of current treatment options remains very limited. One such subgroup is MM with extramedullary disease (EMD), especially those with organ manifestation. Maintenance therapy after autologous transplantation improves outcome for eligible NDMM patients, but randomized trials only included a small proportion of EMD patients, and to date, no adequate data exist on maintenance in this cohort. Here, we aimed to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of NDMM with or without EMD after autologous transplant and maintenance therapy. Cohorts were identified from NDMM patients undergoing first autologous transplant between 2008 and 2018. Involvement had to be documented as absent or present. Maintenance treatment was defined as single-agent treatment within 6 months after first autologous transplant without relapse. Outcomes were calculated from the start of maintenance therapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary end point was cumulative incidence of relapse. In total, 830 NDMM patients with or without EMD were eligible, receiving either thalidomide (n=287), lenalidomide (n=446), bortezomib (n=75), or daratumumab (n=22; results for these patients will be presented at the meeting). 107 had EMD (n=83 paraskeletal and n=24 organ involvement). Maintenance drug distribution did not differ between NDMM with or without EMD (P=0.69) and is shown in Table 1. Fewer patients with organ involvement had IgA MM (23% vs 21% for no EMD and paraskeletal involvement, respectively). Patients with organ involvement more frequently were ISS stage III (50% vs 24% for no EMD and 15% for paraskeletal involvement). The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 44 months (95% CI, 40-48 months). According to involvement, 3-year PFS was 52% (48-57%) for patients without EMD, 56% (44-69%) for paraskeletal involvement, and 45% (22-68%) for organ involvement (P=0.15). Of note, early outcome after maintenance start appeared to be significantly worse for organ involvement, with 1-year PFS of 58% vs 81% for paraskeletal involvement and 82% for no EMD. 3-year OS was 81% (77-84%) for no EMD, 88% (80-96%) for paraskeletal involvement, and 68% (47-89%) for organ involvement (p=0.06). Survival curves are depicted in Figure 1. Regarding relapse, organ involvement showed worse early 1-year cumulative incidence, with 42% vs 19% for paraskeletal involvement and 16% for no EMD. In terms of maintenance therapy in patients without EMD, 3-year PFS was 45% (38-52%) for thalidomide, 59% (52-65%) for lenalidomide, 45% (31-59%) for bortezomib (P=0.005). 3-year OS was 79% (73-85%), 83% (78-88%), and 74% (61-87%; P=0.30). Relapse incidence was also significantly different showing lower relapse rates for lenalidomide (P=0.002). In terms of maintenance therapy in patients with EMD, 3-year PFS was 52% (36-67%) for thalidomide, 43% (27-60%) for lenalidomide, 65% (32-97%) for bortezomib (P=0.90). Overall survival was 81% (69-93%) for thalidomide, 86% (76-97%) for lenalidomide, and 89% (68-100%) for bortezomib (P=0.70). In multivariable analysis on PFS (including ISS, performance score, age, remission status) adjusting for early events at 1 year, organ involvement was significantly associated with worse early outcome (hazard ratio, 3.35; P=0.002) and showed no significant difference vs patients with no EMD after 1 year of follow-up. Paraskeletal involvement was not associated with different PFS. Lenalidomide was associated with significantly reduced risk for death or relapse/progression (hazard ratio, 0.69; P=0.003) vs thalidomide, and no difference was seen for bortezomib vs thalidomide. For OS, organ involvement appeared to be associated with worse outcome (hazard ratio 1.71; P=0.17), while no difference was seen for paraskeletal and no EMD. Lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72; P=0.05) and bortezomib (hazard ratio, 0.56; P=0.06) appeared to be associated with better OS. In conclusion, organ involvement was associated with worse early PFS, despite maintenance treatment. Different maintenance treatment did not seem to affect outcome in EMD. For patients without EMD, lenalidomide showed significantly higher PFS compared with thalidomide. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures McDonald: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kobbe: Celgene: Research Funding. Anagnostopoulos: Abbvie: Other: clinical trials; Sanofi: Other: clinical trials ; Ocopeptides: Other: clinical trials ; GSK: Other: clinical trials; Incyte: Other: clinical trials ; Takeda: Other: clinical trials ; Amgen: Other: clinical trials ; Janssen: Other: clinical trials; novartis: Other: clinical trials; Celgene: Other: clinical trials; Roche: Other: clinical trials; Astellas: Other: clinical trials . Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Delforge: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Thurner: Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; EUSA-Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Beksac: Amgen,Celgene,Janssen,Takeda,Oncopeptides,Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Schönland: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

Outcomes of Cytomegalovirus Monitoring in Autologous Transplantation: A Single Institution Experience

Introduction: Identification of patients seropositive for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prior to stem cell transplant (SCT) is a well-accepted practice across institutions designed to reduce a known cause of morbidity and mortality in this population, but the role of monitoring and preemptive approaches to CMV identification and treatment are controversial and not standardized in autologous transplantation. The preemptive approach necessitates the use of significant resources and requires persistent patient involvement. Patients undergoing autologous SCT are at a relatively low risk for CMV reactivation, especially those seronegative for CMV at the time of transplant. Here, we show that the necessity of routine monitoring of autologous transplant patients is of minimal clinical value. Methods: To determine the efficacy of the CMV monitoring protocol currently in place at our institution in detecting patients who would later develop CMV reactivation and disease following autologous SCT, we retrospectively analyzed the charts of 218 adult patients between 11/1/14 and 8/1/19 who underwent transplant at St. Louis University Hospital. No patients underwent CD34 selected stem cell infusions. The protocol stipulated the following: CMV IgG/IgM and CMV DNA PCR prior to preparative regimen followed by weekly CMV DNA PCR to day +30 . We correlated the predictive ability of positive results on any of these screening tests to identify whether patients would later develop quantifiable CMV DNA PCR positivity, clinical manifestations of CMV disease, and/or require pharmacologic treatment for CMV. Results: Quantifiable pre-BMT DNA PCR was positive in only 0.46% of patients, and 97.79% of patients were DNA PCR negative prior to transplant. CMV IgG was positive in 56.4% patients, and only 22.1% of patients in this group went on to develop a quantifiable post-transplant PCR. Of the remaining 43.6% of patients initially testing negative for CMV IgG, no patients went on to develop a quantifiably positive post-transplant PCR. Regardless of seropositivity, only 0.08% of the 1,191 PCRs performed during the study period were found to be quantifiable. Further, no patients in our cohort developed CMV disease or required CMV treatment during the monitoring period. This trend persisted despite stratification by age, diagnosis, transplant number, and preparative regimen. Conclusion: When clinically-significant CMV is defined by cases requiring treatment or the development of end-organ disease, no screening tests performed elicited clinical action. Laboratory-based CMV surveillance, based on our data, has minimal diagnostic implications and represents an overly-stringent practice in a set of patients already utilizing a substantial share of healthcare resources. We believe that pre-transplant screening for CMV IgM serology and CMV DNA PCR can be safely eliminated in the autologous SCT population at our institution while CMV IgG still plays a role in determining candidacy for CMV-negative blood products. We also propose the elimination of serial post-transplant monitoring with DNA PCR in patients without clinical signs, symptoms, or pathologic findings suggestive of CMV disease. We have changed the protocol to test for CMV PCR only if there are clinical scenarios that indicate a utility, such as prolonged fever post-transplant, unexplained cytopenias, or unexplained pneumonitis, colitis, or hepatitis. By extension, other centers should consider determining the necessity of CMV screening in their autologous transplant population given the potential resource conservation and reduction in healthcare expenditures. Disclosures Fesler: abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Speakers Bureau; morphosys: Speakers Bureau; epizyme: Consultancy; jazz: Consultancy; Skipta: Consultancy; Best Doctors: Consultancy; Aptitude Health: Consultancy; Care Dx: Consultancy; Opinionsite: Consultancy. Goldenberg: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.