The changing landscape of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM): fundamentals and controversies.

Background

Despite the increasing availability of more effective treatments for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients that provide longer disease-free periods, MM progresses in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, the safety profile of modern drugs means that combinations of 3, 4 or more are now commonly used in the upfront treatment of MM in order to achieve a deeper, more prolonged response. For this reason, treating relapses after regimens that have included a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMID) and, sometimes, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, can be challenging. The recent MM guidelines of the European Hematology Association-European Society of Medical Oncology (EHA-ESMO) include current second-line treatment options for patients who have received first-line drugs based on combinations of PI plus IMIDs or daratumumab-based therapies, as well as subsequent relapses [ 1 ]. This review provides updated information on novel agents for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM patients and takes a critical look at the future outlook for clinicians working in this field.

Basis for the clinical management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

The development of several generations of new drugs since the first decade of this century has radically improved the prognosis of MM [ 2 ]. These advances are the sum of the transfer of new drugs to the front-line setting and the impact of their use as rescue therapies. For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), this has meant an increase in the number of therapeutic options with no cross resistance with first-line or previous salvage therapies [ 3 ]. This scenario differs greatly from previous situations in which the lack of therapeutic options meant that the only alternatives were chemotherapy [ 4 ], second autologous stem cells transplantations (ASCT) [ 5 ], or even retreatment with bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide previously used in the first line.

The complexity of the clinical scenarios in RRMM

The large number of therapeutic alternatives currently available for MM patients gives rise to a wide range of possible clinical settings that cannot easily be covered by a single algorithm [ 6 ]. Currently, patients with MM achieve relapsed/refractory status (RR) after a range of therapeutic antecedents, ranging from primary refractoriness or early relapse after first-line treatment with latest-generation drugs, to very late relapse in patients treated with chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the first line. Patients with RRMM previously treated with bortezomib (V) plus thalidomide (T) or lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (VTd or VRd) with ASCT who achieved median progression-free survival (PFS) of more than 5 years after front line treatments [ 7 , 8 ] are not represented in the main RCT in RRMM, and are not considered in the algorithms proposed by most authors. This is also applicable to older RRMM patients, in whom first-line treatments with combination bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone, or the most recent monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), achieve a median PFS of more than 3 years [ 9 ]. Furthermore, in RRMM the variability of clinical scenarios increases as new lines of treatment are introduced after each episode of RRMM.

In general, the complexity of the contexts in which RRMM occurs is not adequately represented in the inclusion criteria of RCTs, in which the requirements regarding previous treatments are excessively generic, and frequently include euphemisms such as inclusion or exclusion due to prior “exposure” to a drug, without specifying dose, duration and response to treatment, associated drugs, or the interval from exposure to inclusion in the study, all of which are known to impact the efficacy of salvage treatments in MM. An additional confounding factor is the generalized inclusion requirement of “at least a progressive disease status with measurable disease" [ 10 – 19 ], which allows the inclusion of an undetermined percentage of patients in biological progression with a better prognosis than those showing clinical progression [ 20 ].

After all these considerations, the choice of treatment for a patient not represented in the main RCTs may be facilitated by resorting to some concepts that are well recognized in RRMM.

Some keys to the choice of treatment

In MM, the adverse biological factors present at diagnosis (increased Beta2-microglobulin, hypoalbuminemia, anemia, kidney failure, high-risk genetic abnormalities, high lactate dehydrogenase, extension of active lesions on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), high proliferative index, etc.) are also important in RRMM [ 21 ]. However, their relevance in the choice of a rescue treatment is limited. Little information can be gained from RCTs, as patients presenting poor prognostic factors are usually excluded from these clinical studies. Interestingly, real-life data suggest the prognostic significance of performance status or cytogenetics in RRMM patients treated with novel therapies [ 22 , 23 ].

In RRMM patients, the choice of salvage treatment involves not only an analysis of the response to and toxicity of previous treatments, but also a detailed evaluation of MM-related or unrelated comorbidities. Obviously, primary refractoriness to a drug rules out its use in the management of RRMM. Nevertheless, in MM the rechallenge of a drug previously used with success in the treatment of the disease is still possible, despite a certain loss of efficacy that increases in parallel with the number of previous treatment lines [ 24 – 26 ]. Factors that determine the efficacy of rescue therapies are, i) the use of drugs with proven efficacy in MM other than those previously used, ii) the number of accumulated RRMM episodes and iii) the length of the previous time to progression.

The current arsenal of drugs available for the treatment of RRMM improves the results of drug retreatment [ 27 ], which was hitherto the only therapeutic alternative [ 28 , 29 ]. When choosing a therapeutic alternative it is important to take into consideration the results of RCTs and the possible cross-resistance between drugs from the same therapeutic group, such as the PIs bortezomib and carfilzomib [ 11 ], or the IMIDs lenalidomide and pomalidomide [ 30 , 31 ].

The occurrence of RRMM episodes with increasingly reduced PFS periods will often exhaust the efficacy of new drug-based treatments. At this point, drug rechallenge [ 26 ], use of chemotherapy regimens [ 32 , 33 ] or second ASCT [ 5 ] may halt progression for a limited period of time, though this may be long enough to allow patients to access to a new clinical study. Age, accumulated toxicities, and the anaplastic clonal evolution that is characteristic of very advanced stages of MM limit the efficacy of treatments in these final stages of the disease.

In a large study carried out by the Nordic Myeloma Study Group in patients treated in the 1990s [ 34 ], the duration of response to first-line treatment was identified as the prognostic factor with the greatest impact on RRMM. In this analysis, median overall survival (OS) in patients who relapsed after 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 24, and >24 months after ASCT was 3, 17, 28, and 37 months, respectively. Subsequent studies have confirmed that prolongation of the previous response or the length of the therapeutic pause before starting the next treatment favorably affects the prognosis of patients with RRMM after ASCT [ 35 ] or allogeneic transplant [ 36 ], non-transplanted patients treated with chemotherapy [ 37 ] or rescue-based therapies with new drugs [ 38 , 39 ]. More recent studies confirm the adverse prognosis associated with early relapse [ 40 ]. Therefore, the previous time to progression or the duration and depth of the previous response, a prognostic factor systematically ignored in RCTs, is a determining factor in the choice of rescue treatments, and also in the increasingly frequent incidence of very late relapses as a result of the greater efficacy of first-line treatments [ 7 , 8 , 41 ]. RRMM patients previously treated with regimens that achieve long PFS periods could benefit from regimens used in the first-line setting and from new therapeutic opportunities. On the other hand, the time elapsed from the successful use of a drug in an advanced RRMM episode may favor rechallenge with drugs used previously, although obviously with limited results.

When to treat

The established International Multiple Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria for treatment indication in patients with RRMM requires meeting the Progressive Disease or Clinical Relapse criteria of the IMWG [ 42 ]. These criteria, maintained since 1998 without major changes, were established at a time when retreatment with chemotherapy or a second autologous transplant were the only available options for RRMM patients [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 43 ]. In both cases, the chances of success were conditioned by the length of time before starting treatment, a subclinical waiting time that was considered beneficial for the patient's quality of life. At present, however, patients with RRMM can even be treated with several consecutive lines using drugs that show no cross-resistance with those used in prior lines. At the same time, follow-up techniques based on minimal residual disease (MRD), PET/CT or mass spectrometry have improved, allowing early and accurate prediction of therapeutic failure [ 44 – 46 ]. Importantly, the definition of failure should probably include not only the possibility of predicting progression or recurrence, but also insufficient tumor shrinkage marked by the stagnation of an insufficient response [ 47 ]. Although the formal exploration of this approach to RRMM is in its initial phases, data on the superiority of early treatment of RRMM compared to initiating therapy in clinical relapse have already been released, and the influence of tumor burden on treatment efficacy and tolerability in any of the evolutionary phases of MM is well known [ 48 , 49 ].

The arsenal of new drugs and therapies with no cross resistance with the therapeutic standards used in first line to date

PIs, IMiDs, MoAbs and corticosteroids constitute the cornerstone of treatment for patients with RRMM. Data from the main phase 3 RCT are summarized in Table 1 . Table 1 Summary of data from the main phase 3 studies with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies Study Arms N Doses and schedule Follow-up (months) Prior lines PFS (months) ORR (%) ≥CR (%) OS (months) >G3 AE (%) ASPIRE [ 19 ] KRd vs. Rd 792 K, 20/27mg/m 2 BIW; R, 25 mg PO, days 1 and 21; 28-days cycle/s. 67.1 2 (1-3) 26.3 vs. 17.6 HR 0,690 87.1 vs. 66.7 OR 3.472 31.8 vs. 9.3 48.3 vs. 40.4 HR 0.794 87 vs. 83.3 AH, 6.4 vs. 2.3 CF, 4.3 vs. 2.1 ENDEAVOR [ 11 ] Kd vs. Vd 929 K, 20/56 g/m 2 I IV, BIW, 28-days cycle; V, 1.3mg/m 2 SC/IV, BIW 21-days cycle/s. 12 2 (1-3) 18.7 vs. 9.4 HR 0.533 76.9 vs. 62.6 OR 2.032 13 vs. 6 47.6 vs. 40 HR 0.791 An, 14 vs. 10 AH, 9 vs. 3 NP, 2 vs. 8 IKEMA [ 50 ] IsaKd vs. Kd 302 Isa, 10mg/kg QW for 4w, then given Q2W; 28-days cycle/s. 20.7 2 (1-3) NR vs. 19.15 HR 0.531 86.6 vs. 82.9 P 0.19 39.7 vs. 27.6 NA 76.8 vs. 67.2 CANDOR [ 51 ] DKd vs. Kd 466 D, 8mg/kg IV, days 1-2 of cycle 1; 16 mg/kg QW, days 8, 15 and 22 first 2 cycles, then Q2W, cycles 3-6 and every Q4W thereafter; 28-days cycle/s. 17 2 (1-3) NR vs. 15·8 HR 0.63 84 vs. 75 OR 1.9 29 vs. 10 (MRD, 18 vs. 4) NA 82 vs. 74 TP, 24 vs. 16 AH, 18 vs. 13 Inf, 33 vs. 18 CF, 5 vs. 11 ARROW [ 16 ] K QW vs. BIW 478 K, 20/70mg/m 2 QW vs. 20/27mg/m 2 BIW; 28-days cycle. 12.6 / 12 2 (46% vs. 64%) 3 (59% vs. 67%) 11.2 vs. 7.6 HR 0.69 62.9 vs. 40.8 OR 2.68 7 vs. 2 NM 68 vs. 62 CF, 3 vs. 4 ARROW2 ( NCT03859427 ) KRd QW vs. BIW 460 K, 20/ 56mg/m 2 QW vs. 20/27mg/m 2 BIW; 28-days cycle/s. NM 1-3 NA a NM NM NM NM MM 003 [ 52 ] Pd vs. d 455 P, 4mg PO, days 1 and 21; 28-days cycle/s. 10 >2 (94.5% pts) 4 vs. 1.9 HR 0.48 31 vs. 10 1 vs. 0 12.7 vs. 8 HR 0.74 88.7 vs. 84.7 ICARIA-MM [ 10 ] IsaPd vs. Pd 307 Pd ± Isa IV 10mg/kg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in cycle 1; days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles; 28-days cycle/s. 11.6 ≥2 11.53 vs. 6.47 HR 0.596 60.4 vs. 35.3 5 vs. 1 b NR 87 vs. 71 NP, 60.5 vs. 31.3 APOLLO EMN14 [ 53 ] DPd vs. Pd 304 Pd ± D 16 mg/kg IV or 1,8 g SC QW (8 w), BIW (16 w), Q4W thereafter; 28-days cycle/s 16.9 >1 12.4 vs . 6.9 HR 0.63 69 vs . 46 25 vs. 4 NM 50 vs. 39 NP, 68 vs. 51 PN, 15 vs. 8 TOURMALINE-MM1 [ 15 ] IRd vs. Rd 722 I, 4mg PO, days 1, 8 and 15, each 28-days cycle. 15 2 (1-3) 20.6 vs. 14.7 HR 0.74 78.3 vs. 71.5 12 vs. 7 NR 74 vs. 69 NCT03143049 PCd vs. Pd 120 Pd ± Cy 400mg days 1, 8, 15 and 22 each 28-days cycle. NM >1 NM NM NM NM NM OPTIMISMM [ 31 ] PVd vs. Vd 559 P, 4mg days 1-14 (each 21-days) +/- V, SC 1.3mg/m 2 days 1, 4, 8, and 11 (cycles 1-8) and days 1 and 8 (>cycle 9); 21-days cycle/s. 15.9 >1 11.2 vs. 7.1 HR 0.61 82.2 vs. 50 OR 5.02 12.5 vs. 3.2 NR 57 vs. 42 CASTOR [ 54 ] DVd vs. Vd 498 D, 16mg/kg IV QW, days 1, 8 and 15 of cycles 1-3; Q3W on day 1 of cycles 4-8, and Q4W thereafter 40 2 (1-10) 16.7 vs. 7.1 HR 0.31 (1 prior line, 27.0 vs. 7.9 HR 0.22) 85 vs. 63 30 vs. 10 NR TP, 46 vs. 33 PN, 10 vs. 10 Inf, 29 vs. 19 Disc, 10 vs. 9 POLLUX [ 12 ] DRd vs. Rd 569 D, 16mg/kg IV QW days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of cycles 1-2, 8 w and days 1 and 15 of cycles 3 – 6, 16 w and Q4W thereafter; 28-days cycle/s. 44 1 (1-11) 44.5 vs. 17.5 HR 0.44 (1 prior line, NR vs. 19.6 HR 0.42) 93 vs. 72 57 vs. 23 (MRD, 30.4 vs. 5.3) NR NP, 54.1 vs. 39.9 PN, 12 vs. 8.5 NP(F), 6.0 vs. 2.8 ELOQUENT-2 [ 14 ] EloRd vs. Rd 646 Elo 10mg/kg IV, days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of cycles 1-2 and then on days 1 and 15 >cycle 3; 28-days cycle/s. 48 2 (1-4) 19.4 vs. 14.9 HR 0.71 (At 4 y, 21 vs. 14; H-risk, 15 vs. 7) 79 vs. 66 11 vs. 11 48 vs. 40 Inf, 33 vs. 26 LP, 79 vs. 49 NP, 36 vs. 45 ELOQUENT-3 [ 55 ] EloPd vs Pd 117 Elo 10mg/kg days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycles 1-2 and 20mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle thereafter; 28-days cycle/s. 9 3 (2-8) 10.3 vs. 4.7 HR 0.54 53 vs. 26 8 vs. 2 HR 0.62 NP, 13 vs. 27 Inf, 13 vs. 22 KEYNOTE-183 [ 56 ] PembroPd vs. Pd 249 Pembro IV 200mg, Q3W; 28-days cycle/s. 8 c 4 (2-4) 5.6 vs. 8.4 34 vs. 40 NM At 6 m, 82 vs. 90 NP, 34 vs. 22 An, 17 vs. 13 PN, 14 vs. 13 AEDTH, 11 vs. 2 a Primary end point ; b Underestimation due to interference with protein studies; c Premature study termination AE/AEDTH adverse events/adverse events leading to death; AH arterial hypertension; An anemia: BIW twice a week; CF cardiac failure; CR complete response; Cy cyclophosphamide; D daratumumab; d dexamethasone; Disc discontinuation; DKd daratumumab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone; DPd daratumumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; DRd daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone; DVd daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone; Elo elotuzumab ; EloPd elotuzumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; EloRd elotuzumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone; G3 grade 3; HR hazard ratio; H-risk high risk; I ixazomib; Inf infection; IRd ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone; Isa isatuximab; IsaKd isatuximab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone ; IsaPd isatuximab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone ; IV intravenous; K carfilzomib; Kd carfilzomib/dexamethasone; KRd carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone; LP lymphocytopenia; MRD minimal residual disease; NM not mature; NP neutropenia; NP(F) febrile neutropenia; NR not reached; OR odds ratio; ORR overall response rate; OS overall survival; m months; P pomalidomide; PCd pomalidomide/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone; Pd pomalidomide/dexamethasone ; Pembro pembrolizumab; PembroPd pembrolizumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; PFS progression-free survival; PN pneumonia; PO per orally; Pts patients; PVd pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone; QW once weekly; Q2W once every two weeks; Q3W once every three weeks; Q4W once every four weeks; Rd lenalidomide/dexamethasone ; TP thrombocytopenia; Vd bortezomib/dexamethasone; w week; y years

Proteasome inhibitors and new combinations

Carfilzomib (K) was approved in 2013 and, in combination with dexamethasone (Kd), has shown benefit compared to bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd) [ 11 , 57 ]. When lenalidomide was added to Kd (KRd), overall response rate (ORR), PFS and OS improved compared to Rd, although the incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was similar [ 19 , 58 , 59 ]. Other combinations, such as the addition of pomalidomide to Kd (KPd), have been evaluated in 3 phase 1/2 RCTs (192 heavily treated patients who had a mean of 3.3 prior lines of therapy), reporting an ORR of 77.1% and a median PFS of 15.3 months [ 60 – 63 ]. Only one study reached an OS of 12 months [ 64 ]. So far, no phase 3 RCTs for this combination have been planned. Combinations of targeted therapy with CD38 MoAb, such as the combination of Kd plus daratumumab and Kd plus isatuximab, are a very interesting alternative IMiD-free approach, and have shown clinical benefits in terms of PFS with a favorable benefit-risk profile compared to Kd [ 50 , 51 ].

The appropriate dosing schedule of K-containing combinations has also been explored in some studies. For example, administration of K once-weekly showed a favorable benefit-risk profile compared to the twice weekly schedule [ 16 ]. Other data also support the once-weekly dosing schedule, such as those obtained from triplet regimen with daratumumab in a phase 1 RCT (ORR = 84% and PFS not achieved with a short follow up of 4.5 months) [ 65 ] and with Rd [once-weekly (56 mg/m 2 ) versus twice-weekly (27 mg/m 2 )], currently being tested in the ARROW2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03859427 ).

Regarding other PIs, ixazomib added to Rd (Ixazomib-Rd) showed superior PFS compared to Rd [ 15 , 66 ]. Furthermore, in a phase 2/3 trial, good tolerability and promising clinical activity has been observed when comparing this regimen with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03170882 ) [ 3 ].

Pomalidomide and new combinations

Pomalidomide has shown favorable results in combination with other agents in clinical studies in which refractoriness and/or at least previous treatment with lenalidomide were the inclusion criteria. With dexamethasone (Pd), an improvement in OS was reported compared to dexamethasone alone [ 52 ], and the combination of pomalidomide with cyclophosphamide (PCd) has recently demonstrated better efficacy in phase 2 RCTs (median PFS 9.5 months) [ 64 ]. In combination with isatuximab, Pd showed clinical benefits compared to Pd alone in a phase 3 trial, with a higher incidence of some grade 3-4 AEs, but fewer AE-associated discontinuations [ 10 , 67 ]. The combination with daratumumab (DPd) showed efficacy in a phase 1b study in 103 heavily treated patients (ORR of 60%, median PFS of 8.8 months and median OS of 17.5 months) [ 68 ] and the results of the phase 3 RCT that compared daratumumab plus Pd with Pd alone have been published recently [ 53 ]. The triplet PVd (pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone) was effective when compared to Vd in a population of patients of whom 100% had been exposed to lenalidomide and 71% were refractory to the treatment [ 31 ]. Finally, 2 ongoing phase 3 RCTs have been designed to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of Pd with nivolumab with or without elotuzumab (CheckMate-602; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02726581 ) or with belantamab mafodotin (DREAMM8; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623 ).

Monoclonal antibodies and combinations

CD38 has so far been the most widely explored target in RRMM. Isatuximab (Isa) and daratumumab (D) are mAb’s against CD38 [ 69 ]. Isatuximab has a similar multimodal mechanism of action to daratumumab and elotuzumab, but binds a specific epitope on CD38; additionally, it is able to induce direct apoptosis without cross-linking and shows deeper inhibition of CD38 ectoenzymatic activity [ 70 ]. The phase 3 ICARIA-MM study observed that isatuximab combined with Pd in pomalidomide-naïve RRMM patients provided deeper and faster responses than Pd alone (ORR of 60.4% vs. 35.3%) with improved survival outcomes (median PFS 11.5 months), even for lenalidomide refractory patients [ 10 ]. Based on these results the European Commission approved the use of isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received ≥2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor and have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy [ 71 ]. Additionally, the combination of isatuximab with Kd in the IKEMA trial has recently showed promising results, with ORR 86.6%, including 29.6% of MRD-negative (10 -5 ) patients, and median PFS not reached [hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, p = 0.007] after 20.7 months of follow-up [ 50 ]. In fact, isatuximab plus Kd has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency for patients with RRMM and at least 1 prior therapy.

The combination of daratumumab with Vd [ 17 , 72 ] or with Rd [ 12 , 73 , 74 ] have clearly demonstrated prolonged PFS, and DRd has achieved higher efficacy compared to Vd or Rd doublets in a network meta-analysis (with a reduction in the risk of death or progression of 81% and 63%, respectively) [ 75 ]. The combination of D with Kd is an effective IMiD-free option [ 51 ], and combined DPd treatment is currently being tested in the APOLLO EMN14 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03180736 ) [ 53 , 63 ]. The incidence of grade >2 infusion-related reactions (IRRs) was 2%-3% and occurred almost exclusively after the first intravenous infusion. Subcutaneous administration has now received approval based on the results of a phase 3 RCT that showed a similar ORR than that obtained intravenously, but with fewer IRRs [ 76 ]. In combination with IMiDs, MOR-202, a novel anti-CD38 MoAb, has demonstrated an ORR ranging from 50%-65 % with lower IRR (7%) than daratumumab and isatuximab [ 77 ]. At present, a phase 3 trial comparing MOR-202 plus Rd versus Rd is ongoing.

Elotuzumab is a first-in-class IgG1-kappa that targets SLAMF7, and has already been approved in combination with Rd by the FDA [ 14 , 55 ] and with Pd by the EMA [ 78 ]. The results of its combination with PIs are disappointing, although some RCTs testing elotuzumab plus KPd or elotuzumab plus PVd are currently ongoing. Finally, pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, showed limited efficacy and higher mortality in the KEYNOTE-183 trial, leading to study termination [ 56 ].

New drugs with other mechanisms of action

A summary of new drugs for RRMM management is included in Table 2 . Melflufen, a melphalan prodrug with alkylating properties, induces rapid internalization of MM cells, and in combination with dexamethasone has recently shown promising results in phase 1/2 RCTs (O-12-M1 trial) [ 79 ]. A phase 3 study comparing its efficacy with Pd is currently ongoing. Increased ORR (≥80%) has been reported in combination with Vd or daratumumab (ANCHOR trial; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03481556 ) [ 81 ]. Table 2 Main investigational drugs in RRMM Trial/NTC Id Arms / Phase N New agent Number of prior lines PFS (months) ORR (%) CBR (%) Median duration (months) TTNT (months) OS (months) All /(>G3) AEs (%) O-12-M1 [ 79 ] Md Phase 1-2 81 Melflufen IV, 15, 25, 40 or 55mg (40mg: maximum tolerated dose) 4 (3-5) 5.7 31 49 8.4 NM 20.7 TP, 42 NP, 26 Infection, 8 NCT02899052 Venetoclax + Kd Phase 2 42 Venetoclax PO, 400 or 800mg 2 (1-3) 78 (100 % in t(11;14) NP, 14 AH, 12 NCT03314181 Venetoclax + Dd Phase 1-2 24 Venetoclax, PO, various doses 3 (1-8) 92 NP, 13 AH, 8 BOSTON [ 80 ] Vd ± selinexor Phase 3 404 Selinexor PO, 100mg oral, QW 1-3 13.93 vs. 9.46 HR 0.70 76 vs . 62 20.3 vs . 12.9 16.1 vs . 10.8 NR vs . 25 TP, 39 vs . 17 Fatigue, 13 vs . 1 Nausea, 8 vs . 0 PNP (≥ G2), 21 vs . 34 PANORAMA 1 [ 18 ] Vd ± panobinostat Phase 3 768 Panobinostat PO, 20mg 1-3 11.99 vs. 8.08 HR 0.63 61 vs . 54 13.1 vs . 10.9 40.3 vs . 35.8 Diarrhea, 25 vs. 8 Fatigue, 24 vs. 13 PN, 13 vs . 11 PNP, 18 vs . 15 NCT02384083 Filanesib + Pd, Phase 2 33 Filanesib IV, various doses 3 (2-6) 7 65 NM NM NM NP, 60 AEs adverse events; AH arterial hypertension; CBR clinical benefit rate ; Dd daratumumab/dexamethasone ; G2/G3 grade 2/grade 3; HR hazard ratio; IV intravenous; Kd carfilzomib/dexamethasone; Md melflufen/dexamethasone; NM not mature; NP neutropenia; NR not reached ; ORR overall response rate; OS overall survival; PFS progression-free survival ; PN pneumonia; PNP peripheral neuropathy; Pd pomalidomide/dexamethasone; PO per orally ; QW once weekly ; TP thrombocytopenia; TTNT time to next treatment; Vd bortezomib/dexamethasone

Venetoclax, a selective bcl2-inhibitor, has so far shown the best efficacy results in patients harboring t(11;14) [ 82 ]. Vd was tested in 291 patients in combination with venetoclax or placebo, showing improved PFS in the venetoclax arm: updated PFS results are 23.2 vs . 11.4 months, [HR 0.60 (0.43, 0.82)] and not reached (NR) vs . 9.3 months in patients with t(11;14) [HR 0.09 (0.02, 0.41)], but with a higher death rate [33.5 months vs. NR; HR 1.46 (0.91, 2.34)] mainly due to infection [ 83 ]. The study was terminated prematurely for this reason. A subgroup analysis showed a tendency toward better PFS and OS with venetoclax-Vd in t(11;14) and high BCL2 expression [ 83 ], a result that motivated the performance of the CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03539744 ) that is currently testing this combination in this setting.

Selinexor, the first-in-class XPO1-inhibitor, has been approved in penta-refractory patients, showing improved efficacy in heavily treated patients (STORM study; ORR 26 %, PFS 3.7 months and OS 8.6 months) [ 65 ]. Furthermore, increased efficacy was reported when Vd was added (STOMP trial), [ 84 ] and recently the results of the phase 3 BOSTON trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03110562 ) has confirmed this benefit in terms of PFS compared to Vd (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.93; p=0·0075) [ 80 ]. Other regimens such as selinexor-Pd, selinexor-Kd or selinexor-daratumumab are being tested in phase 2 RCTs.

Panobinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, received approval in 2015, and plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone showed benefit in PFS but no improvement in OS compared to Vd [ 85 ]. Moreover, toxicity was important, and dose reduction was needed in nearly 50% of patients.

Ibrutinib, a first-in-class covalent inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), does not have the same activity as in lymphoproliferative neoplasms, while the potent kinesin spindle protein (KSP) inhibitor, filanesib, has shown moderate efficacy when tested with PIs and IMiDs. Finally, JAK inhibitors (ruxolitinib) and cyclin dependent kinases (CDK) inhibitors (dinaciclib) are also being investigated in RRMM patients [ 86 ].

Cereblon E3 ligase modulators (CELMoDs) are a new class of agents that stimulate the immune system that have shown enhanced anti-MM activity in preclinical models, and are able to overcome lenalidomide/pomalidomide-resistance [ 87 , 88 ]. In a phase 1b/2a trial with 66 highly pre-treated RRMM, iberdomide plus dexamethasone achieved ORR of 32.2% (35.3% for IMiD-refractory individuals), with a toxicity profile similar to that of IMiD (≥grade 3 AEs were mainly hematologic or infections) [ 89 ]. These results improved with the addition of bortezomib or daratumumab, achieving an ORR of 60.8% and 42.3%, respectively and maintaining a good safety profile [ 90 ]. The combination of CC-92480 plus dexamethasone was tested in a phase 1 trial in RRMM patients with high refractoriness rates [ 91 ], in which ORR was 54.5% at 1 mg QD 21/28 days, with 63% of responders being dual-IMiD refractory.

Immunotherapy: Immunoconjugates, CAR-T cells and bispecific antibodies

Outcomes remain poor for triple-class–refractory patients (median OS ≤ 7-9 months), and there is no standard of care [ 92 ]. This has led to the need to develop new drugs with novel mechanisms of action to fill this gap.

B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is an optimal target due to its restriction to B-cell lineage and overexpression in MM cells [ 93 ]. The antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin was the first anti-BCMA therapy approved. In a phase 2 trial in 97 patients, belantamab mafodotin at 2.5 mg/kg achieved an ORR of 32% (58% of responders showed ≥ very good partial response) with a median duration of response of 11 months [ 94 ]. Median PFS and OS were 2.8 months and 13 months, respectively, for a highly pre-treated population with a median of 7 prior lines of treatment and a marked refractoriness profile. The most common AE was keratopathy (70%), but this rarely led to discontinuation (1%). The most common grade ≥3 AEs were keratopathy (27%), anemia (20%) and thrombocytopenia (20%), with low incidence of grade 3 respiratory infections. IRRs were mostly grade 1-2 (no grade 4-5 and just one discontinuation). Studies evaluating synergies of belantamab mafodotin are ongoing [ 95 , 96 ].

BCMA is now the most widely explored target for CAR-T cell therapies in MM, with more than 15 constructs being evaluated for RRMM patients (Table 3 ). Phase 2 trials with anti-BCMA CAR-T therapy [ 97 , 109 , 111 , 112 ] confirm the promising results reported in earlier studies, with ORR ranging from 40% to 100% [ 98 – 108 , 110 , 113 – 116 ]. Additionally, some phase 1 studies have evaluated multi-antigen CAR-T strategies (targeting simultaneously BCMA and CD19 or CD38) [ 117 , 118 ] as well as alternative targets (CD138, κLC, APRIL, GPRC5D, NY-ESO-1) with varying results [ 119 – 126 ]. Table 3 Summary of main trials evaluating anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy Trials ( N ) Construct Baseline features CAR-T cell dose Lymphodepletion RR PFS (median) CRS all/≥G3 (%) ICANS all/≥G3 (%) Phase 1/2 KarMMa/Ide-cel ( N = 128) [ 97 ] Lentivirus Murine scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ 6 y since diagnosis 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 35% Triple/Penta-refractory: 84/26% 150-450 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 73%; ≥CR 33% MRD- at 10 -5 79% a 8.8 m 84/5 18/3 EVOLVE/Orva-cel ( N = 62) [ 98 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ, EGFRt 7 y since diagnosis 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 41% Triple/Penta-refractory: 94/48% 300-600 x 10 6 cells Cy/Flu ORR 92%; ≥CR 36% MRD- at 10 -5 84% NR 89/3 13/3 CARTITUDE-1/Cilta-cel ( N = 97) [ 99 ] Lentivirus Llama VHH1-24-1BB/CD3ζ 5.9 y since diagnosis 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 23.7% Triple/Penta-refractory: 87.6/42.3% EMD: 13.4% 0.5-1.0 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 96.9%; ≥CR 67% MRD- at 10 -5 54.6% At 12-m, 76.6 94.8/5 16.5/2.1 PRIME/P-BCMA-101 ( N = 53) [ 100 ] PiggyBac Human Centyrin 4-1BB/CD3ζ 4.9 y since diagnosis 8 prior lines Triple-refractory: 60% 51-1178 x 10 6 cells Q2W cycles or combined with Rix or Lena Cy/Flu ORR 56.7% (out of 30 evaluable pts) NR 17/0 3.8/3.8 LUMMICAR-2/CT053 ( N = 20 ) [ 101 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ 6 y since diagnosis 5 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 55% Triple/Penta-refractory: 85/50% EMD: 25% 1.5-3 x 10 8 cells Cy/Flu ORR 94%; ≥CR 27.8% (out of 18 pts with ≥8 w of follow-up) NR 78.9/0 15.8/5.3 Phase 1 NCI [ 102 ] ( N = 16) [ 102 ] γ-retrovirus Murine scFv CD28/CD3ζ 9.5 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 40% 9 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 81%; ≥CR 12.5% MRD- at 10 -5 75% EFS, 31 w 94/37.5 NR/19 CAR-T BCMA/UPenn ( N = 25 ) [ 103 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ 4.6 y since diagnosis 7 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 96% Penta-refractory: 44% C1: 1-5 x 10 8 cells C2: 1-5 x 10 7 cells C3: 1-5 x 10 8 cells C1: No C2: Cy C3: Cy C1: ORR 44%; ≥CR 9% C2: ORR 20%; ≥CR 0% C3: ORR 64%; ≥CR11% C1: 65 d C2: 57 d C3: 125 d C1: 89/33 C2: 60/0 C3: 100/45 C1: 33/22 C2: 20/0 C3: 36/9 CRB-402/bb21217 ( N = 69 ) [ 104 ] Lentivirus Murine scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ bb007 PI3K inh 5.7 y since diagnosis 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 33% Triple-refractory: 64% C1: 150 x 10 6 cells C2: 300 x 10 6 cells C3: 450 x 10 6 cells Exp: 450 x 10 6 cells Cy/Flu C1: ORR 83%; ≥CR 42% C2: ORR 43%; ≥CR 14% C3: ORR 57%; ≥CR 29% Exp: ORR 84%; ≥CR 32% NR 70/4 16/4 MSKCC/MCARH171 ( N = 11 ) [ 98 ] γ-retrovirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ, EGFRt 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 82% 72-818 x 10 6 cells Cy or Cy/Flu ORR 64% (≥CR 0%) NR 60/20 10/0 FHCRC/FCARH143 ( N = 7 ) [ 105 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ, EGFRt 8 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 100% 50-800 x 10 6 cells Cy/Flu ORR 100% (≥CR 36%) NR 91/0 9/0 HRAIN Biotechnology ( N = 20 ) [ 106 ] γ-retrovirus Murine scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ, EGFRt 5.5 prior lines 9 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 79% (≥CR 45%) 15 m 45/5 NR/7 FHVH-BCMA ( N = 12 ) [ 107 ] γ-retrovirus FHVH33 4-1BB/CD3ζ, EGFRt 6 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 58% 0.75-3 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 83% (≥CR 17%) NR 91.7/8.3 25/8.3 CT103A ( N = 14 ) [ 108 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ 4 prior lines 1-6 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 100% (≥CR 71%) NR 94.4/28 0/0 C-CAR088 ( N = 23 ) [ 109 ] Lentivirus Human scFv 4-1BB/CD3ζ 4 prior lines 1-6 x 10 6 cells/kg Cy/Flu ORR 95.7% (≥CR 43.5%) At 6-m: 65.1% 91.3/4.3 4.3/0 UNIVERSAL/ ALLO-715 ( N = 31 ) [ 110 ] Lentivirus Human scFv Rix-RD 4-1BB/CD3ζ Allogeneic TC with disrupted TCRα and CD52 5.4 y since diagnosis 5 prior lines HR cytogenetics: 48% 40-480 x 10 6 cells ALLO-647/ Cy +/- Flu ORR 62% (≥VGPR 38%) at 320 x10 6 cells ( n =13) NR 45/0 0/0 a MRD is referred to patients with ≥CR. C cohort; CR complete response; CRS cytokine-release syndrome; Cy cyclophosphamide; d days; EFS event-free survival; EMD extramedullary disease; Exp expansion; FHVH fully human heavy-chain variable domain; Flu fludarabine; G grade; HR high-risk; ICANS immune-effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; Lena lenalidomide; m months; MRD minimal residual disease; NR not reported; ORR overall response rate; PFS progression-free survival; Rix rituximab; Rix-RD rituximab recognition domain; RR response rate; scFv single chain variable fragment, TC T-cells; TCR T cell receptor; VGPR very good partial response; VHH variable domain of heavy chain; w weeks; y year

Last but not least, bispecific antibodies in RRMM can be incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal of drugs against RRMM. Recently, results of bispecific CD3/BCMA antibodies as teclistamab and elranatamab, and bispecific CD3/BFCR4350A (talquetamab) and CD3/FcRH5 (cevostamab) antibodies have shown a manageable safety profile and encouraging results [ 21 , 127 – 129 ].

Controversies surrounding the clinical management of patients with RRMM

The clinical value of earlier treatments for RRMM: conventional and high-dose chemotherapy with autologous transplantation, lenalidomide and bortezomib

Conventional chemotherapy (CC) remains a cornerstone in the current therapeutic approach, particularly with new agents. However, CC is gradually being side-lined due to the better risk/benefit ratio of the new combinations [ 130 ]. Bridging therapy (when cytoreduction is urgently needed before more definitive therapy is planned) is one of the most common indications for CC, especially in certain circumstances, such as aggressive extramedullary disease or secondary plasma cell leukemia [ 131 ].

The role of high-dose chemotherapy and salvage ASCT (sASCT) is currently questioned in today’s RRMM treatment scenario, and must be placed in the context of the re-induction used [ 132 ]. The feasibility and efficacy of sASCT is mainly derived from retrospective studies [ 133 – 146 ] (Table 4 ). So far, two phase 3 trials have demonstrated the benefit of sASCT: the Myeloma X [ 5 , 148 ] and the ReLApsE studies [ 147 ], with median PFS of 19 and 20.7 months, respectively. Table 4 Recent studies in salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (sASCT ) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Study Type of study N ORR (%) mPFS (months) mOS (months) Dhakal B et al. 2020 [ 135 ] Retrospective (no tandem) 975 - 12 NR 1-y OS 94% Goldschmidt H et al. 2020 [ 147 ] Phase 3 (ReLApsE) 139 (sASCT) vs. 138 (Rd c.) 82/71 20.7/18.8 (ITT) NR/62.7 (ITT) Manjappa S et al. 2018 [ 140 ] Retrospective (no tandem) 63 (30m, 33 no m) 92 13.8/20.3 - Gössi U et al. 2018 [ 138 ] Retrospective 86 (sASCT vs. CTna) 70 30.2/13 129.6/33.5 Veltri LW et al. 2017 [ 145 ] Retrospective 233 (105 DR) 81 17.6 48 Nieto Y et al. 2017 [ 134 ] Phase 2 74/184 (GBMF vs. MF) -/70 15.1/9.3 37.5/23 Zannetti BA et al. 2017 [ 146 ] Retrospective 66 94 17 43 Singh Abbi KK et al. 2015 [ 144 ] Retrospective 75 82 10.1 22.7 Cook G et al. 2016 [ 5 ] Phase 3 (Myeloma X) 89/85 (sASCT vs. CFx12w) 83/75 19/11 67/52 Sellner L et al. 2013 [ 142 ] Retrospective 200 80.4 15.2 42.3 Michaelis LC et al. 2013 [ 141 ] Retrospective (no tandem) 187 68 11.2 30 Gonsalves WI et al. 2013 [ 137 ] Retrospective 98 86 10.3 33 Auner HW et al. 2013 [ 133 ] Retrospective 83 - 15.5 31.5 Lemieux E et al. 2013 [ 139 ] Retrospective 81 93 18 48 Shah N et al. 2012 [ 143 ] Retrospective 44 90 12.3 31.7 Gertz MA et al. 2000 [ 136 ] Retrospective 64 (14 PR, 20 RR, 30 Re) 34 (CR) 11.4 19.6 CTna conventional therapy including novel agents; DR double refractory (IPs & IMiDs); GBMF gemcitabine busulfan and melphalan; ITT intention-to-treat- population; M previous maintenance; MF melphalan; mOS median overall survival; mPFS median progression-free survival; NR not reached; PR primary refractory; Rd lenalidomide and dexamethasone, continuous; Re relapse off therapy; RR refractory relapse; sASCT salvage autologous stem cell transplantation; w weeks

Selecting the best treatment for MM patients previously treated with lenalidomide in their first recurrence/progression

Most patients will have received lenalidomide when relapse occurs as a result of front-line therapy. In this context, at least 3 scenarios are possible: patients treated with upfront ASCT and lenalidomide as maintenance therapy [ 149 ]; patients not eligible for ASCT and treated with lenalidomide-containing regimens [ 41 , 150 – 152 ] (lenalidomide administered until progression); and a third scenario with a small number of patients treated in first-line with lenalidomide and relapsing after a period without treatment. According to IMWG criteria, patients are defined as refractory to lenalidomide when presenting a non-responsive disease while on a lenalidomide-containing therapy or have progressed within 60 days of the last date of lenalidomide uptake [ 153 ]. However, from a clinical point of view there is no consensus on the management of patients with refractoriness to lenalidomide. Most experts recommend lenalidomide-free therapy for clinical progressions, regardless of the duration of response or the dose of lenalidomide [ 154 ]. In the case of a non-aggressive relapse in patients on low-dose lenalidomide, it is unclear whether response can be achieved with full-dose lenalidomide added to dexamethasone, or even by adding a third drug [ 154 ]. This is compounded by the fact that this population has been excluded from phase 3 RCTs evaluating lenalidomide-combinations, so the use of a lenalidomide-free triplet is also a better option in these patients. There is also evidence that a prolonged response to lenalidomide is associated with a better response to subsequent treatments after resistance to lenalidomide [ 39 ].

The lenalidomide-free options available so far were Kd and daratumumab plus VD (DVd) [ 11 , 72 ]; however, these were less effective in patients previously treated with lenalidomide, and their efficacy following first relapse remains unknown due to the small number of patients included in clinical studies [ 11 , 72 , 155 ]. More effective carfilzomib- and pomalidomide- containing regimens are being incorporated in this setting. These have been assessed in studies in which a more representative population of patients already exposed to lenalidomide were included, especially in regimens containing pomalidomide, in which previous exposure to lenalidomide and even refractoriness was mandatory for recruitment (Table 5 ). Therapy with anti-CD38 plus Kd or Pd should be considered [ 159 ]. Daratumumab plus Kd (DKd) [ 51 , 160 ], isatuximab plus Kd (Isa-Kd) [ 50 ], Isa-Pd [ 10 ] and DPd [ 53 ] have recently shown efficacy in exposed and refractory patients to lenalidomide in phase 3 RCTs. On first relapse after lenalidomide, there are only available data with DPd in a phase 2 study [ 156 ] and with anti-CD38-free therapy; in this context, pomalidomide plus PI (KPd) [ 157 ] or Vd (PVd) [ 31 , 158 ] have shown efficacy. In conclusion, based on the current evidence, pomalidomide could be the key salvage combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide, and adding antiCD38 or carfilzomib will probably improve efficacy. Table 5 Summary of patients enrolled in phase 2/3 clinical trials according to previous exposure to bortezomib or lenalidomide or refractoriness to lenalidomide Study Regimen Phase V-ex (%) V-ref (%) R-ex (%) R-ref (%) R-ref in 1L n (%) ORR/CR (%) ORR/CR R-ref (%) PFS (months) PFS R-ex (months) PFS R- ref (months) PFS R-ref in 1L (months) ENDEAVOR [ 11 ] Kd 3 54 4 38 25 32 a 77/13 --- 18.7 12.9 8.6 15.6 a CASTOR [ 72 ] DVd 3 65 0 36 24 ---- 85/30 --- 16.7 9.5 7.8 vs. 4.9 HR 0.44 ---- OPTIMISMM [ 31 ] PVd 3 72 9 100 71 129 (23) b 82.2/15.7 ---- 11.2 11.2 9.5 17.8 b CANDOR [ 51 ] DKd 3 92 29 42 33 ---- 84/31.8 ---- NR vs. 15.8 HR 0.63 NR vs. 12.1 HR 0.52 NR vs. 11.1 HR 0.45 ---- MM-014 [ 156 ] DPd 2 78 -- 100 75 70 (62.5) ---- ---- NR NR 21.8 NR APOLLO EMN14 [ 53 ] c DPd 3 100 47 100 79 16 (11) 69/25 12.4 vs. 6.9 HR 0.63 NR 9.9 vs. 6.5 HR 0.66 --- IKEMA [ 50 ] IsaKd 3 93 31 ---- 32 ---- 86.6/39.7 ---- NR HR 0.53 ---- NR HR 0.6 ---- EMN011 [ 157 ] d KPd 2 100 100 100 100 100 87/65 87/65 18 18 18 18 ICARIA-MM [ 10 ] IsaPd 3 100 77 100 94 ---- 60.4 ---- 11.53 HR 0.59 ---- HR 0.5 ---- a Data from ENDEAVOR and Champion-1 [ 155 ]; b Dimopoulos et al. (2018) [ 158 ]; c Only 11% after 1L in APOLLO; d Prior first line treatment in EMN02/H095 trial; CR complete response; DKd daratumumab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone ; DPd daratumumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone ; DVd daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone ; ex exposed; HR hazard ratio; IsaPd isatuximab /pomalidomide/dexamethasone; Kd carfilzomib/dexamethasone; KPd carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; 1L , first line; NR not reached; ORR overall response rate; PFS progression-free survival; R lenalidomide; ref refractory; V bortezomib; y years

Finally, in the third scenario (patients who relapse after a long lenalidomide-free period), the treatment with lenalidomide triplets [DRd, KRd, VRd, Isa-Rd or elotuzumab-Rd] could be an option. Although no head-to-head comparison studies are available, DRd is probably the best treatment option in terms of PFS [ 3 ]; however, as mentioned above, the number of patients already exposed to lenalidomide included in these RCTs was small, so lenalidomide triplets were optimal when the only alternative was DVd or Kd. Nevertheless, in the context of the next available alternative, even in the third scenario, a lenalidomide-free combination could be a better choice.

First-line of rescue vs. more advanced phases and double refractory patients in the main phase 3 trials for RRMM patients

A gradual decrease has been observed in the number of patients with improved clinical outcomes after each subsequent line of therapy, and the likelihood of obtaining a deep response is progressively slimmer. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the results of the aforementioned main phase 3 trials in specific subpopulations according to prior lines of therapy will show what to expect from each drug-combination and how to maximize their performance. Overall, as expected, most treatments performed better at first relapse. Since slightly different inclusion criteria are used in these studies, direct comparisons are not always possible (Table 6 ). Furthermore, since subanalysis based on the number of prior lines were not performed in many studies, no information on the major prognostic factors that characterize each cohort is available. A cursory analysis would lead to a hypothetically longer PFS in patients with 2-3 prior lines of treatment that were rescued with Rd compared to those treated with Pd. Nevertheless, the latter was considered in early relapse after treatment with lenalidomide and bortezomib. Another important aspect is the difference in dosing schedules for the same control arms across different clinical trials. Thus, treatment with Vd was limited to 8 cycles in CASTOR [ 17 , 54 ] and 12 cycles in PANORAMA-1 [ 18 ] and maintained until progression or intolerance in ENDEAVOR [ 11 , 161 , 162 ] and OPTIMISMM, [ 31 ] which limits comparisons based on HR. Similarly, Vd-based therapies provide shorter PFS than Rd-based regimens after first and second/third relapses, even though the latter was maintained as part of triplet therapy indefinitely [ 55 , 58 , 66 , 72 ]. Treatment was discontinued at some point in both the CASTOR and PANORAMA-1 trials [ 17 , 18 , 54 ]. In contrast, PVd was maintained in the OPTIMISMM trial, with PFS outcomes at first relapse in the range of Rd-based therapies [ 31 ]. New triplets including MoAbs have not achieved median PFS, but considering their long follow-up (≥17 months), outcomes are expected to be promising [ 50 , 51 , 156 ]. Table 6 Progression-free survival outcomes in the main advanced-phase clinical trials for RRMM patients according to number of prior lines of therapy Regimen – Trial Median PFS, months Key Inclusion Criteria 1 prior line 2-3 prior lines >3 prior lines Vd Vd – CASTOR [ 54 , 72 ] 7.9 ( n = 113) 6.3 ( n =106) 5.4 ( n = 28) -PR to ≥1 prior line -No refractoriness to PI -No prior anti-CD38 Vd - PANORAMA-1 [ 18 , 85 ] 8.5 ( n = 174) 7.6 ( n =207) - -No refractoriness to PI -No prior HDAC inhibitor Vd – OPTIMISMM [ 31 ] 11.63 ( n = 115) 7.10 * ( n = 163) - -No refractoriness to V at 1.3 mg/m2 BIW -Prior R, no prior P Vd – ENDEAVOR [ 161 , 162 ] 10.1 ( n = 232) 8.4 ( n = 233) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -Prior PI allowed if ≥PR and ≥6 m since last dose Rd Rd – ASPIRE [ 58 ] 17.6 ( n = 157) 16.7 ( n = 239) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -No refractoriness to V, no prior K -No prior PD during 3 first m of Rd or any PD if Rd was the last therapy Rd – POLLUX [ 73 , 74 ] 19.6 ( n = 146) 15.7 ( n = 118) 17.1 ( n = 19) -PR to ≥1 prior line - No prior anti-CD38 -No refractoriness to R Rd - TOURMALINE-1 [ 66 ] 16.6 ( n = 213) 12.9 ( n = 149) - -No refractoriness to R or PI (refractoriness to thali is allowed) Rd - ELOQUENT-2 [ 55 ] a 12.1 ( n = 97) 13.1 ( n = 65) - -Prior R is allowed if no refractoriness, ≥PR, no more than 9 prior cycles and at least 9 m before progression Rd – ELOQUENT-2 [ 55 ] b 19.4 ( n = 62) 14.9 ( n = 101) - -Prior R is allowed if no refractoriness, ≥PR, no more than 9 prior cycles and at least 9 m before progression Pd Pd – MM-010 [ 13 ] - 3.9 ( n = NR) 4.6 ( n = NR) -≥2 prior lines including V and R -At least 4 cycles of alkylator or PD after at least 2 cycles or ASCT -PD within 6 m of discontinuation after PR with V and R -No prior P Pd – ICARIA-MM [ 10 , 163 ] - 7.8 ( n = 101) 4.3 ( n = 52) -At least prior ≥MR -At least 2 prior lines including 2 cycles of a PI and R and PD within 6 m of discontinuation after PR -No prior P, no refractoriness to anti-CD38 Pd – APOLLO EMN14 [ 53 ] 12.6 ( n = 18) 6.5 ( n = 113) 6.6 ( n = 22) -At least 1 prior line including lena and a PI -PR to ≥1 prior line -No prior P, no prior anti-CD38 Pd – ELOQUENT-3 [ 78 ] - 4.8 ( n = 36) 4.3 ( n = 21) -At least 2 prior lines including 2 cycles of a PI and R and PD within 6 m of discontinuation after PR -Refractory to PI and R -No prior P Kd Kd – ENDEAVOR [ 161 , 162 ] 22.2 ( n = 232) 14.9 ( n = 232) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -Prior PI allowed if ≥PR and ≥6 m since last dose Kd – CANDOR [ 51 , 164 ] 21.3 ( n = 67) 12.5 ( n =87) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -Prior K and/or anti-CD38 allowed if ≥PR, no refractoriness and >6 m since last dose Kd – IKEMA [ 50 ] NA ( n = 55) 16.2 ( n = 68) - -No prior K -No refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 Vd based DVd – CASTOR [ 54 , 72 ] 27 ( n = 122) 9.8 ( n = 107) 8.1 ( n = 22) -PR to ≥1 prior line -No refractoriness to PI -No prior anti-CD38 PanoVd – PANORAMA-1 [ 18 , 85 ] 12.3 ( n = 178) 12 ( n = 209) - -No refractoriness to PI -No prior HDAC inhibitor PVd – OPTIMISMM [ 31 ] 20.73 ( n = 111) 11.2 * ( n = 170) - -No refractoriness to V at 1.3 mg/m2 BIW -Prior lena, no prior poma VeneVd – BELLINI [ 83 ] 22.4 ( n = 135) NA ( n = 156) - -No refractoriness or intolerance to prior PI -At least PR to any prior PI -At least 60-days PI-treatment-free interval XVd – BOSTON [ 80 ] 16.6 ( n = 99) 11.8 ( n = 96) -No refractoriness or intolerance to prior PI -At least PR to any prior PI -At least a 6-month PI-treatment-free interval Rd based KRd – ASPIRE [ 58 ] 29.6 ( n =1 84) 25.8 ( n = 212) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -No refractoriness to V, no prior K -No prior PD during 3 first m of Rd or any PD if Rd was the last therapy DRd – POLLUX [ 73 , 74 ] 53.3 ( n = 149) 28.9 ( n = 123) 38.8 ( n = 14) -PR to ≥1 prior line - No prior anti-CD38 -No refractoriness to R IRd - TOURMALINE-1 [ 66 ] 20.6 ( n = 212) NA (FU 14.8 m) ( n = 148) - -No refractoriness to R or PI (refractoriness to thali is allowed) EloRd - ELOQUENT-2 [ 55 ] a 15.8 ( n = 103) 13.1 ( n = 58) - -Prior R is allowed if no refractoriness, ≥PR, no more than 9 prior cycles and at least 9 m before progression EloRd - ELOQUENT-2 [ 55 ] b 30.6 ( n = 48) 25 ( n = 112) - -Prior R is allowed if no refractoriness, ≥PR, no more than 9 prior cycles and at least 9 m before progression Pd based IsaPd - ICARIA-MM [ 10 , 163 ] - 12.3 ( n = 102) 9.4 ( n = 52) -At least prior ≥MR -At least 2 prior lines including 2 cycles of a PI and R and PD within 6 m of discontinuation after PR -No prior P, no refractoriness to anti-CD38 DPd – MM-014 [ 156 ] 1y-PFS 78.8% (FU 17.2 m) ( n = 70) 1y-PFS 69.0% (FU 17.2 m) ( n = 42) c - -1-2 prior lines with at least 2 cycles of R -No prior P, no prior D DPd – APOLLO [ 53 ] 14.1 ( n =16) 10.7 ( n =114) 19.3 ( n =21) - No prior P, no prior anti-CD38 EloPd - ELOQUENT-3 [ 78 ] - 10.3 ( n = 36) 10.3 ( n = 24) -At least 2 prior lines including 2 cycles of a PI and R and PD within 6 m of discontinuation after PR -Refractory to PI and R -No prior P Kd based DKd – CANDOR [ 51 , 164 ] NA (FU 17.2 m) ( n = 133) 24.2 ( n = 179) - -PR to ≥1 prior line -Prior K and/or anti-CD38 allowed if ≥PR, no refractoriness and >6 m since last dose IsaKd – IKEMA [ 50 ] NA (FU 20.7 m) ( n = 80) NA (FU 20.7 m) ( n = 99) - -No prior K -No refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 *Result for ITT population; a <3.5 years from diagnosis; b ≥3.5 years from diagnosis; c Just 2 prior lines of therapy ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation; BIW twice in a week; D daratumumab; EloPd elotozumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; EloRd elotozumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone FU follow-up; HDAC histone deacetylase; IRd ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone; Isa isatuximab; IV intravenous; K carfilzomib; Kd carfilzomib/dexamethasone; m months; MR minimal response; NA not achieved; NR not reported; P pomalidomide; PanoVd panobinostat/bortezomib/dexamethasone; PD progressive disease; Pd pomalidomide/dexamethasone; PFS progression-free survival; PI proteasome inhibitor; PR partial remission; R lenalidomide; Rd lenalidomide/dexamethasone; Thali thalidomide; V bortezomib; Vd bortezomib/dexamethasone; VeneVd venetoclax/bortezomib/dexamethasone; XVd selinexor/bortezomib/dexamethasone

Patients refractory to PIs and IMiDs have shown limited survival (median OS of 5-10 months), but no recent data on the benefit obtained with new therapies are available [ 165 , 166 ], and there is no clear consensus on the meaning of double refractoriness. While double refractoriness was originally defined as refractoriness to bortezomib and lenalidomide, alternative drugs (carfilzomib, pomalidomide) are sometimes used in the first line setting. Thus, several studies define double-refractory patients as those who are refractory to any PI plus lenalidomide or to any PI plus any IMiD. Nevertheless, these double-refractory patients are not the same, and their outcomes could be different. Additionally, the front-line use of anti-CD38 MoAbs is becoming more frequent, and it is not uncommon to find patients who are refractory to anti-CD38 following an earlier relapse. Thus, the traditional definition of double-refractoriness is fast becoming triple-refractoriness. This scenario is not included in many studies, particularly earlier ones, and the heterogeneity makes it difficult to obtain precise information about outcomes in double-refractory patients.

Preliminary results with pomalidomide and daratumumab in patients relapsing after bortezomib and lenalidomide [ 13 , 52 , 167 – 169 ] improved when they were combined in triplets [ 51 , 68 , 78 , 164 , 170 , 171 ]. Recent clinical studies with novel drugs have included triple-refractory patients, and aimed to improve outcomes in this population (Table 7 ) [ 94 , 171 ]. Nevertheless, some questions remain, such as whether a single definition for double-refractoriness exists and whether this definition is applicable when new drugs shift to upfront use, and whether it is advisable to reuse in a new combination certain drugs to which the patient has developed refractoriness. Table 7 Outcomes of double-refractory RRMM patients included in the main clinical trials Study Phase Refractoriness N ORR (%) ≥VGPR/CRR/MRD (%) Median PFS (months) Median OS (months) Median DoR (months) Pd - MM-003 [ 52 , 168 ] 3 V + R 225 28 6/-/- 3.7 11.1 7.0 Pd - MM-010 [ 13 ] 3 V + R 547 32.4 7.8/0.5/- 4.2 11.9 - D - SIRIUS [ 14 ] 2 PI + IMiD 30 29.7 - - - - D - GEN501 + SIRIUS [ 169 ] 2 PI + IMiD 148* 30.4 14/5/- 4.0 20.5 8.0 IPd – ICARIA-MM [ 170 ] 3 PI + R 111 59 29.7/-/- 11.2 - - DPd – APOLLO [ 53 ] 3 PI + IMiD 64 - - 7.7 - - DPd – MMY-1001 [ 68 ] 1 PI + IMiD 73 57.5 - - - - DKd – CANDOR [ 51 , 164 ] 3 - RR: 99 VR: 100 RR: 79.8 VR: 79.0 RR: -/-/13.1 VR: -/-/7.0 RR: NA VR: 14.2 - - DKd – MMY-1001 [ 171 ] 1 PI + IMiD 25 83 -/-/6.9 25.7 NA 1y-OS 75% - IKd – IKEMA [ 50 ] 3 - RR: 57 VR: 52 - RR: 66.7/38.6/24.6 VR: 55.8/28.8/17.3 RR: NA VR: NA - - EloPd – ELOQUENT-3 [ 78 ] 2 PI + R 41 - - 10.2 - - KPd – EMN07 [ 172 ] 1/2 V + R 21 71 24/5/- 10.3 - - Sd – STORM [ 65 ] 2b PI + IMiD + D 122 26 6.56/1.64/- 3.7 8.6 4.4 Belamaf – DREAMM-2 [ 94 ] 2 PI + IMiD + D 97 32 18/7/- 2.8 13.7 11 *Patients from GEN-501 and SIRIUS trials who received daratumumab at 16 mg/kg are presented together. Not all are double refractory, but 87% are refractory to IMiD and PI Belamaf belantamab mafodotin; CRR complete response rate; D daratumumab; DKd : daratumumab/carfolzimib/dexomethasone; DoR duration of response; DPd; daratumumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; EloPd elotuzumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; IKd isatuximab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone; IMiD immunomodulatory drug; IPd isatuximab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone; Kd carfilzomib/dexamethasone; KPd carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone L lenalidomide; LR lenalidomide-refractory; MRD minimal residual disease; NA not achieved; NR not reached; ORR overall response rate; OS overall survival; Pd omalidomide/dexamethasone; PFS progression-free survival; PI proteasome

Pros and cons of using the characteristics of MM as inclusion criteria in recent finalist phase 3 clinical trials for RRMM

Intense research into new agents for MM management has led to a wide range of possible drug combinations [ 173 ]. One of the goals at present, especially in the context of first relapse, is to obtain bone marrow and PET&MRD negativity, which are associated with better PFS and OS outcomes [ 174 ]. Another interesting positive aspect is the incorporation of immunotherapy, including CAR-T cells, as a new therapeutic approach to improve survival [ 175 ]. Finally, there is growing evidence that previous use of lenalidomide is unlikely to have an impact on response or survival if pomalidomide is used in subsequent therapies [ 39 ].

Some uncertainties in the management of RRMM patients should be also considered. Firstly, the proportion of upfront lenalidomide-treated patients is higher in the real-world (RW) than in the clinical trial setting [ 39 ]. This makes it difficult to transfer the results of RCTs to clinical practice, because a growing number of patients are currently receiving lenalidomide as part of their first-line treatment, and this differs greatly from the results of the main RRMM studies. Inclusion criteria is often vague, and efforts should be made to define these more clearly in upcoming phase 3 trials. There is also a need for a more accurate definition of the concept of progressive disease, a criterion that currently allows the inclusion of an unspecified percentage of patients in biological progression in most clinical studies, and of the duration of previous therapy as a prognostic and predictive factor of survival. It is also necessary to ensure the homogeneity of patient populations in RCTs as far as possible by defining, for example, the number of previous lines of therapy. Multi-refractoriness to multiple drugs used in MM is of particular concern. In this context, it is important to remember that survival to triple or higher refractoriness is probably shorter in the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) II and III compared to stage I. In addition, little has been done to evaluate the transferability of clinical trial efficacy and safety results to the RW, and some results suggest the existence of a trial efficacy/RW effectiveness gap that limits the generalizability of clinical trial conclusions [ 176 ]. Finally, it is important to bear in mind that most RCTs do not include special populations (renal failure, extramedullary disease, etc.) that are frequently found in RRMM patients.

RW patients vs. patients included in phase 3 trials for MM. Exclusion criteria bias

A growing body of evidence shows the gap between RRMM patients in RCTs and RW studies. Patients included in RCTs represent a select group of MM patients. Multiple confounding factors influence the interpretation of efficacy (RCTs) or effectiveness (RW), making these impossible to compare, and potentially affecting the external validity of the study. There are also differences in safety in RW settings versus RCTs, highlighting the importance of post marketing pharmacovigilance studies.

Older patients and patients with a high comorbidity burden are frequently underrepresented in RCTs. Renal impairment is a well-known prognostic factor and a commonly applied exclusion criterion in RCTs. As a result, PFS is generally shorter in RW studies compared to RCTs, and duration of therapy is reduced in RW due to poorer tolerability.

A recent RW study has shown that up to 75% of RRMM patients receiving routine care do not meet the eligibility criteria of hallmark RCTs in approved or recommended regimens in the RW setting. Moreover, OS was significantly worse (50% increased risk of mortality) in patients unable to meet study’s eligibility criteria. The most common reasons for RCT ineligibility were renal insufficiency and other malignancies [ 177 ]. In a retrospective study including 1601 RRMM patients, 40% received more than 2 lines of therapy. Substantial variation in RW PFS and OS was observed, ranging from 3.5-12.0 and 5.8-48.2 months, respectively. Overall, these values are lower than those observed in recent RCTs for the same agents in third and higher lines of therapy [ 178 ].

Translating RCTs findings to the RW setting is challenging. The stricter the RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria, the greater difference in results in RW studies. However, little or no gap is observed when all-oral regimens or bortezomib-based regimens are used. The discrepancy between RW and RCTs data is also minimized in later versus earlier lines of therapy [ 179 ].

Both RCTs and RW studies provide complementary information of paramount importance in clinical decision-making. RW effectiveness is increasingly emphasized when determining the effectiveness of new approved regimens in the heterogeneous and complex population of RRMM patients. In this regard, it is essential to have access to high quality RW data provided by consolidated population-based cancer registries (PBCRs). In coming years, therefore, RCTs and PBCRs will need to work closely together at the local, regional and national level.

Final considerations: key points in the orientation of RRMM treatment

The therapeutic strategy for RRMM must follow a comprehensive, standardized, personalized approach that includes patient, disease, biology and previous therapy (response characteristics and toxicity). The treatment of RRMM is a rapidly changing field, and it is highly recommended to encourage patients to participate in a clinical study, if available. The best regimen should be chosen, taking into consideration all clinically relevant variables, as well as patient preference, the cost-benefit ratio, and local availability.

Achieving the deepest possible response must always be weighed up against achieving the best quality of life, particularly in the elderly, frail population. The importance of supportive care throughout RRMM management must be emphasized. Several phase 3 RCTs have shown, in most cases, the superiority of triplets over the doublet Vd and Rd, and later, Kd and Pd. Determining patient refractoriness to these agents at the time of relapse is a key factor in the choice of the optimal regimen.

Approaches to the treatment of triple-class (PIs, IMiDs and monoclonal antibodies) RRMM patients, including CC, sASCT and retreatment, are currently limited. CC is still a therapeutic option (almost always associated with new agents), and is usually used as a bridge to more definitive treatment, or in certain circumstances such as bulky disease or neurological complications that require rapid cytoreduction. High dose therapy followed by sASCT remains a safe and probably cost-effective approach for a selected subgroup of RRMM patients. However, continuous approval of new agents and the emergence of safer and more effective combinations have now called the role of sASCT into question. All in all, more evidence is needed before a paradigm shift occurs.

Retreatment has been used with limited results when no other choice is available, but new drugs should now be used instead whenever possible. New combinations based on second generation PIs and IMiDs, new monoclonal antibodies, histone deacetylase inhibitors, new class drugs such as venetoclax in the presence of t(11;14) or selinexor, and drugs with new mechanisms of action such as melflufen can be suggested after approval.

Research should prioritize triple-class refractory patients, and they should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials. BCMA-directed CAR-T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies and belantamab mafodotin are new immunotherapeutic approaches that have shown promising results. Non-myeloablative reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation (RIC Allo) could be considered in certain young patients with high-risk cytogenetics, particularly in the context of a clinical study.

Translating the efficacy results of RCTs into RW effectiveness is challenging, mainly due to differences in clinical characteristics in both populations and different levels of tolerability, particularly for non-oral drugs. Comparison between most recent phase 3 RCTs and RW studies confirm the existence of an important gap, with the exception of studies using all-oral regimens and V-based regimens. Currently, about half of all patients cannot be included in RCTs due to comorbidities (mainly renal failure) or special features (non-secretory myeloma, plasma cell leukemia, extramedullary disease, etc.).

Conclusions

The dramatic advances made in biology, prognosis and therapy for RRMM patients in recent years has created new challenges: How to order the sequence of lines of treatment of RRMM after the incorporation of IMiDs and AntiCD38 MoAbs into the first-line approach?. Is there still a role for chemotherapy in the treatment of RRMM patients? Should ASCT be abandoned following the emergence of new biological and cellular therapies? In this regard, more evidence on the optimal timing of CAR-T cell therapy is needed. In this new COVID-19 era, which is the best approach for the treatment of patients with MM? [ 180 ]. Is maintenance therapy until progression or intolerance still the most appropriate strategy for improving survival?

Despite the exciting therapeutic development of many new generation agents and combination regimens (including IMiDs or immunotherapy agents, as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, conjugated antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T) that are providing considerable improved progression-free survival and overall survival, there is still room left to further increase the rates of response and survival. RRMM management will soon be improved by the introduction of new biomarkers that will improve patient stratification and prognosis. This along with the definition of newer treatment algorithms that allow clinicians to design personalized therapeutic regimens (which balance the clinical and biological characteristics of MM, and patients’ comorbidities and preferences) will likely result in a safer and more effective precision medicine [ 181 ].

Abbreviations

Autologous stem cells transplants/ salvage autologous stem cells transplants

Conventional chemotherapy

Daratumumab plus carfilzomib plus dexamethasone

Daratumumab plus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone

Daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone

Hazard ratio

Immunomodulatory drugs

Infusion-related reactions

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib plus dexamethasone

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone

Isatuximab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone

Carfilzomib plus dexamethasone

Carfilzomib plus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone

Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone

Monoclonal antibodies

Multiple myeloma

Overall survival

Overall response rate

Progression-free survival

Pomalidomide plus dexamethasone

Proteasome inhibitors

Pomalidomide plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone

Randomized clinical trials

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone

Relapsed/refractory

Real world

Bortezomib plus dexamethasone

Bortezomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone

Bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone

inhibitor of nuclear exportin

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Almudena Fuster-Matanzo and Dr. Susana Cañón-Sánchez from Medical Statistics Consulting S.L. (Valencia) for providing scientific support and medical writing services.

Authors’ contributions

J.J.L. structured and coordinated the work. All authors listed on the manuscript contributed to manuscript preparation after reviewing the scientific literature, wrote and reviewed the draft, provided detailed input and comments, and approved the final version.

Funding

Scientific support and medical writing services were funded by Sanofi, Spain.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

J-A.H-R. reports advisory and consultancy honoraria from Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. R.A. has served in a consultancy role or served on a speaker’s bureau for and received honoraria from Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. C.E. reports received honoraria from lectures and advisory boards from Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda and GlaxoSmithKline. R.R-T. reports advisory and consultancy from Amgen, Becton Dickinson, Binding Site, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. J.J.L. has served in a consultancy role or served on a speaker’s bureau for Celgene/BMS, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and received expenses for travel and accommodations from Celgene/BMS.

References

1. Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Terpos E Mateos MV Zweegman S Cook G Multiple Myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up Hemasphere 2021 5 2 e528 33554050 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000528 PMC7861652

2. Gulla A Anderson KC Multiple myeloma: the (r) evolution of current therapy and a glance into future Haematologica 2020 105 10 2358 2367 33054076 10.3324/haematol.2020.247015 PMC7556665

3. Durer C Durer S Lee S Chakraborty R Malik MN Rafae A Treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma: Evidence-based recommendations Blood Rev 2020 39 100616 31500848 10.1016/j.blre.2019.100616

4. Barlogie B Smith L Alexanian R Effective treatment of advanced multiple myeloma refractory to alkylating agents N Engl J Med 1984 310 21 1353 1356 6546971 10.1056/NEJM198405243102104

5. Cook G Ashcroft AJ Cairns DA Williams CD Brown JM Cavenagh JD The effect of salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation on overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (final results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2016 3 7 e340 e351 27374467 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30049-7

6. Cavo M Terpos E Bargay J Einsele H Cavet J Greil R The multiple myeloma treatment landscape: international guideline recommendations and clinical practice in Europe. (1747-4094 (Electronic)) Expert Rev Hematol 2018 11 3 219 237 29415570 10.1080/17474086.2018.1437345

7. Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Hulin C Leleu X Caillot D Escoffre M Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma N Engl J Med 2017 376 14 1311 1320 28379796 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750 PMC6201242

8. Rosiñol L Oriol A Teruel AI Hernández D López-Jiménez J de la Rubia J Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study Blood 2012 120 8 1589 1596 22791289 10.1182/blood-2012-02-408922

9. Mateos MV Cavo M Blade J Dimopoulos MA Suzuki K Jakubowiak A Overall survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ALCYONE): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2020 395 10218 132 141 31836199 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32956-3

10. Attal M Richardson PG Rajkumar SV San-Miguel J Beksac M Spicka I Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet 2019 394 10214 2096 2107 31735560 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32556-5

11. Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Palumbo A Joshua D Pour L Hájek R Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study Lancet Oncol 2016 17 1 27 38 26671818 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00464-7

12. Dimopoulos MA Oriol A Nahi H San-Miguel J Bahlis NJ Usmani SZ Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 375 14 1319 1331 27705267 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751

13. Dimopoulos MA Palumbo A Corradini P Cavo M Delforge M Di Raimondo F Safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in STRATUS (MM-010): a phase 3b study in refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2016 128 4 497 503 27226434 10.1182/blood-2016-02-700872 PMC5009959

14. Lonial S Dimopoulos M Palumbo A White D Grosicki S Spicka I Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 373 7 621 631 26035255 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654

15. Moreau P Masszi T Grzasko N Bahlis NJ Hansson M Pour L Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 374 17 1621 1634 27119237 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282

16. Moreau P Mateos MV Berenson JR Weisel K Lazzaro A Song K Once weekly versus twice weekly carfilzomib dosing in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (A.R.R.O.W.): interim analysis results of a randomised, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol 2018 19 7 953 964 29866475 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30354-1

17. Palumbo A Chanan-Khan A Weisel K Nooka AK Masszi T Beksac M Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 375 8 754 766 27557302 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038

18. San-Miguel JF Hungria VT Yoon SS Beksac M Dimopoulos MA Elghandour A Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2014 15 11 1195 1206 25242045 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70440-1

19. Stewart AK Rajkumar SV Dimopoulos MA Masszi T Špička I Oriol A Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 372 2 142 152 25482145 10.1056/NEJMoa1411321

20. Durie BG Harousseau JL Miguel JS Bladé J Barlogie B Anderson K International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma Leukemia 2006 20 9 1467 1473 16855634 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284

21. van de Donk N Pawlyn C Yong KL Multiple myeloma Lancet 2021 397 10272 410 427 33516340 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00135-5

22. Afram G Gran C Borg Bruchfeld J Wagner AK Hussain A Alici E Impact of performance status on overall survival in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: Real-life outcomes of daratumumab treatment Eur J Haematol 2020 105 2 196 202 32281193 10.1111/ejh.13426

23. Giri S Huntington SF Wang R Zeidan AM Podoltsev N Gore SD Chromosome 1 abnormalities and survival of patients with multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents Blood Adv 2020 4 10 2245 2253 32442299 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001425 PMC7252537

24. Kumar SK Therneau TM Gertz MA Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Rajkumar SV Clinical course of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma Mayo Clin Proc 2004 79 7 867 874 15244382 10.4065/79.7.867

25. Vogl DT Stadtmauer EA Richardson PG Sonneveld P Schuster MW Irwin D Impact of prior therapies on the relative efficacy of bortezomib compared with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 2009 147 4 531 4 19725827 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07875.x

26. Wang M Dimopoulos MA Chen C Cibeira MT Attal M Spencer A Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior thalidomide exposure Blood 2008 112 12 4445 4451 18799726 10.1182/blood-2008-02-141614

27. Kunacheewa C Orlowski RZ New Drugs in Multiple Myeloma Annu Rev Med 2019 70 521 547 30691369 10.1146/annurev-med-112017-091045

28. Fosså A Muer M Kasper C Welt A Seeber S Nowrousian MR Bolus vincristine and epirubicin with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VECD) as induction and salvage treatment in multiple myeloma Leukemia 1998 12 3 422 426 9529138 10.1038/sj.leu.2400945

29. Lee CK Barlogie B Zangari M Fassas A Anaissie E Morris C Transplantation as salvage therapy for high-risk patients with myeloma in relapse Bone Marrow Transplant 2002 30 12 873 878 12476279 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703715

30. Mo CC Richardson PG Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma: Far from futile Br J Haematol 2020 188 4 483 485 31566715 10.1111/bjh.16214

31. Richardson PG Oriol A Beksac M Liberati AM Galli M Schjesvold F Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2019 20 6 781 794 31097405 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4

32. Griffin PT Ho VQ Fulp W Nishihori T Shain KH Alsina M A comparison of salvage infusional chemotherapy regimens for recurrent/refractory multiple myeloma Cancer 2015 121 20 3622 3630 26149422 10.1002/cncr.29533

33. Lakshman A Singh PP Rajkumar SV Dispenzieri A Lacy MQ Gertz MA Efficacy of VDT PACE-like regimens in treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Am J Hematol 2018 93 2 179 186 29067723 10.1002/ajh.24954

34. Lenhoff S Hjorth M Turesson I Westin J Gimsing P Wislöff F Intensive therapy for multiple myeloma in patients younger than 60 years. Long-term results focusing on the effect of the degree of response on survival and relapse pattern after transplantation Haematologica 2006 91 9 1228 1233 16956822

35. Alvares CL Davies FE Horton C Patel G Powles R Morgan GJ The role of second autografts in the management of myeloma at first relapse Haematologica 2006 91 1 141 142 16434386

36. Qazilbash MH Saliba R De Lima M Hosing C Couriel D Aleman A Second autologous or allogeneic transplantation after the failure of first autograft in patients with multiple myeloma Cancer 2006 106 5 1084 1089 16456814 10.1002/cncr.21700

37. Paccagnella A Chiarion-Sileni V Soesan M Baggio G Bolzonella S De Besi P Second and third responses to the same induction regimen in relapsing patients with multiple myeloma Cancer 1991 68 5 975 980 1913491 10.1002/1097-0142(19910901)68:5<975::aid-cncr2820680511>3.0.co;2-o

38. Palumbo A Bringhen S Falco P Cavallo F Ambrosini MT Avonto I Time to first disease progression, but not beta2-microglobulin, predicts outcome in myeloma patients who receive thalidomide as salvage therapy Cancer 2007 110 4 824 829 17594696 10.1002/cncr.22855

39. Kastritis E Roussou M Gavriatopoulou M Kanellias N Migkou M Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E Impact of last lenalidomide dose, duration, and IMiD-free interval in patients with myeloma treated with pomalidomide/dexamethasone Blood Adv 2019 3 23 4095 4103 31821457 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000539 PMC6963239

40. Kumar SK Dispenzieri A Fraser R Mingwei F Akpek G Cornell R Early relapse after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation remains a poor prognostic factor in multiple myeloma but outcomes have improved over time Leukemia 2018 32 4 986 995 29263438 10.1038/leu.2017.331 PMC5871538

41. Mateos MV Martínez-López J Hernández MT Ocio EM Rosiñol L Martínez R Sequential vs alternating administration of VMP and Rd in elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM Blood 2016 127 4 420 425 26500339 10.1182/blood-2015-08-666537

42. Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC Durie B Landgren O Moreau P International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol 2016 17 8 e328 e346 27511158 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6

43. Bladé J Samson D Reece D Apperley J Björkstrand B Gahrton G Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant Br J Haematol 1998 102 5 1115 1123 9753033 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.00930.x

44. Paiva B Puig N Cedena MT Rosiñol L Cordón L Vidriales MB Measurable Residual Disease by Next-Generation Flow Cytometry in Multiple Myeloma J Clin Oncol 2020 38 8 784 792 31770060 10.1200/JCO.19.01231

45. Hillengass J Usmani S Rajkumar SV Durie BGM Mateos MV Lonial S International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders Lancet Oncol 2019 20 6 e302 e312 31162104 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2

46. Deighan WI, Winton VJ, Melani RD, Anderson LC, McGee JP, Schachner LF, et al. Development of novel methods for non-canonical myeloma protein analysis with an innovative adaptation of immunofixation electrophoresis, native top-down mass spectrometry, and middle-down de novo sequencing. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020. 10.1515/cclm-2020-1072 PMC8055720 33079696

47. Jackson GH Davies FE Pawlyn C Cairns DA Striha A Collett C Response-adapted intensification with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus no intensification in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2019 6 12 e616 e629 31624047 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30167-X PMC7043012

48. Moreau P Siegel DS Goldschmidt H Niesvizky R Bringhen S Orlowski RZ Subgroup Analysis of Patients with Biochemical or Symptomatic Relapse at the Time of Enrollment in the Endeavor Study Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 3243

49. Alexanian R Balcerzak S Bonnet JD Gehan EA Haut A Hewlett JS Prognostic factors in multiple myeloma Cancer 1975 36 4 1192 1201 1175123 10.1002/1097-0142(197510)36:4<1192::aid-cncr2820360403>3.0.co;2-i

50. Moreau P., Dimopoulos M.A., Mikhael J., Yong K., Capra M., Facon T., et al., Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone vs carfilzomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (IKEMA): Interim analysis of a phase 3, randomized, open-label study, in The 25th European Hematology Association Annual Congress (EHA25 Virtual). 2020.

51. Dimopoulos M Quach H Mateos MV Landgren O Leleu X Siegel D Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet 2020 396 10245 186 197 32682484 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30734-0

52. Miguel JS Weisel K Moreau P Lacy M Song K Delforge M Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2013 14 11 1055 1066 24007748 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2

53. Dimopoulos MA Terpos E Boccadoro M Delimpasi S Beksac M Katodritou E Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2021 22 6 801 812 34087126 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00128-5

54. Spencer A Lentzsch S Weisel K Avet-Loiseau H Mark TM Spicka I Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR Haematologica 2018 103 12 2079 2087 30237264 10.3324/haematol.2018.194118 PMC6269293

55. Dimopoulos MA Lonial S Betts KA Chen C Zichlin ML Brun A Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 4-year follow-up and analysis of relative progression-free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT-2 trial Cancer 2018 124 20 4032 4043 30204239 10.1002/cncr.31680

56. Mateos MV Blacklock H Schjesvold F Oriol A Simpson D George A Pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (KEYNOTE-183): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2019 6 9 e459 e469 31327687 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30110-3

57. Rajkumar SV Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management Am J Hematol 2020 95 5 548 567 32212178 10.1002/ajh.25791

58. Dimopoulos MA Stewart AK Masszi T Špička I Oriol A Hájek R Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma by previous treatment Blood Cancer J 2017 7 4 e554 28430175 10.1038/bcj.2017.31 PMC5436074

59. Siegel DS Dimopoulos MA Ludwig H Facon T Goldschmidt H Jakubowiak A Improvement in Overall Survival With Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma J Clin Oncol 2018 36 8 728 734 29341834 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5032

60. Jakubowiak A, Rosenbaum C, Stephens L, Kukreti V, Cole C, Zimmerman T, et al. Final results of phase (ph) 1/2 study of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPD) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): a multi-center MMRC study, in The 22th Congress of the European Hematology Association. Madrid, Spain; 2017.

61. Rosenbaum CA Stephens LA Kukreti V Zonder JA Cole C Zimmerman TM Phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) in patients (Pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): A Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium multicenter study J Clin Oncol 2016 34 15_suppl 8007

62. Shah JJ Stadtmauer EA Abonour R Cohen AD Bensinger W Gasparetto C Phase I/II Dose Expansion Of a Multi-Center Trial Of Carfilzomib and Pomalidomide With Dexamethasone (Car-Pom-d) In Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2013 122 21 690

63. Sonneveld P Terpos E Dimopoulos MA Ukropec J Smith E Houkes N Pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pom-dex) with or without daratumumab (DARA) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): A multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study (APOLLO) J Clin Oncol 2018 36 15_suppl TPS8059

64. Mushtaq A Iftikhar A Hassan H Lakhani M Sagar F Kamal A Pomalidomide-Based Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 7 447 461 31060991 10.1016/j.clml.2019.04.003

65. Chari A Vogl DT Gavriatopoulou M Nooka AK Yee AJ Huff CA Oral Selinexor-Dexamethasone for Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2019 381 8 727 738 31433920 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455

66. Mateos MV Masszi T Grzasko N Hansson M Sandhu I Pour L Impact of prior therapy on the efficacy and safety of oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in TOURMALINE-MM1 Haematologica 2017 102 10 1767 1775 28751562 10.3324/haematol.2017.170118 PMC5622861

67. Richardson PG Attal M Rajkumar SV San Miguel J Beksac M Spicka I A phase III randomized, open label, multicenter study comparing isatuximab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) J Clin Oncol 2019 37 15_suppl 8004

68. Chari A Suvannasankha A Fay JW Arnulf B Kaufman JL Ifthikharuddin JJ Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2017 130 8 974 981 28637662 10.1182/blood-2017-05-785246 PMC5570682

69. van de Donk N Richardson PG Malavasi F CD38 antibodies in multiple myeloma: back to the future Blood 2018 131 1 13 29 29118010 10.1182/blood-2017-06-740944

70. Moreno L Perez C Zabaleta A Manrique I Alignani D Ajona D The Mechanism of Action of the Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibody Isatuximab in Multiple Myeloma Clin Cancer Res 2019 25 10 3176 3187 30692097 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1597

71. European Commission approves Sarclisa® (isatuximab) for adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Published June 2, 2020. https://bit.ly/2U6kxpD . Accessed June 2, 2020.

72. Mateos MV Sonneveld P Hungria V Nooka AK Estell JA Barreto W Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: Three-year Follow-up of CASTOR Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2020 20 8 509 518 32482541 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.623

73. Bahlis NJ Dimopoulos MA White DJ Benboubker L Cook G Leiba M Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of POLLUX, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study Leukemia 2020 34 7 1875 1884 32001798 10.1038/s41375-020-0711-6 PMC7326710

74. Kaufman J Usmani S San-Miguel J Bahlis N White D Benboubker L Four-Year Follow-up of the Phase 3 Pollux Study of Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Blood 2019 134 1866

75. van Beurden-Tan CHY Franken MG Blommestein HM Uyl-de Groot CA Sonneveld P Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma J Clin Oncol 2017 35 12 1312 1319 28240968 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.1663

76. Mateos MV Nahi H Legiec W Grosicki S Vorobyev V Spicka I Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2020 7 5 e370 e380 32213342 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30070-3

77. Raab MS Engelhardt M Blank A Goldschmidt H Agis H Blau IW MOR202, a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a first-in-human, multicentre, phase 1-2a trial Lancet Haematol 2020 7 5 e381 e394 32171061 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30249-2

78. Dimopoulos MA Dytfeld D Grosicki S Moreau P Takezako N Hori M Elotuzumab plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2018 379 19 1811 1822 30403938 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762

79. Richardson PG Bringhen S Voorhees P Plesner T Mellqvist UH Reeves B Melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (O-12-M1): a multicentre, international, open-label, phase 1-2 study Lancet Haematol 2020 7 5 e395 e407 32213344 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2

80. Grosicki S Simonova M Spicka I Pour L Kriachok I Gavriatopoulou M Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2020 396 10262 1563 1573 33189178 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3

81. Ocio EM Efebera YA Granell M Hajek R Maisnar V Karlin L ANCHOR (OP-104): Updated Efficacy and Safety from a Phase 1/2 Study of Melflufen and Dexamethasone Plus Bortezomib or Daratumumab in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Refractory to an IMiD or a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) Blood 2019 134 Supplement_1 3124

82. Basali D Chakraborty R Rybicki L Rosko N Reed J Karam M Real-world data on safety and efficacy of venetoclax-based regimens in relapsed/refractory t(11;14) multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 2020 189 6 1136 1140 32012228 10.1111/bjh.16454 PMC9291136

83. Kumar S Harrison SJ Cavo M Rubia JdL Popat R Gasparetto C Updated results from BELLINI, a phase III study of venetoclax or placebo in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 2020 38 15_suppl 8509

84. Bahlis NJ Sutherland H White D Sebag M Lentzsch S Kotb R Selinexor plus low-dose bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2018 132 24 2546 2554 30352784 10.1182/blood-2018-06-858852 PMC6302280

85. San-Miguel JF Hungria VT Yoon SS Beksac M Dimopoulos MA Elghandour A Overall survival of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with panobinostat or placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (the PANORAMA 1 trial): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2016 3 11 e506 e515 27751707 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30147-8

86. Bertamini L Bonello F Boccadoro M Bringhen S New drugs in early development for treating multiple myeloma: all that glitters is not gold Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2020 29 9 989 1004 32434394 10.1080/13543784.2020.1772753

87. Bjorklund CC Kang J Amatangelo M Polonskaia A Katz M Chiu H Iberdomide (CC-220) is a potent cereblon E3 ligase modulator with antitumor and immunostimulatory activities in lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma cells with dysregulated CRBN Leukemia 2020 34 4 1197 1201 31719682 10.1038/s41375-019-0620-8 PMC7214241

88. Wong L Jiménez Nuñez MD Bahlis NJ Vangsted AJ Ramasamy K Trudel S Pharmacodynamic (PD) responses drive dose/schedule selection of CC-92480, a novel CELMoD agent, in a phase 1 dose-escalation study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) J Clin Oncol 2020 38 15_suppl 8531

89. Lonial S Van de Donk N Popat R Zonder JA Minnema M Larsen JT A Phase 1b/2a Study of the CELMoD Iberdomide (CC-220) in Combination With Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 10 e52 e53

90. van de Donk NWCJ Popat R Larsen J Minnema MC Jagannath S Oriol A First Results of Iberdomide (IBER; CC-220) in Combination with Dexamethasone (DEX) and Daratumumab (DARA) or Bortezomib (BORT) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 16 17

91. Richardson PG Vangsted AJ Ramasamy K Trudel S Martínez J Mateos MV First-in-human Phase 1 study of the novel celmod agent CC-92480 combined with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, in The 25th European Hematology Association Annual Congress (EHA25 Virtual) 2020

92. Gandhi UH Cornell RF Lakshman A Gahvari ZJ McGehee E Jagosky MH Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy Leukemia 2019 33 9 2266 2275 30858549 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7 PMC6820050

93. Shah N Chari A Scott E Mezzi K Usmani SZ B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma: rationale for targeting and current therapeutic approaches Leukemia 2020 34 4 985 1005 32055000 10.1038/s41375-020-0734-z PMC7214244

94. Lonial S Lee HC Badros A Trudel S Nooka AK Chari A Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study Lancet Oncol 2020 21 2 207 221 31859245 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30788-0

95. Nooka AK Mateos Manteca MV Bahlis N Weisel K Oriol A Alonso Alonso A DREAMM-4: Evaluating safety and clinical activity of belantamab mafodotin in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), in The 25th European Hematology Association Annual Congress (EHA25 Virtual) 2020

96. Popat R Stockerl-Goldstein K Quach H Forbes A Mateos MV Khot A DREAMM-6: Safety and tolerability of belantamab mafodotin in combination with bortezomib/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), in The 25th European Hematology Association Annual Congress (EHA25 Virtual) 2020

97. Munshi NC Anderson LD Jr Shah N Madduri D Berdeja J Lonial S Idecabtagene Vicleucel in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma N Engl J Med 2021 384 8 705 716 33626253 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850

98. Mailankody S Ghosh A Staehr M Purdon TJ Roshal M Halton E Clinical Responses and Pharmacokinetics of MCARH171, a Human-Derived Bcma Targeted CAR T Cell Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Results of a Phase I Clinical Trial Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 959

99. Madduri D Berdeja JG Usmani SZ Jakubowiak A Agha M Cohen AD CARTITUDE-1: Phase 1b/2 Study of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel, a B-Cell Maturation Antigen-Directed Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy, in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 22 25

100. Costello CL Cohen AD Patel KK Ali SS Berdeja JG Shah N Phase 1/2 Study of the Safety and Response of P-BCMA-101 CAR-T Cells in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (r/r) Multiple Myeloma (MM) (PRIME) with Novel Therapeutic Strategies Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 29 30

101. Kumar SK Baz RC Orlowski RZ Anderson LD Jr Ma H Shrewsbury A Results from Lummicar-2: A Phase 1b/2 Study of Fully Human B-Cell Maturation Antigen-Specific CAR T Cells (CT053) in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 28 29

102. Brudno JN Maric I Hartman SD Rose JJ Wang M Lam N T Cells Genetically Modified to Express an Anti–B-Cell Maturation Antigen Chimeric Antigen Receptor Cause Remissions of Poor-Prognosis Relapsed Multiple Myeloma J Clin Oncol 2018 36 22 2267 2280 29812997 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.8084 PMC6067798

103. Cohen AD Garfall AL Stadtmauer EA Melenhorst JJ Lacey SF Lancaster E B cell maturation antigen-specific CAR T cells are clinically active in multiple myeloma J Clin Invest 2019 129 6 2210 2221 30896447 10.1172/JCI126397 PMC6546468

104. Alsina M., Shah N., Raje N. S., Jagannath S., Madduri D., Kaufman J. L., et al., Updated Results from the Phase I CRB-402 Study of Anti-Bcma CAR-T Cell Therapy bb21217 in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Correlation of Expansion and Duration of Response with T Cell Phenotypes, in 62nd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition (Online). 2020: O.

105. Green DJ, Pont M, Sather BD, Cowan AJ, Turtle CJ, Till BG, et al. Fully Human Bcma Targeted Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells Administered in a Defined Composition Demonstrate Potency at Low Doses in Advanced Stage High Risk Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2018;(132, Supplement 1):1011.

106. Liu Y Chen Z Fang H Wei R Yu K Jiang S Durable Remission Achieved from Bcma-Directed CAR-T Therapy Against Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2018 132 956

107. Mikkilineni L Manasanch E Lam N Vanasse D Brudno J Maric I T Cells Expressing an Anti-B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) Chimeric Antigen Receptor with a Fully-Human Heavy-Chain-Only Antigen Recognition Domain Induce Remissions in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 3230

108. Li C Wang J Wang D Hu G Yang Y Zhou X Efficacy and Safety of Fully Human Bcma Targeting CAR T Cell Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 Supplement_1 929

109. An G, Sui W, Wang T, Qu X, Zhang X, Yang J, et al. An Anti-Bcma CAR T-Cell Therapy (C-CAR088) Shows Promising Safety and Efficacy Profile in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2020;(136, Supplement 1):29–30.

110. Mailankody S Matous JV Liedtke M Sidana S Malik S Nath R Universal: An Allogeneic First-in-Human Study of the Anti-Bcma ALLO-715 and the Anti-CD52 ALLO-647 in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 24 25

111. Berdeja JG Madduri D Usmani SZ Singh I Zudaire E Yeh T-M Update of CARTITUDE-1: A phase Ib/II study of JNJ-4528, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR-T-cell therapy, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 2020 38 15_suppl 8505

112. Mailankody S Jakubowiak AJ Htut M Costa LJ Lee K Ganguly S Orvacabtagene autoleucel (orva-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR T cell therapy for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): update of the phase 1/2 EVOLVE study ( NCT03430011 ) J Clin Oncol 2020 38 15_suppl 8504

113. Cowan AJ Pont M Sather BD Turtle CJ Till BG Nagengast AM Efficacy and Safety of Fully Human Bcma CAR T Cells in Combination with a Gamma Secretase Inhibitor to Increase Bcma Surface Expression in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 Supplement_1 204

114. Lam N Trinklein ND Buelow B Patterson GH Ojha N Kochenderfer JN Anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptors with fully human heavy-chain-only antigen recognition domains Nat Commun 2020 11 1 283 31941907 10.1038/s41467-019-14119-9 PMC6962219

115. Shah N Alsina M Siegel DS Jagannath S Madduri D Kaufman JL Initial Results from a Phase 1 Clinical Study of bb21217, a Next-Generation Anti Bcma CAR T Therapy Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 488

116. Xu J Chen LJ Yang SS Sun Y Wu W Liu YF Exploratory trial of a biepitopic CAR T-targeting B cell maturation antigen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019 116 19 9543 9551 30988175 10.1073/pnas.1819745116 PMC6510991

117. Yan Z Cao J Cheng H Qiao J Zhang H Wang Y A combination of humanised anti-CD19 and anti-BCMA CAR T cells in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a single-arm, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol 2019 6 10 e521 e529 31378662 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30115-2

118. Li C Mei H Hu Y Guo T Liu L Jiang H A Bispecific CAR-T Cell Therapy Targeting Bcma and CD38 for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Results from a Phase 1 Dose-Climbing Trial Blood 2019 134 930

119. Baumeister SH Murad J Werner L Daley H Trebeden-Negre H Gicobi JK Phase I Trial of Autologous CAR T Cells Targeting NKG2D Ligands in Patients with AML/MDS and Multiple Myeloma Cancer Immunol Res 2019 7 1 100 112 30396908 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0307 PMC7814996

120. Carrabba MG Casucci M Hudecek M Quintarelli C Briones J Hajek R Phase I-IIa Clinical Trial to Assess Safety and Efficacy of MLM-CAR44.1, a CD44v6 Directed CAR-T in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Multiple Myeloma (MM) Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 5790

121. Guo B Chen M Han Q Hui F Dai H Zhang W CD138-directed adoptive immunotherapy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T cells for multiple myeloma J Cell Immunother 2016 2 1 28 35

122. Popat R Zweegman S Cavet J Yong K Lee L Faulkner J Phase 1 First-in-Human Study of AUTO2, the First Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Targeting APRIL for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Blood 2019 134 Supplement_1 3112

123. Ramos CA Savoldo B Torrano V Ballard B Zhang H Dakhova O Clinical responses with T lymphocytes targeting malignancy-associated κ light chains J Clin Invest 2016 126 7 2588 2596 27270177 10.1172/JCI86000 PMC4922690

124. Smith EL, Harrington K, Staehr M, Masakayan R, Jones J, Long TJ, et al. GPRC5D is a target for the immunotherapy of multiple myeloma with rationally designed CAR T cells. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(485). 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau7746 PMC7508042 30918115

125. Stadtmauer EA Faitg TH Lowther DE Badros AZ Chagin K Dengel K Long-term safety and activity of NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T cells after autologous stem cell transplant for myeloma Blood Adv 2019 3 13 2022 2034 31289029 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000194 PMC6616263

126. Fernandez de Larrea C Staehr M Lopez A Chen Y Purdon TJ Ng KY Optimal Dual-Targeted CAR Construct Simultaneously Targeting Bcma and GPRC5D Prevents Bcma-Escape Driven Relapse in Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 Supplement_1 136 10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-20-0020 PMC7575057 33089218

127. Costello, C., N. Raje, N. Bahlis, B. Dholaria, M. Solh, M. Levy, et al. MAGNETISMM-1: Phase 1 study of elranatamab (PF-06863135), a B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) targeted CD3-engaging bispecific antibody for patienta with relapsed or refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM). (Oral communication). in European Hematology Association (EHA) Virtual Congress 2021 (June 09-17) . 2021.

128. Krishnan, A.Y., J.G. Berdeja, A. Oriol, N.W.C.J. van de Donk, P. Rodríguez-Otero, E. Askari, et al. Talquetamab, a G Protein-coupled Receptor family C group 5 member D (GPRC5D) × CD3 bispecific antibody, in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated results of a phase 1, first-in-human study. in European Hematology Association (EHA) Virtual Congress 2021 (June 09-17) . 2021.

129. Cohen AD Harrison SJ Krishnan A Fonseca R Forsberg PA Spencer A Initial Clinical Activity and Safety of BFCR4350A, a FcRH5/CD3 T-Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibody, in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 Supplement 1 42 43

130. Rajkumar SV Kumar S Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms Blood Cancer J 2020 10 9 94 32989217 10.1038/s41408-020-00359-2 PMC7523011

131. Goldsmith SR Fiala MA Wang B Schroeder MA Wildes TM Ghobadi A DCEP and bendamustine/prednisone as salvage therapy for quad- and penta-refractory multiple myeloma Ann Hematol 2020 99 5 1041 1048 32130471 10.1007/s00277-020-03970-2

132. Kazandjian D Mo CC Landgren O Richardson PG The role of high-dose melphalan with autologous stem-cell transplant in multiple myeloma: is it time for a paradigm shift Br J Haematol 2020 191 5 692 703 32501533 10.1111/bjh.16764 PMC8505046

133. Auner HW Szydlo R Rone A Chaidos A Giles C Kanfer E Salvage autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma relapsing or progressing after up-front autologous transplantation Leuk Lymphoma 2013 54 10 2200 2204 23387937 10.3109/10428194.2013.773998

134. Nieto Y Valdez BC Pingali SR Bassett R Delgado R Nguyen J High-dose gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan for autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma: a phase 2 trial and matched-pair comparison with melphalan Lancet Haematol 2017 4 6 e283 e292 28522110 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30080-7 PMC5844223

135. Dhakal B, D'Souza A, Kleman A, Chhabra S, Mohan M, Hari P. Salvage second transplantation in relapsed multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2020. 10.1038/s41375-020-1005-8 PMC8020391 32747684

136. Gertz MA Lacy MQ Inwards DJ Gastineau DA Tefferi A Chen MG Delayed stem cell transplantation for the management of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Bone Marrow Transplant 2000 26 1 45 50 10918404 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702445

137. Gonsalves WI Gertz MA Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Hayman SR Buadi FK Second auto-SCT for treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma Bone Marrow Transplant 2013 48 4 568 573 23000647 10.1038/bmt.2012.183

138. Gössi U Jeker B Mansouri Taleghani B Bacher U Novak U Betticher D Prolonged survival after second autologous transplantation and lenalidomide maintenance for salvage treatment of myeloma patients at first relapse after prior autograft Hematol Oncol 2018 36 2 436 444 29363149 10.1002/hon.2490

139. Lemieux E Hulin C Caillot D Tardy S Dorvaux V Michel J Autologous stem cell transplantation: an effective salvage therapy in multiple myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013 19 3 445 449 23186983 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.013

140. Manjappa S Fiala MA King J Kohnen DA Vij R The efficacy of salvage autologous stem cell transplant among patients with multiple myeloma who received maintenance therapy post initial transplant Bone Marrow Transplant 2018 53 11 1483 1486 29795420 10.1038/s41409-018-0216-3

141. Michaelis LC Saad A Zhong X Le-Rademacher J Freytes CO Marks DI Salvage second hematopoietic cell transplantation in myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013 19 5 760 766 23298856 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.01.004 PMC3816739

142. Sellner L Heiss C Benner A Raab MS Hillengass J Hose D Autologous retransplantation for patients with recurrent multiple myeloma: a single-center experience with 200 patients Cancer 2013 119 13 2438 2446 23576287 10.1002/cncr.28104

143. Shah N Ahmed F Bashir Q Qureshi S Dinh Y Rondon G Durable remission with salvage second autotransplants in patients with multiple myeloma Cancer 2012 118 14 3549 3555 22086552 10.1002/cncr.26662 PMC4038445

144. Singh Abbi KK Zheng J Devlin SM Giralt S Landau H Second autologous stem cell transplant: an effective therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015 21 3 468 472 25529381 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.11.677

145. Veltri LW Milton DR Delgado R Shah N Patel K Nieto Y Outcome of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in refractory multiple myeloma Cancer 2017 123 18 3568 3575 28513828 10.1002/cncr.30770 PMC5656242

146. Zannetti BA Tacchetti P Pantani L Gamberi B Tosi P Rocchi S Novel agent-based salvage autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed multiple myeloma Ann Hematol 2017 96 12 2071 2078 29063955 10.1007/s00277-017-3140-5

147. Goldschmidt H, Baertsch MA, Schlenzka J, Becker N, Habermehl C, Hielscher T, et al. Salvage autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance vs. lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma: the randomized GMMG phase III trial ReLApsE. Leukemia. 2020. 10.1038/s41375-020-0948-0 32694619

148. Cook G Royle KL O'Connor S Cairns DA Ashcroft AJ Williams CD The impact of cytogenetics on duration of response and overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (long-term follow-up results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Br J Haematol 2019 185 3 450 467 30729512 10.1111/bjh.15782 PMC6519200

149. McCarthy PL Holstein SA Petrucci MT Richardson PG Hulin C Tosi P Lenalidomide Maintenance After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis J Clin Oncol 2017 35 29 3279 3289 28742454 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6679 PMC5652871

150. Durie BGM Hoering A Abidi MH Rajkumar SV Epstein J Kahanic SP Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2017 389 10068 519 527 28017406 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X PMC5546834

151. Bringhen S D'Agostino M Paris L Ballanti S Pescosta N Spada S Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial Haematologica 2020 105 7 1937 1947 31582542 10.3324/haematol.2019.226407 PMC7327625

152. Facon T Dimopoulos MA Dispenzieri A Catalano JV Belch A Cavo M Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma Blood 2018 131 3 301 310 29150421 10.1182/blood-2017-07-795047 PMC5774211

153. Rajkumar SV Updated Diagnostic Criteria and Staging System for Multiple Myeloma Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016 35 e418 e423 27249749 10.1200/EDBK_159009

154. Moreau P Zamagni E Mateos MV Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma progressing on frontline-therapy with lenalidomide Blood Cancer J 2019 9 4 38 30894516 10.1038/s41408-019-0200-1 PMC6426995

155. Mateos M-V Berdeja JG Dimopoulos MA Siegel DS Ho PJ Huang M Efficacy and Safety of Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone in Lenalidomide Exposed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients: Combined Analysis of Carfilzomib Trials Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 1963

156. Siegel DS Schiller GJ Samaras C Sebag M Berdeja J Ganguly S Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment Leukemia 2020 34 12 3286 3297 32376855 10.1038/s41375-020-0813-1 PMC7685974

157. Sonneveld P Zweegman S Cavo M Nasserinejad K Troia R Pour L Carfilzomib, Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone (KPd) in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Refractory to Bortezomib and Lenalidomide. the EMN011 Trial Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 801

158. Dimopoulos MA Weisel K Moreau P Anderson L White DJ San-Miguel JF Pomalidomide + Bortezomib + Low-Dose Dexamethasone Vs Bortezomib + Low-Dose Dexamethasone As Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Lenalidomide-Pretreated Multiple Myeloma: A Subgroup Analysis of the Phase 3 Optimismm Trial Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 3278

159. Sanchez L Barley K Richter J Franz J Cho HJ Jagannath S Immunomodulatory drug- and proteasome inhibitor-backbone regimens in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma: an evidence-based review Expert Rev Hematol 2020 13 9 943 958 32731770 10.1080/17474086.2020.1804356

160. Usmani SZ Quach H Mateos M-V Landgren O Leleu X Siegel DS Carfilzomib, Dexamethasone, and Daratumumab Versus Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Primary Analysis Results from the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study Candor ( NCT03158688 ) Blood 2019 134 Supplement_2 LBA-6

161. Orlowski RZ Moreau P Niesvizky R Ludwig H Oriol A Chng WJ Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib-Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Overall Survival, Safety, and Subgroups Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 8 522 530 31160237 10.1016/j.clml.2019.04.018

162. Moreau P Joshua D Chng WJ Palumbo A Goldschmidt H Hájek R Impact of prior treatment on patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone vs bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study Leukemia 2017 31 1 115 122 27491641 10.1038/leu.2016.186 PMC5220137

163. Bringhen S Pour L Vorobyev V Vural F Warzocha K Benboubker L Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma according to prior lines of treatment and refractory status: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis Leuk Res 2021 104 106576 33839618 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106576

164. Weisel K., Quach H., Nooka A., Samoylova O., Venner C. P., Kim K., et al., Carfilzomib, dexamethasone (kd) and daratumumab versus kd in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: subgroup analysis of the candor study by number of prior lines of therapy and prior therapies, in The 25th European Hematology Association Annual Congress (EHA25 Virtual). 2020.

165. Gooding S Lau IJ Sheikh M Roberts P Wong J Dickens E Double Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Outcomes and Real World Healthcare Costs PLoS ONE 2015 10 9 e0136207 26367874 10.1371/journal.pone.0136207 PMC4569348

166. Usmani S Ahmadi T Ng Y Lam A Desai A Potluri R Analysis of Real-World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients With ≥3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) and an Immunomodulatory Drug (IMiD), or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD Oncologist 2016 21 11 1355 1361 27486203 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0104 PMC5189616

167. Lonial S Weiss BM Usmani SZ Singhal S Chari A Bahlis NJ Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. (1474-547X (Electronic)) Lancet 2016 387 10027 1551 1560 26778538 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4

168. San Miguel JF Weisel KC Song KW Delforge M Karlin L Goldschmidt H Impact of prior treatment and depth of response on survival in MM-003, a randomized phase 3 study comparing pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Haematologica 2015 100 10 1334 1339 26160879 10.3324/haematol.2015.125864 PMC4591766

169. Usmani S Nahi H Plesner T Weiss B Bahlis N Belch A Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: final results from the phase 2 GEN501 and SIRIUS trials Lancet Haematol 2020 7 e447 e455 32470437 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30081-8

170. Bringhen S Attal M Pour L Vorobyev V Vural F Warzocha K ICARIA-MM study: efficacy analysis according to prior lines of treatment Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019 19 10 e245 e246

171. Chari A Martinez-Lopez J Mateos MV Bladé J Benboubker L Oriol A Daratumumab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2019 134 5 421 431 31113777 10.1182/blood.2019000722 PMC6676132

172. Bringhen S Mina R Cafro AM Liberati AM Spada S Belotti A Once-weekly carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma: a phase I/II study Leukemia 2018 32 8 1803 1807 29479061 10.1038/s41375-018-0024-1

173. Yang Y Li Y Gu H Dong M Cai Z Emerging agents and regimens for multiple myeloma J Hematol Oncol 2020 13 1 150 33168044 10.1186/s13045-020-00980-5 PMC7654052

174. Cedena MT Martin-Clavero E Wong S Shah N Bahri N Alonso R The clinical significance of stringent complete response in multiple myeloma is surpassed by minimal residual disease measurements PLoS ONE 2020 15 8 e0237155 32866200 10.1371/journal.pone.0237155 PMC7458342

175. Gagelmann N Riecken K Wolschke C Berger C Ayuk FA Fehse B Development of CAR-T cell therapies for multiple myeloma Leukemia 2020 34 9 2317 2332 32572190 10.1038/s41375-020-0930-x

176. Chari A Richardson PG Romanus D Dimopoulos MA Sonneveld P Terpos E Real-world outcomes and factors impacting treatment choice in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): a comparison of VRd, KRd, and IRd Expert Rev Hematol 2020 13 4 421 433 32148109 10.1080/17474086.2020.1729734

177. Chari A Romanus D Palumbo A Blazer M Farrelly E Raju A Randomized Clinical Trial Representativeness and Outcomes in Real-World Patients: Comparison of 6 Hallmark Randomized Clinical Trials of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2020 20 1 8 17 31722839 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.625

178. Bruno AS Willson JL Opalinska JM Nelson JJ Lunacsek OE Stafkey-Mailey DR Recent real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in US patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Expert Rev Hematol 2020 13 9 1017 1025 32844683 10.1080/17474086.2020.1800451

179. Richardson PG San Miguel JF Moreau P Hajek R Dimopoulos MA Laubach JP Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting Blood Cancer J 2018 8 11 109 30413684 10.1038/s41408-018-0141-0 PMC6226527

180. Terpos E Engelhardt M Cook G Gay F Mateos MV Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I Management of patients with multiple myeloma in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a consensus paper from the European Myeloma Network (EMN) Leukemia 2020 34 8 2000 2011 32444866 10.1038/s41375-020-0876-z PMC7244257

181. Pawlyn C Davies FE Toward personalized treatment in multiple myeloma based on molecular characteristics Blood 2019 133 7 660 675 30587529 10.1182/blood-2018-09-825331 PMC6384187