Post-Transplant Maintenance Treatment Options in Multiple Myeloma.

Key Summary Points

Autologous stem cell transplantation remains an integral part of myeloma therapy, most commonly used as part of initial treatment in patients eligible to undergo this procedure. Multiple phase III trials have shown a benefit for post-transplant maintenance therapy with different agents. Lenalidomide is considered the standard post-transplant maintenance based on a meta-analysis of different phase III trials demonstrating an improvement in progression-free and overall survival. In patients with high-risk multiple myeloma, maintenance therapy with a combination of a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug appears to be the best choice based on available data. The ideal duration of maintenance therapy remains unknown, and the current recommendation is to continue maintenance until disease progression, particularly in patients with high-risk disease.

Digital Features

This article is published with digital features, including a summary slide, to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13379480 .

Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disorder of plasma cells, and accounts for 17% of all hematologic malignancies, with an estimated incidence of 32,110 new cases in the United States in 2019. The disease has a high mortality rate; an estimated 12,960 deaths in 2019 were attributed to MM [ 1 ]. It is most common in adults aged 65 to 74 years, with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years [ 2 ]. The incidence varies based on ethnicity; prevalence is higher among African Americans, with a younger age of onset and comparable survival with appropriate access to treatment [ 3 , 4 ]. MM typically presents with end-organ damage attributable to marrow plasma cell infiltration and monoclonal protein or cytokines secreted by the myeloma cells and may include anemia, hypercalcemia, bone destruction and renal insufficiency. Easy fatigability and weight loss are also common features accompanying the disease. Less common signs include hepatosplenomegaly, fever, peripheral neuropathy, radiculopathy and encephalopathy [ 5 ]. Very rarely, patients present with medical emergencies such as spinal cord compression [ 6 ].

Patients with symptomatic myeloma are treated with combinations of active agents, typically one that contains a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), following which eligible patients often proceed to high-dose chemotherapy in combination with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The latter has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and increase the depth of response and durability of response [ 7 , 8 ]. Primary therapy involves two- or three-drug regimens based on the patient’s age, performance status, tolerability and eligibility for transplant. As disease relapse invariably occurs post-ASCT, different therapies have been employed post-transplant to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Post-ASCT therapies can be broadly classified as consolidation or maintenance therapy, though the distinction can sometimes be rather blurred. According to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) 2012 consensus, the purpose of consolidation therapy is to further reduce the treatment burden after ASCT, thereby enhancing treatment response. Maintenance therapy is employed for a longer time to ensure continued disease suppression [ 9 ]. Different phase III trials have examined the relative role of these two approaches post-ASCT. With the development of two-drug maintenance regimens, the distinction between consolidation and maintenance is becoming increasingly blurred. Lenalidomide [ 10 – 13 ] and bortezomib [ 14 , 15 ] are commonly used maintenance therapies in patients post-transplant. Ongoing trials are examining the role of other agents in prolonging the response post-ASCT. There is a great need for alternative drugs as maintenance therapy, considering the significant side effects associated with the above treatments, such as neutropenia and increased risk of secondary malignancies, especially with the use of lenalidomide post-ASCT [ 16 ].

The objective of this review is to analyze the available literature on post-transplant maintenance therapies for myeloma patients and consolidate evidence to facilitate management. We aim to gather evidence on different maintenance options in terms of efficacy in disease prevention and safety profiles.

Methods

An electronic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) databases was conducted to include studies published between 2000 and 2019. The following article types were included: phase II, III and IV clinical trials, randomized control trials (RCTs), retrospective/prospective studies, conference abstracts and meta-analyses. All the studies were screened for relevance. The above databases were chosen for their large collection of peer-reviewed articles. Ongoing clinical trials evaluating different maintenance combinations were also reviewed and included in the study.

Our initial search of the database for English-language studies performed in adult humans with MM and employing maintenance therapy resulted in 110 reports. After an initial review, 55 abstracts/manuscripts were included for further analysis (Fig. 1 ). This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Fig. 1 Database search and results review

Results

Chemotherapy Drugs

Studies in the late 1970s employing chemotherapeutic agents as maintenance therapy did not lead to prolongation of survival [ 17 ]. In 1988, a randomized trial compared maintenance melphalan and prednisone to no maintenance therapy in patients with MM who responded to primary therapy. Though there was earlier relapse in the no maintenance group, the patients still had a response when melphalan/prednisone was restarted, thus not impacting OS [ 18 ]. Based on these results, along with the increased risk of toxicity with melphalan, trials employing maintenance melphalan-based regimens did not translate to clinical use.

Interferon Alfa

In 1990, Mandelli et al. published their findings on the use of interferon alfa-2b as a maintenance regimen in patients who had significant response to induction therapy. It was concluded that maintenance interferon alfa-2b enhanced the response and improved OS [ 19 ]. Palumbo et al. investigated “intensified maintenance therapy,” adding glucocorticoids to interferon, which was associated with further prolonged duration of disease control [ 20 ]. Other prospective studies also suggested prolonged PFS with maintenance interferon [ 21 ], but the side effects, especially cytopenias, were significant. A small prospective study combined interferon alfa with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) post-ASCT to combat cytopenia and found better tolerability [ 22 ]. However, two subsequent landmark meta-analyses concluded that the small survival benefit with interferon came with a huge toxicity profile, which significantly affected quality of life [ 23 , 24 ]. Hence, the use of maintenance interferon was not recommended.

Thalidomide

Studies published in the late 2000s predominantly used thalidomide as a maintenance option. Two large RCTs were published in 2006 using thalidomide maintenance after induction therapy and ASCT. Both revealed improved event-free survival and better OS with maintenance thalidomide [ 25 – 27 ]. The HOVON-50 randomized phase III trial was a comparative study employing maintenance thalidomide or interferon-alfa following induction therapy. Patients received thalidomide, doxorubicin and dexamethasone or vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone induction, followed by high-dose melphalan conditioning and stem cell transplant prior to receiving maintenance therapy. Thalidomide significantly prolonged PFS and improved OS compared with interferon [ 28 ]. The findings were reproduced in another trial, which confirmed improved PFS with thalidomide maintenance compared to interferon, but the OS rates were similar [ 29 ]. A few other clinical trials and meta-analyses confirmed improved PFS with thalidomide maintenance compared to no maintenance, but OS rates were not significantly different [ 17 , 30 – 37 ] (Table 1 ). All the trials also demonstrated significant toxicity associated with thalidomide use, especially peripheral neuropathy [ 25 , 27 – 37 ]. Long-term follow-up results of HOVON-50 reproduced earlier findings of prolonged event-free survival with thalidomide maintenance compared to the control group but with significant toxicity. The authors concluded that thalidomide might still be an option as post-ASCT maintenance in developing countries where access to IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors is limited [ 37 ]. Table 1 Major studies utilizing thalidomide as maintenance therapy Author [Refs.] Median age, years No of patients Induction therapy Maintenance Type of study Follow-up duration (median) PFS/event-free survival OS/median survival Toxicity reported Attal et al. [ 25 ] 59, 597 High-dose therapy(vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) 1—No maintenance 2—Pamidronate 3—Pamidronate + thalidomide RCT 39-40 months 1–36% 2–37% 3–52% ( P < 0.009) 1–1–77% 2–74% 3–3–87% ( P < 0.04) NA Barlogi et al. [ 26 , 27 ] 57, 668 Melphalan-based chemotherapy 1—Thalidomide 2—No maintenance RCT 42 months 1–56% 2–44% ( P = 0.01) 1–1.1 years 2–2.7 years ( P = 0.90) Severe peripheral neuropathy, DVT Lokhorst et al. [ 28 ] 56, 536 1—VAD 2—Thalidomide, doxorubicin, dexamethasone 1—Alpha IFN 2—Thalidomide RCT 52 months 1–25 months 2–34 months ( P < 0.001) 1–60 months 2–73 m ( P = 0.77) Peripheral neuropathy, DVT Ludwig et al. [ 29 ] 71, 128 1—TD 2—MP 1—Thalidomide + IFN 2—IFN RCT 35 months 1–27.7 months 2–13.2 months ( P = 0.0068) 1–52.6 months 2–51.4 months ( P = 0.81) Neuropathy, constipation, skin toxicity, elevated creatinine Morgan et al. (Myeloma IX results and meta-analysis) [ 34 ] 59/73, 820 Intensive group—CTD/CVAD, followed by HDM Non-intensive group—MP/attenuated CTD 1—Thalidomide 2—No maintenance RCT 32 months Intensive group: 1–30 months 2–23 months ( P = 0.003) Non-intensive group: 1–11 months 2–9 months P = 0.014 Intensive group: OS not reached, 3-year survival: 1–75% 2–80% ( P = 0.26) Non-intensive group, median OS: 1–38 months 2–39 months P = 0.995 Paresthesia, drowsiness, constipation, eczema/rash, hematologic events, infection, thrombosis, tremor Spencer et al. [ 35 ] 57, 243 VAD or similar regimen 1—Thalidomide + prednisone 2—Prednisolone RCT 36 months 1–42% 2–23% ( P < 0.001) TTP, 931 days vs. 560 days 1–86% 2–75% ( P = 0.004) Neurotoxicity Stewart et al (Myeloma.10-MY.10 trial) [ 36 ] 58, 332 Any induction, excluding thalidomide and lenalidomide 1—Thalidomide + prednisolone 2—Observation RCT 48 months 1–32% 2–14% ( P < 0.0001) 1–68% 2–60% ( P = 0.18) DVT, second malignancy VAD vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone, TD thalidomide and dexamethasone, MP melphalan and prednisolone, CTD cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone, CVAD cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone, HDM high-dose melphalan, RCT randomized controlled trial, PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, DVT deep vein thrombosis

Lenalidomide

The next agent to be evaluated as maintenance therapy was the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide. A phase III placebo-controlled trial performed by Attal et al. randomized 614 patients under the age of 65 to receive lenalidomide or placebo after first bone marrow transplant. The study was conducted in 77 centers across Europe, with recruitment between 2006 and 2008. The study revealed significantly longer PFS in patients who were in the treatment arm, but there was also higher incidence of second primary cancers. At the 4-year follow-up, there was no difference in OS between the two groups [ 10 ]. Another randomized clinical trial, conducted by Palumbo et al., included 251 patients younger than age 65 who were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance versus no maintenance therapy. Lenalidomide maintenance was shown to improve PFS [ 13 ]. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) evaluated time to progression (TTP) with lenalidomide maintenance compared to placebo and found a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with patients on lenalidomide having delayed time to progression and improved OS [ 7 ]. This double-blinded RCT included patients with symptomatic disease who received induction therapy followed by ASCT, and had stable or improved disease at day 100. Patients were then randomly assigned to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg first 3 months, then 15 mg) or placebo treatment arms. After the initial 18-month follow-up, 67% (128 of 460) of those without progressive disease crossed over to the lenalidomide arm because of significantly improved time to progression. Long-term follow-up subsequently confirmed the prolonged time to progression with lenalidomide maintenance [ 11 ]. A meta-analysis of these three trials confirmed the improvement in PFS and OS with the use of lenalidomide post-ASCT.

The major RCTs showing positive response with lenalidomide maintenance led to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in February 2017 as maintenance therapy for MM patients after ASCT[ 38 ]

(Table 2 ). A health care cost analysis was performed post-approval and did not find a major impact on total plan costs, but this may have been due to the widespread use of maintenance lenalidomide even prior to approval [ 39 ]. Hematological adverse events such as cytopenias were common side effects with lenalidomide maintenance [ 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ]. Table 2 Major studies utilizing lenalidomide as maintenance therapy Author [Refs.] Median age (years) No. of patients Induction therapy Maintenance Type of study Follow-up duration (median) PFS/TTP OS Toxicity reported McCarthy et al. [ 7 ] 59, N = 460 Any 1—Lenalidomide 2—Placebo RCT 34 months Time to progression: 1–46 months 2–27 months ( P < 0.001) 1–88% 2–80% Hematologic events, second primary cancers Attal et al. [ 10 ] 55, N = 614 VAD or VD or Other 1—Lenalidomide 2—placebo RCT 30 months 1–41 months 2–23 months ( P < 0.001) 1–80% 2–84% ( P = 0.29) Peripheral neuropathy, second primary cancers Palumbo et al. [ 13 ] 71, N = 459 Lenalidomide, dexamethasone with MPR or melphalan consolidation 1—Lenalidomide 2—Placebo RCT 30 months 1–42 months 2–22 months ( P < 0.001) 1–88% 2–79% Hematologic abnormality, infection, dermatologic events, second primary cancer MPR melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide, VAD vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone, VD bortezomib and dexamethasone, RCT randomized controlled trial, PFS progression-free survival, TTP time to progression, OS overall survival

The BMT CTN 0702 trial compared patients who received single ASCT to double ASCT (tandem transplant), lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone consolidation (VRD) or no further intervention before all three groups were started on maintenance lenalidomide. The trial found no difference in PFS or OS between treatment arms. Based on these results, single ASCT with lenalidomide maintenance is suggested as the standard of care for patients receiving VRD induction therapy [ 40 ]. The Myeloma XI trial enrolled patients who were 18 years or older and had received any induction, followed by ASCT or other treatment, who were randomized to receive lenalidomide (10 mg days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation. Patients on lenalidomide maintenance demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients who received transplantation, which showed PFS of 57 months compared to 30 months in the observation group (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.40–0.58]; P < 0.0001), but the OS benefit was not statistically significant [ 41 ].

The impact of lenalidomide maintenance after ASCT in improving PFS was also observed in the Connect MM study, an observational study analyzing data from Connect MM Registry, which is the largest US-based database for newly diagnosed myeloma patients. The median OS was improved in the maintenance group but the 3-year mark was not reached [ 42 ].

A small prospective study performed by Solovev et al. aimed to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance lenalidomide in patients who achieved complete or stringent complete response following ASCT. Seventy patients with MM underwent ASCT/tandem ASCT after induction with bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs. Bone marrow exam with flow cytometry was performed on day 100 to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) status. Patients were then randomized to receive maintenance lenalidomide (15 mg/day on days 1–21 of a 28-day course). Two-year PFS was prolonged in patients with MRD-positive status with maintenance therapy, but the difference was not observed in MRD-negative patients. This small prospective study suggests a possible relationship between MRD status and selection of candidates for maintenance therapy [ 43 ].

A retrospective chart review of 245 patients with MM treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre confirmed prolonged PFS in patients who were on maintenance therapy after ASCT [ 44 ]. Another retrospective study evaluated the optimal duration of lenalidomide maintenance and revealed prolonged PFS with longer maintenance duration up to 3 years or more. The incidence of second primary malignancies was also low at 3%. That study concluded that longer duration of maintenance lenalidomide was associated with longer survival [ 45 ].

The Japan Study Group for Cell Therapy and Transplantation JSCT-MM12 trial included 64 patients with symptomatic myeloma. Patients received bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone induction, followed by bortezomib-melphalan conditioning and ASCT; they then received two cycles of bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone consolidation, followed by lenalidomide maintenance for 1 year. Overall tolerability and response were very good [ 46 ]. Lenalidomide is now an established option for maintenance therapy post-ASCT.

Bortezomib

Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has also been used as maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial using bortezomib before and after SCT as maintenance therapy showed significantly prolonged PFS and OS with bortezomib use. Patients in the HOVON trial were randomly assigned to VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) as induction therapy, followed by ASCT and thalidomide maintenance or PAD (bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) induction, followed by ASCT and bortezomib maintenance. Prolonged PFS and OS was observed in patients receiving bortezomib; the benefit was also established in patients with high-risk disease (those with chromosome 17p13 deletion and those with kidney disease with creatinine over 2 mg/dl) [ 15 ]. The long-term results of the trial (at 96 months) also confirmed prolonged PFS in the bortezomib or PAD arm, but OS and incidence of secondary malignancies were similar between the groups (PAD vs. VAD) [ 47 ].

GEM05MENOS65 was a phase III trial performed in myeloma patients to evaluate efficacy of different maintenance therapy. A total of 390 patients received different induction therapy followed by ASCT, and then 271 were randomly assigned to thalidomide-bortezomib or thalidomide or alfa2 interferon maintenance for 3 years. Complete response improved by 21% with the combination therapy, compared to 11% with thalidomide and 17% with interferon alone. The study concluded that the combination was associated with longer PFS, but the OS did not differ between the treatment arms [ 48 ].

Hence, bortezomib is a potential alternative maintenance therapy option post-ASCT to prolong PFS, especially in high-risk patients. Table 3 summarizes the major studies using bortezomib as maintenance therapy. Table 3 Major studies utilizing bortezomib as maintenance therapy Author [Refs.] Median age (years) No. of patients Induction therapy Maintenance Type of study Follow-up duration (median) PFS OS Toxicity reported Sonneveld et al. (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4-initial report) [ 15 ] 57, N = 827 1-VAD 1—Thalidomide RCT 41 months 1–28 months 1–55% Peripheral neuropathy, higher with PAD and thalidomide maintenance 2-PAD* 2—Bortezomib 2–35 months 2–61% Followed by single or double ASCT or ASCT/allogeneic SCT ( P = 0.002) ( P = 0.11) Goldschmidt et al. (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4) [ 47 ] 57, N = 827 1-VAD 1—Thalidomide RCT 96 months 1–28 months 1–82 months 2-PAD* 2—Bortezomib 2–34 m 2–91 months Followed by single or double ASCT or ASCT/allogeneic SCT ( P = 0.003) ( P = 0.24) Rosinol et al. (PETHEMA/GEM)( 48 ) 59, N = 390 VBMCP/VBAD/B** 1—Thalidomide, bortezomib RCT 59 months 1–50.6 months 1–78% Peripheral neuropathy, hematologic toxicity 2—Thalidomide 2–40.3 months 2–72% 3—Alfa2 interferon 3–32.5 months 3–70% ( P = 0.03) ( P = 0.3) * PAD bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, **VBMCP/VBAD/B thalidomide/dexamethasone, bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone and vincristine, BCNU melphalan, cyclophosphamide, prednisone/vincristine, BCNU doxorubicin, dexamethasone bortezomib, RCT randomized controlled trial, PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival

Ixazomib

Ixazomib, another proteasome inhibitor, has also been utilized as maintenance therapy in high-risk myeloma patients with bortezomib resistance. The drug is preferred for its ease of administration, as it can be given orally and once a week. Phase I trials suggested a clinically meaningful response in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients, without intolerable toxicity [ 49 ]. The TOURMALINE-MM3 phase III trial compared ixazomib maintenance versus placebo maintenance after ASCT in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Induction therapy included an immunomodulator or proteasome-based regimen. Patients had to have achieved at least a partial response to induction to be eligible for participation in this trial. Overall, 656 patients were randomized; the median age was 57, with a median follow-up of 31 months. Landmark analysis was performed from ASCT and revealed significantly prolonged PFS in the ixazomib arm, 30.7 months versus 24.9 in the placebo arm. Ixazomib was well tolerated with few grade 3 adverse events (infections, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy). Rates of secondary malignancies were similar across treatment arms. Considering the good tolerability, ease of administration, lower rates of second malignancies, and enhanced response with significantly improved PFS, the authors concluded that ixazomib is a valuable post-ASCT maintenance option [ 50 ]. Further trials are ongoing to confirm the role of ixazomib as post-ASCT maintenance in high-risk myeloma patients (Table 4 ). Table 4 Actively recruiting trials for post-ASCT maintenance in myeloma Clinical trial identifier Phase No. Target group Induction therapy Maintenance Objective NCT02334865 Phase I 18 Newly diagnosed myeloma patients on lenalidomide maintenance Any induction Lenalidomide maintenance with SVN53-67/M57-KLH vaccine in incomplete Freund's adjuvant To determine toxicity of combination and therapeutic efficacy NCT01864018 Phase I/II 51 Newly diagnosed untreated symptomatic myeloma Ixazomib citrate, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone Ixazomib citrate Maximum tolerated dose of ixazomib, rate of CR/VGPR, AE, PFS, survival time NCT02891811 Phase II 146 Newly diagnosed myeloma Carfilzomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone vs. carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone Carfilzomib Response, feasibility, safety NCT03733691 Phase II 52 Newly diagnosed myeloma Any (bortezomib/lenalidomide-based) Ixazomib vs. ixazomib/lenalidomide PFS, OS, AE, enhanced response NCT03669445 Phase II 45 Newly diagnosed SR myeloma Lenalidomide, ixazomib, daratumumab, dexamethasone Lenalidomide, ixazomib, daratumumab, dexamethasone MRD negativity, PFS, OS, AE, RR NCT03896737 Phase II 400 Newly diagnosed myeloma Daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone vs. bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone Ixazomib vs. ixazomib, daratumumab PFS, MRD negativity, ORR, OS NCT03104842 Phase II 153 Newly diagnosed myeloma Isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone Isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone MRD negativity NCT03477539 Phase II 50 Transplant-eligible myeloma Daratumumab Daratumumab, lenalidomide MRD negativity, PFS, ORR, AE, survival time NCT03942224 Phase II 76 Newly diagnosed myeloma Daratumumab, ixazomib, dexamethasone Daratumumab, ixazomib, dexamethasone VGPR rate, best response, objective response rate, MRD, PFS, time to response, DoR NCT03490344 Phase II 25 MRD-positive myeloma patients after induction with/without high-dose therapy/ASCT Any Daratumumab to lenalidomide maintenance MRD negativity at end of 6 months of daratumumab therapy NCT03188172 Phase II 95 HR myeloma Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, lenalidomide, daratumumab Lenalidomide, daratumumab PFS, AE, OS, maximum response, ORR, QoL NCT03411031 Phase II 60 Relapse/progressive disease on maintenance lenalidomide Any Addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide maintenance PFS, ORR, MRD status NCT03756896 Phase II 34 HR myeloma Any Carfilzomib, pomalidomide, dexamethasone CR, PFS, ORR, OS, MRD status, DoR, objective response rate NCT03622775 Phase II 56 Relapsed myeloma after salvage ASCT Any Daratumumab Complete remission rate, PFS NCT03376672 Phase II 120 Newly diagnosed myeloma Ixazomib, lenalidomide dexamethasone Ixazomib, lenalidomide vs. lenalidomide FC assessment, FC negativity NCT03346135 Phase II 40 Myeloma Any Daratumumab PFS, MRD status, AE, ORR, response duration, depth of response, OS NCT03606577 Phase II 50 Newly diagnosed HR myeloma Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, daratumumab Lenalidomide, daratumumab MRD, number of response, patients requiring second ASCT, AE, TTP NCT02389517 Phase II 86 Residual disease after transplant Any Lenalidomide, ixazomib citrate, dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide MRD, ORR, DoR, PFS, OS, AE NCT02659293 Phase III 180 Myeloma Any Lenalidomide carfilzomib, dexamethasone vs, lenalidomide PFS, MRD, RR, AE NCT03901963 Phase III 214 Newly diagnosed MM who are MRD-positive after ASCT Any induction Daratumumab with lenalidomide vs. lenalidomide Percentage of MRD-negative, PFS NCT03617731 Phase III 662 Newly diagnosed myeloma Isatuximab to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone induction Lenalidomide MRD negativity, PFS, OS, CR NCT03562169 Phase III 406 Relapsed myeloma Ixazomib thalidomide dexamethasone Ixazomib-based or no maintenance ORR, PFS, OS NCT04071457 Phase III 1100 Newly diagnosed myeloma Any Lenalidomide with daratumumab/rHUPh20 vs. lenalidomide OS, PFS, response, MRD negativity NCT03948035 Phase III 576 Newly diagnosed myeloma Elotuzumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone vs. carfilzomib, lenalidomide dexamethasone Elotuzumab lenalidomide vs. lenalidomide Induction phase/maintenance phase, long-term efficacy NCT03792620 Phase III 20 Stage I multiple myeloma Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, dexamethasone, daratumumab Daratumumab RR, AE, ORR, TTP, PFS NCT04221178 NA 50 MRD-negative myeloma Any Any PFS after cessation of maintenance ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation, SR standard risk, MRD minimal residual disease, HR high risk, CR complete response, VGPR very good partial response, DoR duration of response, PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, AE adverse events, RR response rate, ORR overall response rate, TTP time to progression, FC flow cytometry, QoL quality of life

Carfilzomib

Carfilzomib is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor which has demonstrated excellent efficacy. A phase I/II study of the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (CRd) suggested good tolerance and prolonged PFS when employed as induction and maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The patients in this trial received eight cycles of CRd initially, with the option for SCT after the first four cycles. After SCT, patients then received maintenance CRd for a total of 24 cycles. Finally, patients were to receive maintenance lenalidomide off study protocol. CRd was well tolerated in the induction and maintenance phases, with rapid, sustained responses [ 51 ]. Another phase I/II trial using carfilzomib-melphalan conditioning followed by ASCT and carfilzomib maintenance in patients with relapsed myeloma demonstrated good PFS and OS. All patients had received a median of three therapies prior to receiving the study drug [ 52 ]. Ongoing trials utilizing carfilzomib are documented in Table 4 .

Monoclonal Antibodies: Elotuzumab/Daratumumab

Monoclonal antibodies targeting specific receptors in myeloma cells are being explored in relapsed/refractory myeloma and also as first-line management of new myeloma patients. The anti-SLAMF7 antibody elotuzumab and anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab were approved by the FDA in 2015 for the management of myeloma patients [ 53 ].

The role of drugs in post-ASCT maintenance was explored in a phase II trial evaluating the efficacy of elotuzumab-lenalidomide combination. Recently published updated results suggest promising results and good tolerability. A total of 84 patients received 16 cycles of elotuzumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. More than 90% of patients who had complete remission with MRD at the point of trial entry tested negative by flow cytometry. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved complete response, within a median time of 2 months. Common side effects reported were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia, with common gastrointestinal side effects as well (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) [ 54 ]. A few other phase I/II and phase III trials are recruiting patients comparing the elotuzumab-lenalidomide/bortezomib combination in different dosing and in comparison with lenalidomide alone (Table 4 ).

Phase I/II trials employing daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, revealed good efficacy and overall safety [ 55 , 56 ]. An ongoing phase II trial is evaluating the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction, followed by ASCT and daratumumab-lenalidomide versus lenalidomide maintenance. Preliminary reports reveal an overall good safety profile with manageable toxicity. Daratumumab utilized as front-line induction therapy demonstrated an improved response rate and depth of response without affecting the percentage of stem cell collection [ 57 ].

The recently published LYRA study evaluated the combination of daratumumab with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed and relapsed myeloma patients. Eligible patients received the above combination induction therapy followed by ASCT and daratumumab maintenance. Eighty-seven newly diagnosed myeloma and 14 relapsed myeloma patients were enrolled in the study, with a median age of 64. At the time of the report, 28 of the newly diagnosed myeloma patients had undergone ASCT. Subgroup analysis was not reported, but overall 12-month PFS in transplant-eligible/ineligible patients was 87% [ 58 ]. The combination of daratumumab with melphalan, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients improved PFS to 71.6%, compared to 50.2% in the control group (melphalan, bortezomib and dexamethasone). The rates of hematologic and infectious adverse events were higher in the treatment arm, but the benefits of decreased mortality and improved disease-free survival times were significant [ 59 ]. Daratumumab is thus being explored as a highly efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic target in myeloma (Table 4 ).

Adoptive Cell Transfer and Idiotype Vaccine

Phase II trials employing vaccines against tumor-specific antigen are also being performed to achieve longer relapse-free periods in myeloma. Trials employing Ig idiotype (Id tumor-specific antigen) vaccine, conjugated with the carrier protein keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), had their origin in the management of follicular lymphoma. A double-blind RCT confirmed prolonged PFS in lymphoma patients who received the patient-specific Id vaccine [ 60 ]. Phase I/II trials involving adoptive transfer of tumor antigen vaccine-primed co-stimulated T cells showed enhanced cellular and humoral immune response to the vaccine and also anti-tumor immunity in post-ASCT patients [ 61 ]. This led the authors of the phase II RCT to combine the Id vaccine with adoptive cell transfer as maintenance therapy in myeloma post-ASCT. Thirty-six patients were randomized to a control arm with KLH only (20) or treatment arm with Id-KLH (16) combination, followed by ASCT. All patients then received vaccine-primed co-stimulated T cells and two booster vaccine doses (KLH or Id-KLH, depending on prior randomization status). The authors reported no acute vaccine-related reactions. Gene expression analysis was performed to evaluate humoral and cellular immunity in response to the vaccines. Higher expression of immune regulatory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was noted in the treatment arm, translating to an enhanced clinical response [ 62 ].

Actively recruiting trials investigating different novel agents as maintenance post-ASCT in myeloma are documented in Table 4 .

Post-ASCT maintenance options for myeloma patients is summarized in Fig. 2 . Fig. 2 Summary of post-ASCT maintenance therapy options

Conclusion

Post-ASCT maintenance therapy with lenalidomide or bortezomib is the standard of care for myeloma patients to prolong PFS and potentially OS. The type of maintenance therapy depends on multiple factors including prior therapy, presence of high-risk characteristics, patient tolerance and side effect profile. Longer periods of maintenance translate to prolonged PFS and delayed disease relapse. Side effects need to be considered when using long-term maintenance therapy. Consolidation therapy can enhance post-ASCT response in some patients.

Acknowledgements

Funding

No rapid service fee was received by the journal for the publication of this article.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Shaji Kumar: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution: Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, BMS, KITE, Merck, AbbVie, MedImmune, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Amgen, TeneoBio, CARsgen. Consulting/advisory board participation: (with no personal payments) Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Genentech, Amgen, and (with personal payment) Oncopeptides, GeneCentrix, Cellectar, BeiGene. Dhauna Karam has nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

1. Siegel RL Miller KD Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2019 CA Cancer J Clin 2019 69 1 7 34 30620402 10.3322/caac.21551

2. Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse S, et al. SEER STAT fact sheets: myeloma. SEER cancer statistics review, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/mulmyhtml Accessed 15 2016.

3. Shirley MH Sayeed S Barnes I Finlayson A Ali R Incidence of haematological malignancies by ethnic group in England, 2001–7 Br J Haematol 2013 163 4 465 477 24033296 10.1111/bjh.12562

4. Waxman AJ Mink PJ Devesa SS Anderson WF Weiss BM Kristinsson SY Racial disparities in incidence and outcome in multiple myeloma: a population-based study Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2010 116 25 5501 5506 10.1182/blood-2010-07-298760 PMC3031400 20823456

5. Kyle RA Gertz MA Witzig TE Lust JA Lacy MQ Dispenzieri A Fonseca R Rajkumar SV Offord JR Larson DR Plevak ME Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 78 1 21 33 12528874 10.4065/78.1.21

6. Brenner B Carter A Tatarsky I Gruszkiewicz J Peyser E Incidence, prognostic significance and therapeutic modalities of central nervous system involvement in multiple myeloma Acta Haematol 1982 68 2 77 83 6812375 10.1159/000206956

7. McCarthy PL Owzar K Hofmeister CC Hurd DD Hassoun H Richardson PG Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1770 1781 22571201 10.1056/NEJMoa1114083 PMC3744390

8. Stewart AK Richardson P San-Miguel J How I treat multiple myeloma in younger patients (Blood (2009) 114, 27 (5436–5443)) Blood 2010 115 19 4006 10.1182/blood-2009-07-204651 19861683

9. Ludwig H Durie BG McCarthy P Palumbo A San Miguel J Barlogie B IMWG consensus on maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2012 119 13 3003 3015 10.1182/blood-2011-11-374249 PMC3321864 22271445

10. Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Marit G Caillot D Moreau P Facon T Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1782 1791 22571202 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138

11. Holstein SA Jung S-H Richardson PG Hofmeister CC Hurd DD Hassoun H Updated analysis of CALGB (Alliance) 100104 assessing lenalidomide versus placebo maintenance after single autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol 2017 4 9 e431 e442 28826616 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30140-0 PMC5718627

12. 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 28742454 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6679 PMC5652871

13. Palumbo A Cavallo F Gay F Di Raimondo F Ben Yehuda D Petrucci MT Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2014 371 10 895 905 25184862 10.1056/NEJMoa1402888

14. Mellqvist U-H Gimsing P Hjertner O Lenhoff S Laane E Remes K Bortezomib consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a Nordic Myeloma Study Group randomized phase 3 trial Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2013 121 23 4647 4654 10.1182/blood-2012-11-464503 PMC3674665 23616624

15. Sonneveld P Schmidt-Wolf IG van der Holt B el Jarari L Bertsch U Salwender H Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial J Clin Oncol 2012 30 24 2946 2955 22802322 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.6820

16. Palumbo A Bringhen S Kumar SK Lupparelli G Usmani S Waage A Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data Lancet Oncol 2014 15 3 333 342 24525202 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70609-0

17. Alexanian R Salmon S Bonnet J Gehan E Haut A Weick J Combination therapy for multiple myeloma Cancer 1977 40 6 2765 2771 589554 10.1002/1097-0142(197712)40:6<2765::aid-cncr2820400602>3.0.co;2-x

18. Belch A Shelley W Bergsagel D Wilson K Klimo P White D A randomized trial of maintenance versus no maintenance melphalan and prednisone in responding multiple myeloma patients Br J Cancer 1988 57 1 94 99 3279997 10.1038/bjc.1988.17 PMC2246700

19. Mandelli F Avvisati G Amadori S Boccadoro M Gernone A Lauta VM Maintenance treatment with recombinant interferon alfa-2b in patients with multiple myeloma responding to conventional induction chemotherapy N Engl J Med 1990 322 20 1430 1434 2184356 10.1056/NEJM199005173222005

20. Palumbo A Boccadoro M Garino LA Gallone G Frieri R Pileri A Interferon plus glucocorticoids as intensified maintenance therapy prolongs tumor control in relapsed myeloma Acta Haematol 1993 90 2 71 76 8285021 10.1159/000204379

21. Björkstrand B Svensson H Goldschmidt H Ljungman P Apperley J Mandelli F Alpha-interferon maintenance treatment is associated with improved survival after high-dose treatment and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a retrospective registry study from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Bone Marrow Transplant 2001 27 5 511 515 11313685 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702826

22. Salmasinia D Chang M Wingard JR Hou W Moreb JS Combination of IFN-α/Gm-CSF as a maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma patients after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT): a prospective phase II study Clin Med Insights Oncol 2010 4 6161 10.4137/CMO.S6161 PMC2999958 21151584

23. Fritz E Ludwig H Interferon-α treatment in multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of 30 randomised trials among 3948 patients Ann Oncol 2000 11 11 1427 1436 11142483 10.1023/a:1026548226770

24. Group MTC Interferon as therapy for multiple myeloma: an individual patient data overview of 24 randomized trials and 4012 patients Br J Haematol 2001 113 4 1020 1034 11442498 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.02857.x

25. Attal M Harousseau J-L Leyvraz S Doyen C Hulin C Benboubker L Maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival in patients with multiple myeloma Blood 2006 108 10 3289 3294 16873668 10.1182/blood-2006-05-022962

26. Barlogie B Attal M Crowley J van Rhee F Szymonifka J Moreau P Long-term follow-up of autotransplantation trials for multiple myeloma: update of protocols conducted by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome, Southwest Oncology Group, and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences J Clin Oncol 2010 28 7 1209 20085933 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6081 PMC2834471

27. Barlogie B Tricot G Anaissie E Shaughnessy J Rasmussen E Van Rhee F Thalidomide and hematopoietic-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2006 354 10 1021 1030 16525139 10.1056/NEJMoa053583

28. Lokhorst HM van der Holt B Zweegman S Vellenga E Croockewit S van Oers MH A randomized phase 3 study on the effect of thalidomide combined with adriamycin, dexamethasone, and high-dose melphalan, followed by thalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2010 115 6 1113 1120 10.1182/blood-2009-05-222539 19880501

29. Ludwig H Adam Z Tóthová E Hajek R Labar B Egyed M Thalidomide maintenance treatment increases progression-free but not overall survival in elderly patients with myeloma Haematologica 2010 95 9 1548 1554 20418244 10.3324/haematol.2009.020586 PMC2930957

30. Ghavamzadeh A Seghatoleslami M Roozbeh F Alimoghadam K Efficacy and side effects of maintenance therapy with thalidomide following stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma J Babol Univ Med Sci 2014 16 7 23 28

31. Kagoya Y Nannya Y Kurokawa M Thalidomide maintenance therapy for patients with multiple myeloma: meta-analysis Leuk Res 2012 36 8 1016 1021 22579366 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.04.001

32. Kovacs MJ Davies GA Chapman JAW Bahlis N Voralia M Roy J Thalidomide-prednisone maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma: effect on thrombin generation and procoagulant markers in NCIC CTG MY.10 Br J Haematol 2015 168 4 511 517 25302852 10.1111/bjh.13176

33. Maiolino A Hungria VT Garnica M Oliveira-Duarte G Oliveira LC Mercante DR Thalidomide plus dexamethasone as a maintenance therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation improves progression-free survival in multiple myeloma Am J Hematol 2012 87 10 948 952 22730113 10.1002/ajh.23274

34. Morgan GJ Gregory WM Davies FE Bell SE Szubert AJ Brown JM The role of maintenance thalidomide therapy in multiple myeloma: MRC Myeloma IX results and meta-analysis Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2012 119 1 7 15 10.1182/blood-2011-06-357038 22021371

35. Spencer A Prince HM Roberts AW Prosser IW Bradstock KF Coyle L Consolidation therapy with low-dose thalidomide and prednisolone prolongs the survival of multiple myeloma patients undergoing a single autologous stem-cell transplantation procedure J Clin Oncol 2009 27 11 1788 1793 19273705 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.8573

36. Stewart AK Trudel S Bahlis NJ White D Sabry W Belch A A randomized phase 3 trial of thalidomide and prednisone as maintenance therapy after ASCT in patients with MM with a quality-of-life assessment: the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinicals Trials Group Myeloma 10 Trial Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2013 121 9 1517 1523 10.1182/blood-2012-09-451872 PMC3587317 23297129

37. van de Donk NW van der Holt B Minnema MC Vellenga E Croockewit S Kersten MJ Thalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation in recently diagnosed multiple myeloma (HOVON-50): long-term results from the phase 3, randomised controlled trial Lancet Haematol 2018 5 10 e479 e492 30290905 10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30149-2

38. Pulte ED Dmytrijuk A Nie L Goldberg KB McKee AE Farrell AT FDA approval summary: lenalidomide as maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Oncologist 2018 23 6 734 29438096 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0440 PMC6067941

39. Xie J Impact of FDA approval of lenalidomide maintenance therapy in the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplant on total healthcare costs J Clin Oncol. 2017 35 15_suppl e19509

40. Stadtmauer EA Pasquini MC Blackwell B Hari P Bashey A Devine S Autologous transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the BMT CTN 0702 trial J Clin Oncol 2019 37 7 589 30653422 10.1200/JCO.18.00685 PMC6553842

41. Jackson GH Davies FE Pawlyn C Cairns DA Striha A Collett C Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2019 20 1 57 73 30559051 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30687-9 PMC6318225

42. Jagannath S Abonour R Durie BG Narang M Terebelo HR Gasparetto CJ Impact of post-ASCT maintenance therapy on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Connect MM Blood Adv 2018 2 13 1608 1615 29986853 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018017186 PMC6039656

43. Solovev MV Mendeleeva LP Firsova MV Galtseva IV Davydova J Gemdzhian EG Efficacy of maintenance therapy following auto-HSCT depending on MRD status in patients with multiple myeloma Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 3432

44. Reece D Mikhaeil J Masih-Khan E Atenafu EG Chen CI Kukreti V Real world outcomes of newly diagnosed high-risk multiple myeloma patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre: a retrospective chart review Blood 2017 130 Supplement 1 2010

45. Mian I Milton DR Shah N Nieto Y Popat UR Kebriaei P Prolonged survival with a longer duration of maintenance lenalidomide after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma Cancer 2016 122 24 3831 3837 27680710 10.1002/cncr.30366 PMC5138119

46. Sunami K Matsumoto M Fuchida SI Omoto E Takamatsu H Adachi Y Bortezomib-based strategy with autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase II study by the Japan Study Group for cell therapy and transplantation (JSCT-MM12) Inte J Clin Oncol 2019 24 8 966 975 10.1007/s10147-019-01436-8 30937622

47. Goldschmidt H Lokhorst H Mai E van der Holt B Blau I Zweegman S Bortezomib before and after high-dose therapy in myeloma: long-term results from the phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial Leukemia 2018 32 2 383 390 28761118 10.1038/leu.2017.211

48. Rosiñol L Oriol A Teruel A De La Guía A Blanchard M De La Rubia J Bortezomib and thalidomide maintenance after stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: a PETHEMA/GEM trial Leukemia 2017 31 9 1922 1927 28111466 10.1038/leu.2017.35

49. Kumar SK Bensinger WI Zimmerman TM Reeder CB Berenson JR Berg D Phase 1 study of weekly dosing with the investigational oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2014 124 7 1047 1055 10.1182/blood-2014-01-548941 PMC4468583 24904120

50. Dimopoulos MA Gay F Schjesvold F Beksac M Hajek R Weisel KC Oral ixazomib maintenance following autologous stem cell transplantation (TOURMALINE-MM3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial Lancet 2019 393 10168 253 264 30545780 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33003-4

51. Jakubowiak AJ Dytfeld D Griffith KA Lebovic D Vesole DH Jagannath S Al-Zoubi A Anderson T Nordgren B Detweiler-Short K Stockerl-Goldstein K A phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone as a frontline treatment for multiple myeloma Blood 2012 120 9 1801 9 22665938 10.1182/blood-2012-04-422683 PMC5162553

52. Costa LJ Landau HJ Chhabra S Hari P Innis-Shelton R Godby KN Phase 1/2 trial of carfilzomib plus high-dose melphalan preparative regimen for salvage autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by maintenance carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2018 24 7 1379 1385 29410301 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.01.036 PMC7590532

53. Wang Y Sanchez L Siegel DS Wang ML Elotuzumab for the treatment of multiple myeloma J Hematol Oncol 2016 9 1 55 27417553 10.1186/s13045-016-0284-z PMC4946088

54. Thomas SK Shah JJ Morphey AN Lee HC Manasanch EE Patel KK Updated results of a phase II study of lenalidomide-elotuzumab as maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplant (AuSCT) in patients (Pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) Blood 2018 132 Supplement 1 1982

55. Lokhorst HM Plesner T Laubach JP Nahi H Gimsing P Hansson M Targeting CD38 with daratumumab monotherapy in multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 373 13 1207 1219 26308596 10.1056/NEJMoa1506348

56. 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 Lancet 2016 387 10027 1551 1560 26778538 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4

57. Voorhees PM Rodriguez C Reeves B Nathwani N Costa LJ Lutska Y Efficacy and updated safety analysis of a safety run-in cohort from Griffin, a phase 2 randomized study of daratumumab (Dara), bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (D; Dara-Vrd) vs. Vrd in patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) Blood 2018 132 Suppl 1 151

58. Yimer H Melear J Faber E Bensinger WI Burke JM Narang M Daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma: LYRA study Br J Haematol 2019 185 3 492 502 30828799 10.1111/bjh.15806 PMC6593455

59. Mateos M-V Dimopoulos MA Cavo M Suzuki K Jakubowiak A Knop S Daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for untreated myeloma N Engl J Med 2018 378 6 518 528 29231133 10.1056/NEJMoa1714678

60. Schuster SJ Neelapu SS Gause BL Janik JE Muggia FM Gockerman JP Vaccination with patient-specific tumor-derived antigen in first remission improves disease-free survival in follicular lymphoma J Clin Oncol 2011 29 20 2787 21632504 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.3005 PMC3139394

61. Qazilbash MH Stadtmauer EA Baladandayuthapani V Lin H Tross BM Honhar M Randomized phase II trial of combination idiotype vaccine and anti-CD3/anti-CD28 costimulated autologous T cells in patients with multiple myeloma post-autotransplantation 2016 Washington, DC American Society of Hematology

62. Rapoport AP Aqui NA Stadtmauer EA Vogl DT Fang H-B Cai L Combination immunotherapy using adoptive T-cell transfer and tumor antigen vaccination on the basis of hTERT and survivin after ASCT for myeloma Blood J Am Soc Hematol 2011 117 3 788 797 10.1182/blood-2010-08-299396 PMC3035073 21030558