Background Haematological malignancies and their treatments are likely to affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy. We aimed to evaluate serological response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with haematological malignancies by type of treatment. Methods Our national prospective cohort study was done in Lithuania and assessed serological response to one and two BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine doses in healthy health-care workers and in patients with haematological malignancies. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had received both vaccine doses, and had available biobanked blood samples from before vaccination and after the second dose. Biobanked samples and health data were obtained from Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos Biobank. Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle assay was used to quantify serum anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1 IgG antibody (anti-S1 IgG antibody) concentrations 0–10 days before the first BNT162b2 vaccine, on the day of second immunisation (around day 21), and 7 to 21 days after the second immunisation. Adverse events were assessed by a standardised questionnaire. Breakthrough infections were characterised clinically and by SARS-CoV-2 genotyping whenever possible. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04871165 . Findings Between Jan 8 and April 21, 2021, 885 participants with haematological malignancies were included in the study. 857 patients were anti-S1 IgG seronegative at timepoint 0 and constituted the main analysis cohort. The age-matched comparison was made between 315 patients with haematological malignancies who were aged 18–60 years and 67 healthy health-care workers in the same age group. Patients aged 18–60 years with haematological malignancies had lower median anti-S1 IgG antibody responses after two BNT162b2 vaccine doses than did health-care workers of the same age group (median 6961 AU/mL [IQR 1292–20 672] vs 21 395 AU/mL [14 831–33 553]; p<0·0001). Compared with untreated patients with haematological malignancies (n=53; median 5761 AU/mL [629–16 141]), patients actively treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKIs; n=44; 0 AU/mL [0–7]; p<0·0001), ruxolitinib (n=16; 10 AU/mL [0–45]; p<0·0001), venetoclax (n=10; 4 AU/mL [0–1218]; p=0·0005), or anti-CD20 antibody therapy (n=87; 17 AU/mL [1–2319]; p<0·0001) showed particularly poor anti-S1 IgG antibody responses following two BNT162b2 doses. Patients being treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n=41; 10 537 AU/mL [IQR 2335–19 388]) or patients who received autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT; n=192; 6203 AU/mL [1451–16 834]) or allogeneic HSCT (n=122; 6304 AU/mL [1120–16 913]) were among the subgroups with the highest numerical responses. Nine SARS-CoV-2 infections and three COVID-19 deaths were observed among fully vaccinated patients with haematological malignancies. ...

The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.

No abstract

Pretreatment detection of peripheral blood malignant circulating plasma cells (CPCs) has been shown to be of negative prognostic value in multiple myeloma (MM). We hypothesized that the assessment of CPC kinetics in response to one therapy cycle using six-color flow cytometry could be helpful in the early detection of MM refractoriness to treatment. Forty-two patients with refractory or relapsed (RR) MM were enrolled. Median time to tumor progression (TTP) of 51 days and median overall survival (OS) of 308 days was shortest in patients whose CPCs with aberrant phentoype (aCPCs) did not decrease after one therapy cycle compared to patients with decreasing (median TTP 258 days and OS 856 days) or undetectable (median TTP 581 days and OS 1006 days) aCPCs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007 for TTP and OS, respectively). Non-reduction of aCPCs in patients with RR MM after the first cycle of therapy may be useful in early identification of patients resistant to a given therapy.

No abstract

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6•8 months (95% CI 5•0-8•5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4•9 months (4•2-5•7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0•79, [95% CI 0•64-0•98]; p=0•032), at a median follow-up of 15•5 months (IQR 9•4-22•8) in the melflufen group and 16•3 months (10•1-23•2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19•8 months (95% CI 15•1-25•6) at a median follow-up of 19•8 months (IQR 12•0-25•0) in the melflufen group and 25•0 months (95% CI 18•1-31•9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18•6 months (IQR 11•8-23•7; HR 1•10 [95% CI 0•85-1•44]; p=0•47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs...

No abstract

No abstract