Abstract
Early morbidity and mortality affect patient outcomes in multiple myeloma. Thus, we dissected the incidence and causes of morbidity/mortality during induction therapy (IT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and developed/validated a predictive risk score. We evaluated 3700 transplant-eligible NDMM patients treated in 2005–2020 with novel agent-based triplet/quadruplet IT. Primary endpoints were severe infections, death, or a combination of both. Patients were divided in a training (n = 1333) and three validation cohorts (n = 2367). During IT, 11.8%, 1.8%, and 12.5% of patients in the training cohort experienced severe infections, death, or both, respectively. Four major, baseline risk factors for severe infection/death were identified: low platelet count (<150/nL), ISS III, higher WHO performance status (>1), and age (>60 years). A risk score (1 risk factor=1 point) stratified patients in low (39.5%; 0 points), intermediate (41.9%; 1 point), and high (18.6%; ≥2 points) risk. The risk for severe infection/death increased from 7.7% vs. 11.5% vs. 23.3% in the low- vs. intermediate- vs. high-risk groups (p < 0.001). The risk score was independently validated in three trials incorporating quadruplet IT with an anti-CD38 antibody. Our analyses established a robust and easy-to-use score to identify NDMM patients at risk of severe infection/death, covering the latest quadruplet induction therapies. Trial registrations: HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4: EudraCT No. 2004-000944-26. GMMG-MM5: EudraCT No. 2010-019173-16. GMMG-HD6: NCT02495922. EMN02/HOVON-95: NCT01208766. GMMG-HD7: NCT03617731.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Clinical outcomes markedly improved over the past two decades in multiple myeloma (MM) [1, 2]. Yet, the risk of early morbidity and mortality can limit the therapy-related benefit of long-term disease control in a substantial number of patients. Various studies have demonstrated that the risk for morbidity and mortality from adverse events, mainly severe infections, during treatment initiation exceeds the risk from MM progression [3,4,5,6,7].
Risk for severe infections in MM is caused by secondary immunodeficiency [3, 4] and potentiated by novel treatments, including monoclonal antibodies (mAb; i.e. anti-CD38 [daratumumab, isatuximab] or anti-SLAMF7 [elotuzumab]), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs; i.e. thalidomide, lenalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (PI; i.e. bortezomib, carfilzomib), and accompanying steroids [8,9,10]. Host factors such as the patient´s performance status, frailty, and comorbidities further aggravate the risk of early infections, treatment discontinuation, and death [11, 12].
Thus, better characterization and improved prediction of individual risk for severe infections and death are essential to develop advanced preventive measures. To date, no large analyses have evaluated early morbidity and mortality in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) in the era of modern myeloma treatment.
The present multi-cohort analysis included 3700 transplant-eligible patients with NDMM from five multi-center, phase III trials. All patients received novel agent-based triplet or quadruplet induction therapies. The aims of this study were (i) to dissect the incidence, timing, and causes of morbidity and mortality during induction therapy, and (ii) to develop and validate a predictive risk score to identify patients at excessive risk of severe infections and death during the early treatment phase.
Patients and Methods
Study cohorts
Trials included in this study were split into a training and validation cohort. The training cohort included three randomized, multi-center, phase III trials from the German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG-HD4 [13, 14], EudraCT No. 2004-000944-26, GMMG-MM5 [15, 16] EudraCT No. 2010-019173-16, and GMMG-HD6 [17, 18] NCT02495922). The validation cohort for the proposed risk score comprised the Dutch–Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology (HOVON) HO65 [13, 14] (EudraCT No. 2004-000944-26), the European Myeloma Network (EMN) 02/HO95 [19] (NCT01208766), and the GMMG-HD7 [20] (NCT03617731) trials.
All patients included in this analysis had untreated NDMM and were considered eligible for induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem cell transplantation. Patients received at least a bortezomib-containing triplet induction regimen: bortezomib-doxorubicine-dexamethasone (PAD; HD4, MM5, HO65) or bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD; MM5, EMN02/HO95). In the HD6 and HD7 trials, induction therapy included lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVd) with or without the anti-SLAMF7 mAb elotuzumab (HD6) or anti-CD38 mAb isatuximab (HD7). Information on trials, induction therapy schedules, number of cycles, and recommended use of antibacterial prophylaxis is summarized in Supplementary Table S1. All analyses were performed on individual patient-level data. Trials were conducted according to the European Clinical Trial Directive and the Declaration of Helsinki, and were approved by the local ethics committees. All patients gave written informed consent for participation in the respective clinical trials.
Definitions, assessments, and objectives
Patients who received at least one dose of trial medication were included and analyzed as treated. Eight patients from the HD6 trial receiving > 4 induction therapy cycles were excluded from the analysis. The induction period was defined from the first until the last dose of induction treatment plus 30 days, or until the start of stem-cell mobilization.
The primary endpoints of the study were rates of severe infection, death from any cause, or a combined endpoint of severe infection/death from any cause, whichever occurred first, during the induction period. Severe infections were defined as any infection of grade ≥3 according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). In case of multiple severe infections, the first one was counted.
The following variables were analyzed for their effect on endpoints: patient age (≤60 vs. >60 years), sex (male vs. female), World Health Organization (WHO) performance status (0–1 vs. >1), body mass index (BMI; ≤30 vs. >30 kg/m2), white blood cell count (≥4.0 vs. < 4.0/nL), hemoglobin value (≥10.0 vs. <10.0 g/dL), platelet count (≥150 vs. <150/nL), serum creatinine (≤2.0 vs. >2.0 mg/dL), calcium (≤2.75 vs. >2.75 mmol/L), C-reactive protein (≤5.0 vs. >5.0 mg/L), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; normal vs. >upper limit of normal [ULN]), International Staging System (ISS; stages I/II vs. III), cytogenetics by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (standard vs. high risk; defined as at least one of the following [cut-off ≥10% of cells]: del17p or t(4;14), or amp(1q21) [>3 copies]), severe infections of CTCAE grade ≥3 during induction therapy (no vs. yes), and severe thromboembolic events of CTCAE grade ≥ 3 during induction therapy (no vs. yes).
Statistics and general methods
Fisher’s exact test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables between trials. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of risk factors on endpoints, depicted as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). In case of complete separation, logistic regression with Firth correction was applied. In all pooled analyses, the trial effect was included in the model. Likelihood-ratio test between model, with and without parameter-trial interaction term, was used to assess heterogeneity of effect between trials. For multivariable models, multiple imputations of missing values (100 bootstrap samples) for baseline variables were done by applying the multivariate imputations using the chained equations (mice) algorithm [21]. P values from the univariable analysis were adjusted for multiple testing using Benjamini-Hochberg correction to control the false discovery rate. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed with the statistical software R 4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; https://www.R-project.org/).
Results
Patient characteristics and treatment completion
The training cohort included 1333 patients (192, 596, and 545 patients from the HD4, MM5, and HD6 trials, respectively). The median patient age was 58 (range 27–70) years with 534 (40.1%) patients aged > 60 years. The median duration of induction treatment was 89 (range 2–281) days. In total, 1261 (94.6%) patients completed regular induction treatment and 1103 (91.9%) received antibacterial prophylaxis. The baseline characteristics of patients in the training cohort are listed in Supplementary Table S2.
Incidence, timing, and localization of severe infections and death during induction therapy
In the training cohort, 158/1333 (11.8%) patients had severe infections, 24/1333 (1.8%) patients died, and 167/1333 (12.5%) patients experienced a severe infection and/or death (Supplementary Table S3). Incidence of severe infections decreased in subsequent trials (HD4: 52/192 [27.1%], MM5: 60/596 [10.1%], and HD6: 46/545 [8.4%] patients; Fig. 1A). Overall and in every single trial, infections were the most common cause of death (15/24 [62.5%] deaths; Supplementary Table S3, Fig. 1B).
The majority of severe infections, deaths, or a combination of both occurred during the first two induction cycles: 119/158 (75.3%), 16/24 (66.7%), and 124/167 (74.3%; Fig. 1A–C). The median time from the start of induction therapy to the first severe infection, death, or a combination of both was short (severe infections: 36 [range 1–119] days; death: 66 [range 14–169] days; severe infection/death: 37 [range 1–146] days).
Common sites of infections were respiratory (48/158 [30.4%] patients), fever of unknown origin (29/158 [18.4%] patients), bloodstream/sepsis (18/158 [11.4%] patients), cutaneous (14/158 [8.9%] patients), and gastro-intestinal (13/158 [8.2%] patients; Fig. 1A).
Identification of factors influencing the risk of severe infections, death, or the combined endpoint of severe infection/death during induction therapy
We aimed to identify risk factors associated with all three endpoints. Owing to the relatively small number of events, analyses were conducted in the pooled training cohort, accounting for trial effects (Fig. 2). The effects of risk factors for each trial included in the training cohort (HD4, MM5, HD6) are shown in Supplementary Fig. S1.
Low platelet count (OR = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.59–3.83, p < 0.001), elevated serum calcium (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.22–3.90, p = 0.027), ISS stage III (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.51–3.12, p < 0.001), WHO performance status >1 (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.23–3.35, p = 0.021), and age >60 years (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.29–2.59, p = 0.003; Fig. 2A) were major risk factors for severe infections during induction therapy.
Factors with the strongest association with risk of death were grade ≥ 3 adverse events during induction therapy: severe infections (OR = 15.21, 95% CI: 6.58–36.85, p < 0.001) and thromboembolic events (OR = 7.86, 95% CI: 2.33–21.79, p = 0.008). Baseline parameters closely associated with increased risk of death during induction therapy were WHO performance status > 1 (OR = 7.10, 95% CI: 2.96–16.30, p < 0.001), ISS stage III (OR = 4.57, 95% CI: 2.05–10.51, p = 0.001), and low platelet count (OR = 3.53, 95% CI: 1.39–8.18, p = 0.030, Fig. 2B).
Risk factors for the combined endpoint of severe infection/death were shared with the two separate endpoints: low platelet count (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.63–3.84, p < 0.001), WHO performance status > 1 (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.41–3.68, p = 0.004), ISS stage III (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.61–3.26, p < 0.001), elevated serum calcium (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.14–3.62, p = 0.047), and age >60 years (OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.24–2.44, p = 0.004, Fig. 2C).
Multivariable model on predictors for risk of severe infection/death during induction therapy
Based on the findings from the logistic regression analyses, we aimed to confirm significant risk factors for the most clinically relevant, combined endpoint, severe infection/death, in a multivariable model. To account for parameters commonly used in clinical practice to assess infection, low baseline white blood cell counts and elevated C-reactive protein levels were included in the analysis as well. The multi-variable model identified four independent risk factors for the combined endpoint of severe infection/death during induction therapy: low platelet count (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.28–3.33, p = 0.003), ISS stage III (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.23–2.96, p = 0.004), WHO performance status > 1 (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.10–3.08, p = 0.021), and age > 60 years (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22–2.43, p = 0.002; Table 1).
A novel risk score to predict severe infection/death during novel agent-based induction therapy in transplant-eligible NDMM patients
A sum score was built based on the identified four major risk factors. Each risk factor (low platelet count < 150/nL, ISS stage III, WHO > 1, and age > 60 years) was counted as 1 point. Three groups were identified by additive scoring: low risk (0 points), intermediate risk (1 point), and high risk (≥2 points). Risk groups included 519/1314 (39.5%), 550/1314 (41.9%), and 245/1314 (18.6%) patients in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively (Fig. 3A).
The risk score predicted increasing risk for severe infection (low risk 7.5% vs. intermediate risk 10.9% vs. high risk 21.6%, p < 0.0001), death (low risk 0.4% vs. intermediate risk 1.3% vs. high risk 5.7%, p < 0.0001), and the combined endpoint of severe infection/death (low risk 7.7% vs. intermediate risk 11.5% vs. high risk 23.3%, p < 0.0001) during induction therapy (Fig. 3A). Cumulative incidences of the three endpoints according to risk groups are shown in Fig. 3B–D. Severe infection/death rates during the induction period doubled from the intermediate- to high-risk group (11.5% vs. 23.3%, OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.46–3.76, p < 0.001) and tripled from the low- to high-risk group (7.7% vs. 23.3%, OR = 3.63, 95% CI: 2.15–6.13, p < 0.001; Fig. 3B, Supplementary Table S4).
Validation of the novel risk score to predict severe infection/death during novel agent-based induction therapy in transplant-eligible NDMM patients
In total, 2367 patients were included in the validation cohort (HO65: 218; EMN02/HO95:1491; HD7: 658). Median patient age was 57, 58, and 59 years (ranges 31–65, 28–66, 26–70 years) in the HO65, EMN02/HO95, and HD7 trial, respectively. The risk factor distributions included in the risk score are listed in Supplementary Table S5.
Severe infection/death during induction therapy occurred in 61/218 (28.0%), 118/1491 (7.9%), and 81/658 (12.3%) patients in the HO65, EMN02/HO95, and HD7 trials, respectively (Supplementary Table S6). Ninety/193 (46.6%), 597/1471 (40.6%), and 260/656 (39.6%) patients were in the low-risk group vs. 65/193 (33.7%), 556/1471 (37.8%), and 264/656 (40.2%) patients in the intermediate-risk group vs. 38/193 (19.7%), 318/1471 (21.6%), and 132/656 (20.1%) of evaluable patients in the high-risk group of the HO65, EMN02/HO95, and HD7 trials, respectively.
The risk score was highly predictive, in all three cohorts independently, for the combined endpoint of severe infection/death (HO65: p = 0.02; EMN02/HO95: p < 0.001; HD7: p < 0.001; Fig. 4A–C). Patients’ risk for severe infection/death during induction therapy in the HO65 and EMN02/HO95 trials more than doubled in the low-risk vs. high-risk group (20.0% vs. 44.7%, OR = 3.24, 95% CI: 1.21–8.65, p = 0.005; Fig. 4A, Supplementary Table S7 and 5.0% vs. 11.9%, OR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.41–4.66, p < 0.001; Fig. 4B, Supplementary Table S8, respectively) and tripled in the HD7 trial (7.7% vs. 23.5%, OR = 3.68, 95% CI 1.78–7.62, p < 0.001; Fig. 4C, Supplementary Table S9). For completeness, results for the other endpoints (severe infection, death) are shown in Supplementary Tables S7–S9.
Discussion
Our results demonstrate that a combination of parameters readily accessible in the clinic–low platelet count (<150/nL), ISS stage III, WHO > 1, and age >60 years–consistently predicted risk of severe infection and severe infection/death in patients treated with concurrent, modern induction therapies, including quadruplets with an anti-CD38 mAb. To our knowledge, this is the largest, pooled analysis of individual patient-level data on early morbidity and mortality during novel agent-based induction therapy in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, comprising 3700 patients treated between 2005 and 2020. Induction therapies in our dataset included a broad variety of widely used standard-of-care [22] triplet combinations such as RVd and VCD, as well as quadruplet combinations with the anti-CD38 mAb isatuximab plus RVd. Thus, the validated risk score can be considered a novel important tool to inform clinicians on the individual risk of early morbidity and mortality in patients with NDMM. Furthermore, it can serve as a benchmark in the design of future prospective clinical trials aiming to reduce early morbidity/mortality or tailor supportive care.
In line with prior analyses [5,6,7, 23, 24], our study showed that severe infections remain the major cause of early morbidity and mortality in NDMM, and by far exceed the risk of disease progression. This holds true, even though the incidence of severe infections and death has decreased over time in subsequent trials with the introduction of novel agents and the use of antibacterial prophylaxis in most patients (i.e., 91.9% in our training cohort). Thus, preventing early severe infections and death is paramount to achieving optimal outcomes in MM patients.
The composition of our risk score highlights that both disease-specific factors and tumor burden (ISS stage III, low platelet count), as well as host factors (poor performance status, older age), contribute to early morbidity and mortality. A recent study including 1347 pooled NDMM patients (of whom 847 were transplant-eligible) from the Spanish study group found similar predictors for severe infections (serum albumin, MM immunoglobulin subtype, male sex, European Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status) [23]. The study evaluated mostly triplet induction therapies, including an IMiD and a PI, but no anti-CD38 mAbs. In this analysis, 11.4% of patients experienced a severe infection within 4 months from treatment initiation [23] compared to 11.8% during induction therapy in our training cohort. The varying risk factors identified in the Spanish study, as compared to our analysis, likely reflect differences between the cohorts investigated, such as patients´ characteristics and eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation. Another score to predict early, severe infections in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM derived from the FIRST trial (NCT00689936, 1613 patients), which included IMiD-only based therapies (without mAbs), mostly doublets [6]. Severe infections occurred in 11.9% of these patients during the first 4 months of treatment. Factors predicting the risk of infection in this study were ECOG performance status, beta-2 microglobulin, LDH, and hemoglobin values. Compared with these two earlier studies, our study is the only one including up-to-date, novel agent-based therapies with quadruplet regimens incorporating mAbs, IMiDs, and PIs and such a large number of patients.
Our study has a few limitations. It includes rather young and fit transplant-eligible NDMM patients treated within clinical trials. However, such systematically evaluated and detailed safety and endpoint data are rarely available outside of clinical trials.
Further, we could not evaluate the impact of antibacterial prophylaxis, since the majority of patients received antibacterial prophylaxis during induction therapy. Despite the positive results on the use of antibacterial prophylaxis with levofloxacin in the TEAMM trial (ISRCTN51731976) [25], its broad use in clinical routine remains controversial. Foremost, it remains an open question whether the use of antibacterial prophylaxis is only beneficial in patients at high risk of severe infections. For example, the TEAMM trial did not provide evidence of a clear benefit with levofloxacin use vs. placebo in younger, transplant-eligible patients or patients receiving cotrimoxazole prophylaxis [25]. Our risk score would allow stratification of patients in clinical trials investigating strategies to prevent infections, including antibacterial prophylaxis. Further, the optimal duration of antibacterial prophylaxis is not known and possible toxic effects (i.e. levofloxacin-induced tendinopathy and neuropathy) should be considered, especially in MM patients [26]. Lastly, 21% of patients in the TEAMM trial withdrew consent and 44% of patients received a thalidomide-based treatment, which is not considered a standard-of-care [25]. Based on our proposed risk score, preventive strategies may be investigated in prospective clinical trials in a contemporary treatment setting. Concepts for such trials may include initial dose reduction of chemotherapy and glucocorticoids, active monitoring for patients at risk (i.e. by digital wearables), differential use of antibacterial prophylaxis, or substitution of immunoglobulins.
Another limitation is that our study could not dissect the effect of glucocorticoid dose or intensity during induction therapy, as variable glucocorticoid doses and dose intensities were used within and among the trials analyzed. These cannot be disentangled from the overall trial effect, which is accounted for in our analysis. Yet, our risk score was robust, after validation across a variety of induction regimens and accompanying glucocorticoid therapies. However, as shown previously [27, 28], treatment with low-dose glucocorticoids (i.e. dexamethasone once weekly) reduces early morbidity and mortality and is a standard-of-care.
In conclusion, our study highlights the importance of early severe infections and death in the era of novel agent-based therapy in patients with NDMM. Based on our risk score, patients at high risk of early, severe infections and death can be easily identified upfront, when evaluated for the latest quadruplet induction therapies including an anti-CD38 mAb.
Data availability
After the publication of this article, data collected for this analysis and related documents will be made available to others upon reasonably justified request, which needs to be written and addressed to the attention of the corresponding author, Elias K. Mai, at the following e-mail address: elias.mai@med.uni-heidelberg.de. The EMN, HOVON and GMMG, via the corresponding author Elias K. Mai, are responsible for evaluating and eventually accept or refuse every request to disclose data and their related documents, in compliance with the ethical approval conditions, in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and in conformance with the agreements in place with the involved subjects, the participating institutions, and all the other parties directly or indirectly involved in the participation, conduct, development, management, and evaluation of this analysis.
References
Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Buadi FK, Pandey S, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014;28:1122–8.
Turesson I, Bjorkholm M, Blimark CH, Kristinsson S, Velez R, Landgren O. Rapidly changing myeloma epidemiology in the general population: Increased incidence, older patients, and longer survival. Eur J Haematol. 2018;101:237–44.
Augustson BM, Begum G, Dunn JA, Barth NJ, Davies F, Morgan G, et al. Early mortality after diagnosis of multiple myeloma: analysis of patients entered onto the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials between 1980 and 2002—Medical Research Council Adult Leukaemia Working Party. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9219–26.
Blimark C, Holmberg E, Mellqvist UH, Landgren O, Björkholm M, Hultcrantz M, et al. Multiple myeloma and infections: a population-based study on 9253 multiple myeloma patients. Haematologica. 2015;100:107–13.
Moreau P, Cavo M, Sonneveld P, Rosinol L, Attal M, Pezzi A, et al. Combination of International Scoring System 3, high lactate dehydrogenase, and t(4;14) and/or del(17p) identifies patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with front-line autologous stem-cell transplantation at high risk of early MM progression–related death. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2173–80.
Dumontet C, Hulin C, Dimopoulos MA, Belch A, Dispenzieri A, Ludwig H, et al. A predictive model for risk of early grade≥3 infection in patients with multiple myeloma not eligible for transplant: analysis of the FIRST trial. Leukemia. 2018;32:1404–13.
Bringhen S, Offidani M, Palmieri S, Pisani F, Rizzi R, Spada S, et al. Early mortality in myeloma patients treated with first-generation novel agents thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib at diagnosis: A pooled analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;130:27–35.
Teh BW, Harrison SJ, Worth LJ, Thursky KA, Slavin MA. Infection risk with immunomodulatory and proteasome inhibitor-based therapies across treatment phases for multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;67:21–37.
Ying L, YinHui T, Yunliang Z, Sun H. Lenalidomide and the risk of serious infection in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46593–600.
Nucci M, Anaissie E. Infections in patients with multiple myeloma in the era of high-dose therapy and novel agents. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1211–25.
Facon T, Dimopoulos MA, Meuleman N, Belch A, Mohty M, Chen WM, et al. A simplified frailty scale predicts outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated in the FIRST (MM-020) trial. Leukemia. 2019;34:224–33.
Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos M-V, Larocca A, Facon T, Kumar SK, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood. 2015;125:2068–74.
Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IGH, van der Holt B, El Jarari L, Bertsch U, Salwender H, et al. 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;30:2946–55.
Goldschmidt H, Lokhorst HM, Mai EK, van der Holt B, Blau IW, Zweegman S, et al. Bortezomib before and after high-dose therapy in myeloma: long-term results from the phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Leukemia. 2018;32:383–90.
Mai EK, Bertsch U, Dürig J, Kunz C, Haenel M, Blau IW, et al. Phase III trial of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) versus bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAd) in newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia. 2015;29:1721–9.
Goldschmidt H, Mai EK, Dürig J, Scheid C, Weisel KC, Kunz C, et al. Response-adapted lenalidomide maintenance in newly diagnosed myeloma: results from the phase III GMMG-MM5 trial. Leukemia. 2020;34:1853–65.
Goldschmidt H, Mai EK, Bertsch U, Besemer B, Haenel M, Miah K, et al. Elotuzumab in combination with lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone and autologous transplantation for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: Results from the randomized Phase III GMMG-HD6 trial. Blood. 2021;138:486.
Salwender H, Bertsch U, Weisel K, Duerig J, Kunz C, Benner A, et al. Rationale and design of the German-speaking myeloma multicenter group (GMMG) trial HD6: a randomized phase III trial on the effect of elotuzumab in VRD induction/consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:504.
Cavo M, Gay F, Beksac M, Pantani L, Petrucci MT, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7:e456–68.
Goldschmidt H, Mai EK, Bertsch U, Fenk R, Nievergall E, Tichy D, et al. Addition of isatuximab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed, transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma (GMMG-HD7): part 1 of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. Haematol. 2022;9:e810–21.
Buuren Svan, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:v45/i01. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i03.
Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Terpos E, Mateos MV, Zweegman S, Cook G, et al. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:309–22.
Encinas C, Hernandez-Rivas J-Á, Oriol A, Rosiñol L, Blanchard MJ, Bellón JM, et al. A simple score to predict early severe infections in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12:68.
Terebelo H, Srinivasan S, Narang M, Abonour R, Gasparetto C, Toomey K, et al. Recognition of early mortality in multiple myeloma by a prediction matrix. Am J Hematol. 2017;92:915–23.
Drayson MT, Bowcock S, Planche T, Iqbal G, Pratt G, Yong K, et al. Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1760–72.
Raje NS, Anaissie E, Kumar SK, Lonial S, Martin T, Gertz MA, et al. Consensus guidelines and recommendations for infection prevention in multiple myeloma: a report from the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9:e143–e161.
Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, Fonseca R, Vesole DH, Williams ME, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:29–37.
Mai EK, Hielscher T, Bertsch U, Schlenzka J, Salwender HJ, Munder M, et al. Bortezomib-based induction therapy with high or low-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2019;33:258–61.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the participating patients and their families/caregivers; all the EMN, GMMG, and HOVON members and employees who helped to initiate, conduct, and analyze the study and the included trials. The GMMG-HD7 trial was supported by Sanofi and BMS/Celgene. Editorial support was provided by Sara Mariani, MD, PhD, of Envision Pharma Group, funded by Sanofi. Elias K. Mai was funded by the International Myeloma Society (IMS) Career Development Award 2021.
Funding
The HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Dutch Cancer Foundation, Janssen-Cilag-Ortho Biotech, Novartis, Amgen, Chugai, and Roche. The GMMG-MM5 trial was supported by Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Chugai, and Binding Site. The GMMG-HD6 trial was supported by BMS, Celgene, and Chugai. The EMN02/HO95 trial was supported by Janssen and Celgene. The GMMG-HD7 trial was supported by Sanofi and BMS/Celgene. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The conception and design of this study were done by EKM, TH, UB, and HG. EKM, HJS, SZ, MSR, MM, LP, KM, PB, MB, IWB, JD, BB, RF, PR, MH, IvM, UG, CM-T, MB, CS, MAD, JH, KCW, MC, PS, and HG provided materials or patients. EKM, TH, UB, SZ, BvdH, MB, MC, PS, and HG contributed to data collection and assembly. EKM, TH, BvdH, and HG analyzed and interpreted the data. All authors contributed to the development/critical review of the manuscript, approved the final version, and are accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest: EKM: consulting or advisory role, honoraria, research funding, and travel accommodations/expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda. TH and UB: no competing interests. HJS: advisory role or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sebia, TAD, and Takeda; travel accommodation/expenses from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/ Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, and Sanofi. SZ: consulting or advisory role for Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, and Takeda (all payments to the institution); research funding from Janssen-Cilag and Takeda. MSR: consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from AbbVie and GlaxoSmithKline; research funding from Novartis and Sanofi. MM: consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; research funding from Incyte; travel accommodation/expenses from Amgen. LP honoraria from Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. KM: honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-MyersSquibb/Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. PB: no competing interests. MB: consulting or advisory role for Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda, and Menarini; speaker’s bureau for Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. IWB: no competing interests. JD: consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Celgene, and Roche; travel accommodation/expenses from Roche, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. BB: honoraria from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and Sanofi. RF: honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline; consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline; travel accommodations/expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. PR and BvdH: no competing interests. MH: consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; invitation as speaker for Novartis. IvM: consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; honoraria from Sanofi; travel accommodations/expenses from Takeda. UG: stock and other ownership interests for Biontech; honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, MSD Oncology, Sanofi Aventis, Fujifilm, Novartis, and Celltrion; consulting or advisory role for Amgen, MSD oncology; research funding from Ipsen (to the institution), Macrogenics (to the institution); travel accommodations/expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline. CM-T: research funding from Pfizer and BioliveRx. MB: honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi. CS: honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Pfizer, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and Takeda; travel accommodation/expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; research funding from Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda. MAD: honoraria from Amgen, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, and Sanofi; consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, and Sanofi. JH: consulting or advisory role for Adaptive, Amgen, Axxes Network, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Oncotracker, Sanofi, and Skyline; invited talks for Amgen, Beigene, Beijing Medical Award Foundation, Curio Science, and Janssen. KCW: honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; consulting or advisory role for Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, and Takeda; research funding from Amgen (to the institution), Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene (to the institution), Janssen (to the institution), and Sanofi (to the institution). MC: consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; speaker’s bureau for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen. PS: consulting or advisory role for Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Sanofi; research funding from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Sanofi. HG: consulting for Adaptive Biotechnology, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Novartis; research funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Incyte, Janssen, Molecular Partner, MSD, Mundipharma, and Novartis; grants from Amgen, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, and Johns Hopkins University.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mai, E.K., Hielscher, T., Bertsch, U. et al. Predictors of early morbidity and mortality in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: data from five randomized, controlled, phase III trials in 3700 patients. Leukemia 38, 640–647 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-023-02105-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-023-02105-6