
==== Front
Blood Cancer J
Blood Cancer J
Blood Cancer Journal
2044-5385
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39237502
1134
10.1038/s41408-024-01134-3
Correspondence
Phase II trial of elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for daratumumab-refractory multiple myeloma
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9314-9933
Parrondo Ricardo D. 1
LaPlant Betsy R. 2
Elliott Jamie 1
Fernandez Andre 1
Flott Caitlin J. 1
Arrington Diedre 1
Chapin Dustin 1
Brown Jade 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0597-8123
Das Saurav 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5950-4620
Roy Vivek 1
Chanan-Khan Asher A. 13
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-8111
Ailawadhi Sikander Ailawadhi.Sikander@mayo.edu

13
1 grid.417467.7 0000 0004 0443 9942 Department of Hematology-Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Jacksonville, FL USA
2 https://ror.org/02qp3tb03 grid.66875.3a 0000 0004 0459 167X Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
3 grid.417467.7 0000 0004 0443 9942 Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Jacksonville, FL USA
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
12 2024
14 1 15222 6 2024
13 8 2024
28 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.
Subject terms

Myeloma
Phase II trials
Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Department of Hematology Oncologyissue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcDear Editor,

With the advent of immunomodulatory agents (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MoAb), the survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved and is expected to continue to improve [1]. Elotuzumab is a MoAb that binds to signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) on the surface of myeloma cells and induces natural killer cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity of SLAMF7-expressing myeloma cells [2]. In the phase III ELOQUENT 2 trial, the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ERd) led to the superior overall response rates (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients who had received 1–3 prior lines of therapy [LOT] [3, 4]. In the randomized phase II ELOQUENT 3 trial, the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd) led to superior ORR, PFS and OS compared to pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with RRMM, about 60% of which had only received ≤3 prior LOT [5, 6]. A minority of patients derive long term disease control with elotuzumab-based regimens with 20% of patients treated with ERd in ELOQUENT 2 and about 4% of patients treated with EPd in ELOQUENT 3 remaining on treatment and being free of progression at 4 years [3, 6]. CD38 is highly expressed on NK-cells, and rapid NK-cell depletion in the peripheral blood and bone marrow has been seen in patients treated with daratumumab with NK cell numbers recovering 3–6 months after daratumumab has been discontinued [7]. Hence it is plausible that the efficacy of elotuzumab-based regimens may be diminished if used immediately after daratumumab-based therapy as elotuzumab depends on NK-cell function for efficacy. In ELOQUENT 2, no patients were previously treated with daratumumab and in ELOQUENT 3, <5% of patients were previously treated with daratumumab. Retrospective data suggest that the efficacy of elotuzumab is diminished with prior daratumumab exposure [8]. Data from the retrospective MAMMOTH study revealed that the use of elotuzumab + IMiD-based treatment in 19 (18 of which had triple class refractory [TCR] myeloma; myeloma that is refractory to a PI, IMiD and anti-CD38 MoAb) anti-CD38 MoAb refractory patients resulted in a median PFS of 2.6 months and median OS of 8.3 months [9]. The efficacy of elotuzumab-based regimens in the post-daratumumab progression and in the TCR setting have not been evaluated in any prospective clinical trials. Herein, we present the results of a prospective phase II study evaluating the efficacy of EPd in patients who have progressed after a prior daratumumab-containing regimen (NCT03713294).

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic Florida. Key inclusion criteria included measurable disease according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria [10], RRMM after receiving at least 1 prior LOT, and disease refractory to daratumumab defined as no response (<partial response [PR]) or disease progression while on or ≤60 days of completing treatment with a daratumumab-containing regimen as part of any prior line of therapy. Key exclusion criteria were prior exposure to elotuzumab and refractoriness to pomalidomide. The primary objective was to estimate the ORR of utilizing EPd in patients with daratumumab-refractory, RRMM. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the complete response (CR) rate, PFS, OS and the safety profile of EPd in the daratumumab-refractory setting. EPd was administered as per the ELOQUENT 3 study [5] and patients were treated for up to 24 cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI CTCAE v5.0. Response rates were assessed as per the modified IMWG response criteria [10]. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as patients who achieved ≥ stable disease (SD). A modified two-stage Simon optimum design (accrual was not halted after first stage) was utilized and required 37 evaluable patients to test the null hypothesis that the true ORR in this patient population is at most 20% vs. the alternate hypothesis that the ORR was 40%.

Thirty-seven patients were enrolled and 36 received at least one full cycle of treatment. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Patients received a median of 4 (2–7) prior lines of therapy; 27 (73%) patients got daratumumab-based therapy as the immediate LOT prior to EPd (after a median of 4 prior lines [range 2–6]) whereas 10 (27%) patients got daratumumab-based therapy ≥1 line prior to EPd (after a median of 4.5 prior lines [range 2–7]). The ORR in all patients was 35% (n = 13), with no CRs, 1 (3%) VGPR, and 12 (32%) PR. Four patients (11%) achieved an MR, 15 (41%) achieved SD. The median follow-up time for patients still alive was 45.6 (95% CI 39.9–60.6) months. The median time to best response was 3 (95% CI 2.8–NA) months. The median PFS for the entire population was 3.7 (95% CI 2.9–11.1) months and the median OS was 56.7 (95% CI 27.2–NA) months (Fig. 1A). The study met its primary endpoint. The median time to next treatment was 7.6 (95% CI 6.2–20.4) months. Patients exposed to pomalidomide had received a median of 6 (4–7) prior lines of therapy compared to 4 (2–6) in patients not exposed to pomalidomide, p = 0.0013. The ORR in patients exposed to pomalidomide was 0% (n = 10), compared to 48% (n = 27) for patients not exposed to pomalidomide, p = 0.0067. However, the CRB for pomalidomide-exposed patients was 80% (8/10 patients achieved MR or SD). The median PFS for patients exposed to pomalidomide was 3.3 (95% CI 1.8–NA) months compared to 4.3 (95% CI 2.9–15.7) months for patients not exposed to pomalidomide, p = 0.0628. The median OS for patients exposed to pomalidomide was 45.5 (95% CI 13.9–NA) months compared to 56.7 (95% CI 27.1–NA) months for patients not exposed to pomalidomide, p = 0.6063. Patients that were TCR had received a median of 4 (2–7) prior LOT compared to 3.5 (2–6) for patients that were not TCR, p = 0.7338. The ORR in TCR patients was 37% (n = 27) compared to 30% (n = 10) in non-TCR patients, p = 1.0000. The median PFS in TCR patients was 4.03 (95% CI 2.9–14.0) months compared to 3.1 (95% CI 1.1–NA) months in non-TCR patients, p = 0.4931. The median OS in TCR patients was 56.7 (30.3–NA) months compared to NA (95% CI 13.2–NA) months in non-TCR patients, p = 0.9035 (Fig. 1B). The median prior LOT for patients who received daratumumab as the most immediate prior line of therapy was 4 (2–6) compared to 4.5 (2–7) for patients who received daratumumab ≥1 line prior to EPd, p = 0.1452. The ORR in patients with daratumumab as the immediate prior line of therapy was 40.7% (n = 27) compared to 20.0% (n = 10) in patients who had received daratumumab-based therapy ≥1 line prior to EPd, p = 0.4395. The median PFS of patients with daratumumab as the immediate prior line of therapy was 4.4 (95% CI 3.0–15.7) months compared to 2.8 (95% CI 2.0–NA) months in patients who had received daratumumab-based therapy ≥1 line prior to EPd (p = 0.0804). The median OS of patients with daratumumab as the immediate prior line of therapy was 56.7 (95% CI 45.5–NA) months compared to 20.5 (95% CI 5.3–NA) months in patients who had received daratumumab-based therapy ≥1 line prior to EPd (p = 0.0579). Patients who started EPd <3 months after the last dose of daratumumab (n = 24) achieved a PFS of 4.1 months and patients who started EPd >3 months after the last dose of daratumumab (n = 13) achieved a PFS of 3.6 months (p = 0.9965). The OS for patients who started EPd <3 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 24) was NR (30.3–NR) and the OS for patients who started EPD > 3 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 13) was 43.9 months (p = 0.3431). Patients who started EPd <6 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 27) achieved a PFS of 4.4 months and patients who started EPd >6 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 10) achieved a PFS of 3.3 months (p = 0.8062). The OS for patients who started EPd <6 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 27) was NR (30.3–NR) and the OS for patients who started EPd >6 months from the last dose of daratumumab (n = 10) was 41.9 months (p = 0.4831). Adverse events are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. The median PFS for patients who progressed after EPd and received subsequent treatment was 5.1 (95% CI 3.7–30.2) months and the ORR was 35.7% (n = 28). Patients were treated with regimens as shown in Table 1. The most common post-EPd progression regimens were BCMA-directed therapies which resulted in an ORR, median PFS and median OS of 40%, 7.6 (95% CI 5.1–NA) months and 39.0 (95% CI 30.6–NA) months and carfilzomib-based therapies which resulted in an ORR, median PFS, and median OS of 27.3%, 5.0 (95% CI 4.3–NA) months and 31.3 (95% CI 27.1–NA) months.Table 1 Patient characteristics (N = 37).

Age, Median (range)	70 (42–84)	
Gender, n (%)	
 Male	21 (56.8%)	
 Female	16 (43.2%)	
ECOG performance status n, (%)	
 0	25 (67.6%)	
 1	11 (29.7%)	
 2	1 (2.7%)	
Race, n (%)	
 White	29 (78.4%)	
 Black	8 (21.6%)	
Ethnicity, n (%)	
 Other	1 (2.7%)	
 Hispanic or Latino	1 (2.7%)	
 Not Hispanic or Latino	35 (94.6%)	
ISS stage, n (%)	
 I	10 (27.0%)	
 II	6 (16.2%)	
 III	12 (32.4%)	
 Unknown	9 (24.3%)	
Risk, n (%)	
 High	16 (43.2%)	
 Standard/Intermediate	21 (56.8%)	
Induction regimen, n (%)	
 Bortezomib lenalidomide dexamethasone	10 (27.0%)	
 Bortezomib cyclophosphamide dexamethasone	13 (35.1%)	
 Bortezomib dexamethasone	4 (10.8%)	
 Lenalidomide dexamethasone	5 (13.5%)	
 Daratumumab lenalidomide dexamethasone	2 (5.4%)	
 Other	3 (8.10%)	
Prior therapies, n (%)	
 Lenalidomide	34 (91.9%)	
 Bortezomib	35 (94.6%)	
 Carfilzomib	9 (24.3%)	
 Autologous stem cell transplant	17 (45.9%)	
Pomalidomide exposed, n (%)	10 (27.8%)	
Previous daratumumab containing regimen, n (%)	37 (100%)	
 Daratumumab dexamethasone	6 (16.2%)	
 Daratumumab lenalidomide dexamethasone	14 (37.8%)	
 Daratumumab bortezomib dexamethasone	11 (29.7%)	
 Daratumumab carfilzomib dexamethasone	2 (5.4%)	
 Daratumumab pomalidomide dexamethasone	1 (2.7%)	
 Other	2 (5.4%)	
Median prior lines of therapy (range)	4 (2–7)	
 1–3 prior lines	13 (35.1%)	
 >3 prior lines	24 (64.9%)	
Lenalidomide refractory, n (%)	
 Yes	33 (89.2%)	
 No	4 (10.8%)	
Bortezomib refractory, n (%)	
 Yes	27 (73.0%)	
 No	10 (27.0%)	
Triple class refractory, n (%)	
 Yes	27 (73.0%)	
 No	10 (27.0%)	
Post EPd therapies, n (%)	
BCMA-directed therapy	
Bispecific antibody	
 AMG-701	6 (16.2%)	
CAR-T	
 Ide-Cel	2 (5.4%)	
Antibody-drug conjugate	
 Belantamab mafodotin	2 (5.4%)	
 MEDI2228	3 (8.1%)	
Carfilzomib-based therapy	
 Carfilzomib dexamethasone	4 (10.8%)	
 Carfilzomib cyclophosphamide dexamethasone	7 (18.9%)	
 Carfilzomib pomalidomide dexamethasone	1 (2.7%)	
 Carfilzomib daratumumab dexamethasone	1 (2.7%)	
Other	6 (16.2%)	
None	4 (10.8%)	

Fig. 1 Survival outcomes.

A PFS and OS of study population. B PFS and OS of study population based on triple-class refractory status.

The results of our study show the clinical efficacy of EPd in a predominantly TCR and heavily pre-treated, RRMM patient population. Compared to the ELOQUENT 3 study population treated with EPd (median prior LOT of 3, 0% TCR, and only 1 patient previously treated with daratumumab), the patients on our study received a median of 4 prior LOT, 75% were TCR and 100% were refractory to daratumumab which likely explains the lower ORR and PFS compared to ELOQUENT 3 [5]. In this study, the efficacy of EPd appeared to be as effective in TCR compared to non-TCR patients with similar PFS, ORR, and OS in both groups. The PFS of EPd-treated patients on our study coincide with the median PFS of 2.6 months noted in TCR patients treated with elotuzumab + IMiD-based regimens from the MAMMOTH study [9]. However, the OS of EPd treated patients on our study of 45.5 months was much higher than that reported in the MAMMOTH study (8.6 months) which is most likely due to the advent of BCMA-directed therapies such as CAR-T, bispecific antibodies, and antibody drug conjugates which have improved the traditionally dismal survival outcomes of TCR MM patients [11]. In this study, the median OS for patients treated with BCMA-directed therapies in the post-EPd progression setting was an impressive 36.3 months. While the ORR was lower for pomalidomide exposed vs. pomalidomide-naïve RRMM patients, both groups have similar survival outcomes when treated with EPd as no significant PFS or OS differences were noted between the two groups. A plausible explanation for this may be that the CBR in pomalidomide exposed patients was 80% with 8/10 pomalidomide-exposed patients achieving MR or SD and this stabilization of disease may have allowed patients to achieve a PFS similar to pomalidomide-naïve patients as the PFS for both groups was relatively short at 3–4 months. Interestingly, administration of EPd immediately after a daratumumab-based regimen does not appear to effect the efficacy of EPd as there were no significant differences in ORR and PFS between patients who received daratumumab-based therapy immediately prior to EPd or ≥1 line prior to EPd and in fact, patients who received a daratumumab-based regimen immediately prior to EPd had a superior OS possibly due to the fact that they were less heavily pretreated. In addition, it is known that daratumumab can deplete NK cells and NK cells recover 3–6 months after the last dose of daratumumab [7], yet we found that whether a patient started EPd <3 vs. >3 months after the last dose of daratumumab or <6 vs. >6 months after the last dose of daratumumab, there were no differences in survival outcomes (PFS and OS) suggesting that the timing of prior daratumumab does not impair the efficacy of elotuzumab-based regimens as previously reported [12]. Our trial enrolled a considerable amount of African American patients at 22% which is in line with NCI/FDA goals of increasing accrual of minority patient populations onto clinical trials as African Americans represent 20% of the US myeloma population but have traditionally represented <5% of enrolled patients in US myeloma clinical trials [13]. While there are more efficacious therapies for TCR RRMM such as anti-BCMA CAR-T and bispecific antibodies, talquetamab, carfilzomib-based, selinexor-based or venetoclax-based (for t(11;14) MM) combinations [14], EPd is nonetheless an active therapeutic regimen in this patient population as it shows efficacy in TCR MM patients, including those who have received >1–3 prior LOT. Emerging data is showing that the optimal sequence of CAR-T and bispecific antibodies in TCR MM patients appears to be CAR-T first followed by bispecific antibodies in the post-CAR-T relapse setting [15, 16] hence EPd can be an effective bridging therapy for TCR RRMM patients that are also carfilzomib refractory and are awaiting CAR-T manufacturing.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1

Clinical Trial Protocol

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41408-024-01134-3.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all patients from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center who participated in the study. RDP is a recipient of the Robert A. Winn Diversity in Clinical Trials Award Program, established by the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation.

Author contributions

Ailawadhi, Chanan-Khan, and Parrondo designed the study. Parrondo wrote the manuscript. LaPlant performed the statistical analysis. Parrondo, Roy, Arrington, LaPlant, Flott, Fernandez, Das, Chapin, and Brown collected/analyzed the data for the study. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Competing interests

BRL, JE, AF, CJF, DA, DC, JB, SD and VR have no conflicts of interest to declare. RDP serves on the advisory board for Sanofi Aventis and Astra Zeneca and has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation and GlaxoSmithKline. SA has provided consultancy for Celgene, Amgen, Janssen and Takeda, and has received research funding from Pharmacyclics, Cellectar and Janssen. AAC-K has received research funding from Xencor Pharmacyclics, Merck, Janssen, Ascentage and Millennium.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol and all amendments were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic Florida (IRB # 18-003574). The study was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines, the principles originating from the Declaration of Helsinki, and study site-specific regulations. All patients provided written informed consent.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Joseph NS Kaufman JL Dicamillo S Roberts D Gupta VA Hofmeister CC Comparison of response and survival outcomes in standard- and high-risk newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) versus daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-RVD) Blood 2023 142 647 10.1182/blood-2023-187339
Joseph NS, Kaufman JL, Dicamillo S, Roberts D, Gupta VA, Hofmeister CC, et al. Comparison of response and survival outcomes in standard- and high-risk newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) versus daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-RVD). Blood. 2023;142:647.10.1182/blood-2023-187339
2. Collins SM Bakan CE Swartzel GD Hofmeister CC Efebera YA Kwon H Elotuzumab directly enhances NK cell cytotoxicity against myeloma via CS1 ligation: evidence for augmented NK cell function complementing ADCC Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013 62 1841 9 10.1007/s00262-013-1493-8 24162108
Collins SM, Bakan CE, Swartzel GD, Hofmeister CC, Efebera YA, Kwon H, et al. Elotuzumab directly enhances NK cell cytotoxicity against myeloma via CS1 ligation: evidence for augmented NK cell function complementing ADCC. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2013;62:1841–9.24162108 10.1007/s00262-013-1493-8
3. Dimopoulos MA Lonial S White D Moreau P Weisel K San-Miguel J Elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in RRMM: final overall survival results from the phase 3 randomized ELOQUENT-2 study Blood Cancer J 2020 10 91 10.1038/s41408-020-00357-4 32887873
Dimopoulos MA, Lonial S, White D, Moreau P, Weisel K, San-Miguel J, et al. Elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in RRMM: final overall survival results from the phase 3 randomized ELOQUENT-2 study. Blood Cancer J. 2020;10:91.32887873 10.1038/s41408-020-00357-4
4. Lonial S Dimopoulos M Palumbo A White D Grosicki S Spicka I Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 373 621 31 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255
Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, White D, Grosicki S, Spicka I, et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:621–31.26035255 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654
5. Dimopoulos MA Dytfeld D Grosicki S Moreau P Takezako N Hori M Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2018 379 1811 22 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762 30403938
Dimopoulos MA, Dytfeld D, Grosicki S, Moreau P, Takezako N, Hori M, et al. Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1811–22.30403938 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762
6. Dimopoulos MA Dytfeld D Grosicki S Moreau P Takezako N Hori M Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis from the randomized phase II ELOQUENT-3 trial J Clin Oncol 2023 41 568 78 10.1200/JCO.21.02815 35960908
Dimopoulos MA, Dytfeld D, Grosicki S, Moreau P, Takezako N, Hori M, et al. Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis from the randomized phase II ELOQUENT-3 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:568–78.35960908 10.1200/JCO.21.02815
7. van de Donk N Usmani SZ CD38 antibodies in multiple myeloma: mechanisms of action and modes of resistance Front Immunol 2018 9 2134 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02134 30294326
van de Donk N, Usmani SZ. CD38 antibodies in multiple myeloma: mechanisms of action and modes of resistance. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2134.30294326 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02134
8. Hoylman E Brown A Perissinotti AJ Marini BL Pianko M Ye JC Optimal sequence of daratumumab and elotuzumab in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Leuk Lymphoma 2020 61 691 8 10.1080/10428194.2019.1688324 31739729
Hoylman E, Brown A, Perissinotti AJ, Marini BL, Pianko M, Ye JC, et al. Optimal sequence of daratumumab and elotuzumab in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61:691–8.31739729 10.1080/10428194.2019.1688324
9. Gandhi UH Cornell RF Lakshman A Gahvari ZJ McGehee E Jagosky MH Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy Leukemia 2019 33 2266 75 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7 30858549
Gandhi UH, Cornell RF, Lakshman A, Gahvari ZJ, McGehee E, Jagosky MH, et al. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy. Leukemia. 2019;33:2266–75.30858549 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7
10. Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC Durie B Landgren O Moreau P International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol 2016 17 e328 46 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158
Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–46.27511158 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
11. Rees MJ Kumar S BCMA-directed therapy, new treatments in the myeloma toolbox, and how to use them Leuk Lymphoma 2024 65 287 300 10.1080/10428194.2023.2284088 38354090
Rees MJ, Kumar S. BCMA-directed therapy, new treatments in the myeloma toolbox, and how to use them. Leuk Lymphoma. 2024;65:287–300.38354090 10.1080/10428194.2023.2284088
12. Grajales-Cruz AF Rodriguez Arocho CI Rose A Shapiro J Finley-Oliver E Shain KH Elotuzumab in combination with an immunomodulatory agent (IMID) in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to imids and/or daratumumab: a single-institution analysis Blood 2019 134 3183 10.1182/blood-2019-129021
Grajales-Cruz AF, Rodriguez Arocho CI, Rose A, Shapiro J, Finley-Oliver E, Shain KH, et al. Elotuzumab in combination with an immunomodulatory agent (IMID) in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to imids and/or daratumumab: a single-institution analysis. Blood. 2019;134:3183.10.1182/blood-2019-129021
13. Giaquinto AN Miller KD Tossas KY Winn RA Jemal A Siegel RL Cancer statistics for African American/Black people 2022 CA Cancer J Clin 2022 72 202 29 10.3322/caac.21718 35143040
Giaquinto AN, Miller KD, Tossas KY, Winn RA, Jemal A, Siegel RL. Cancer statistics for African American/Black people 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:202–29.35143040 10.3322/caac.21718
14. Costa LJ Hungria V Mohty M Mateos MV How I treat triple-class refractory multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 2022 198 244 56 10.1111/bjh.18185 35373352
Costa LJ, Hungria V, Mohty M, Mateos MV. How I treat triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2022;198:244–56.35373352 10.1111/bjh.18185
15. Ferreri CJ Hildebrandt MAT Hashmi H Shune LO McGuirk JP Sborov DW Real-world experience of patients with multiple myeloma receiving ide-cel after a prior BCMA-targeted therapy Blood Cancer J 2023 13 117 10.1038/s41408-023-00886-8 37558706
Ferreri CJ, Hildebrandt MAT, Hashmi H, Shune LO, McGuirk JP, Sborov DW, et al. Real-world experience of patients with multiple myeloma receiving ide-cel after a prior BCMA-targeted therapy. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13:117.37558706 10.1038/s41408-023-00886-8
16. Puertas B Fernández-Sánchez A Alejo E Rey-Búa B Martín-López AA Pérez-López E A research center’s experience of T-cell–redirecting therapies in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma Blood Adv 2024 8 3478 87 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024012773 38717869
Puertas B, Fernández-Sánchez A, Alejo E, Rey-Búa B, Martín-López AA, Pérez-López E, et al. A research center’s experience of T-cell–redirecting therapies in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. 2024;8:3478–87.38717869 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024012773
