Key Points: Afuresertib has a favorable safety profile with manageable side effects and demonstrates single-agent activity against hematologic malignancies. Inhibition of AKT with afuresertib may provide a novel therapeutic strategy for hematologic malignancies, especially for multiple myeloma.

Summary: Involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) in multiple myeloma (MM) is a rare complication, with reported survival of <6 months. This report describes 37 MM patients with leptomeningeal and/or parenchymal brain involvement treated at our institution and identifies factors associated with long‐term survival. From January 1999 to December 2010, 37 patients with CNS MM were evaluated at our institution. Clinical characteristics, treatment and survival were retrospectively collected. CNS disease was present at MM diagnosis in 24% and at relapse in 76%. Plasma cell leukemia (40%) and skull plasmacytomas (65%) were common, suggesting haematological and contiguous spread. Intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy was used in 81%, cranial and/or spinal irradiation in 78%, and various systemic therapies [immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) (51%), cisplatin‐based (DPACE; cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide) (27%), bortezomib (19%), alkylators (11%), dexamethasone alone (8%), auto‐transplant (5%)]. Median survival from CNS disease was only 4·6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2·8–6·7]; however, nine patients had prolonged survival (median: 17·1 months, 95% CI: 13·2–67·4). In general, these long‐term survivors were treated with radiotherapy, multi‐dosing IT chemotherapy, and IMiD‐containing therapy. CNS MM is a highly aggressive disease but in our experience, long‐term survival can be achieved with the combination of multi‐dosing IT chemotherapy, radiation and IMiD‐based therapy.

Manufacturing capacity and institutional infrastructure to deliver chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-T) are pressured to keep pace with the growing number of approved products and expanding eligible patient population for this potentially life-saving therapy. Consequently, many cell therapy programs must make difficult decisions about which patient should get the next available treatment slot. This situation requires an ethical framework to ensure fair and equitable decision-making. In this perspective, we discuss the application of Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), a priority-setting framework grounded in procedural justice, to the problem of limited CAR-T slots at our institution. We formed a multidisciplinary working group spanning several hematological malignancies. Through multiple rounds of partner engagement, we used A4R guiding principles to identify 4 main criteria to prioritize patients for CAR-T: medical benefit, safety/risk of complications, psychosocial factors, and medical urgency. Associated measures/tools and an implementation process were developed. We discuss further how ethical principles of fairness and equity demand a consistent approach within health systems that does not disadvantage medically underserved or underrepresented populations and supports overcoming barriers to care. In our commitment to transparency and collaboration, we make our tools available to others, ideally to be used to engage in their own A4R process, adapting the tools to their unique environments. Our hope is that our preliminary work will support the advancement of further study in this area globally, aiming for justice in resource allocation for all potential CAR-T candidates, wherever they may seek care.

Previous literature suggests that cytogenetics may be used for risk-adapted therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. However, the significance of each abnormality is still unclear, and chromosome 1 abnormalities have yet to be studied in this population. We therefore evaluated genetic risk factors including chromosome 1q gain and 1p loss by cIg-FISH in 143 patients with relapsed/refractory MM treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, and correlated the genomic aberrations with patient clinical outcomes. Patients had a median of two (range 1-7) previous therapies in this cohort. A total of 119 out of 143 (83%) patients had an objective response, with median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) of 11 and 28 months, respectively. Patients with del(1p21) or del(17p) (p53) deletions had a significantly shorter TTP. OS was shorter in patients with 1p21 or 17p deletions, but did not reach statistical significance. Prior bortezomib or thalidomide treatment was associated with shorter TTP and OS. Multivariate analysis identified del(17p), del(1p21), and prior bortezomib or thalidomide therapy as independent risk factors for shorter TTP. Our data suggest that chromosome 17p and 1p21 deletions adversely impact the outcome of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Improved therapeutic strategies are required for these patients.

We assessed the safety, efficacy, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor, a first in class oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (100 mg once weekly [QW] or 60 mg twice weekly), in combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg per label) and dexamethasone (40 mg QW) (SDd) in patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty‐four patients (median prior therapies, 3 [range, 2‐10]) were enrolled; MM was refractory to proteasome inhibitor (PI) in 85%, immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) in 76%, both in 74%, and daratumumab in 6% of patients. Two dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in the selinexor 60 mg twice‐weekly cohort with no DLTs in the 100 mg QW cohort, making 100 mg QW the MTD and RP2D. Common treatment‐related adverse events included thrombocytopenia (70.6%), nausea (70.6%), fatigue (61.8%), anemia (61.8%), and neutropenia (50.0%). Overall response rate was 73% and median progression‐free survival 12.5 months in daratumumab‐naïve patients. SDd was well tolerated and its promising efficacy suggests that further study of this PI‐ and IMiD‐free regimen in RRMM patients who had at least one prior line of therapy including a PI and an IMiD but whose disease is naïve to daratumumab is warranted.