Outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with quadruplets and autologous stem cell transplant stratified by the 2025 ims/IMWG risk classification

P Priyanka Venkatesh (1The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States) G Gayathri Ravi (1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL) K Kelly Godby (1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States) B Binod Dhakal (2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI) E Eva Medvedova (Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland) R Rebecca Silbermann (2Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, United States) B Bhagirathbhai Dholaria F Forest Huls (7Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL) L Laura Joiner (1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States) C Caitlin Hagedorn (1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States) N Natalie Callander (University of Wisconsin, Madison) L Luciano Costa (42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States) S Susan Bal (University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States)

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Despite significant improvement in the survival of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), a subset of patients continues to experience poor outcomes. Accurate classification of such high-risk patients is crucial to contextualize new therapies and develop risk-adapted strategies. One of the most frequently used classification tools identifies NDMM patients as high-risk when they harbor del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16), hereafter referred to as “old” high-risk (old-HiR). Recently, the International Myeloma Society (IMS) and International Myeloma Working Group (IMS/IMWG) published a new consensus high-risk (new-HiR) definition which combines certain cytogenetic abnormalities, next generation sequencing data (TP53 mutation, biallelic del1p), and elevated beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) without renal impairment. While the 2025 IMS/IMWG classification was predominantly developed among patients treated with triplet combinations, the MM treatment paradigm has rapidly evolved to include monoclonal antibody-based quadruplets (QUAD) with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and further improved outcomes. We aimed to characterize the performance of the 2025 IMS/IMWG classification in the QUAD+ASCT population and compare the old-HiR vs. new-HiR models. Methods: We evaluated a cohort of NDMM patients who received QUAD induction, ASCT and risk-adapted post-ASCT therapy. We retrospectively reclassified patients as standard risk (new-StR) or high risk (new-HiR) using the 2025 IMS/IMWG classification. We evaluated the cumulative incidence of progression (CIP) at 18 and 36 months to demonstrate the ability of the new system to identify functional high-risk patients (patients experiencing disease progression within 18 and 36 months from start of initial therapy, respectively). We subsequently compared old-HiR vs. new-HiR classification. Best fitting models were determined using Akaike's information criterion (AIC), an information theory approach. Results: Among 310 patients, 89 (29%) were classified as new-HiR. Median age was 62 years (IQR 56-68), 55% were male, 33% of racial-ethnic minority, 6% harbored t(11;14), 56% any del(17p), 51% gain/amp(1q), 14% del(1p), 27% t(4;14), and 12% t(14;16). After a median follow up of 41.6 mo, the 4-year PFS was 49% vs. 84% for new-HiR vs. new-StR (HR 4.17, 95%CI 2.58-6.73; p<0.001). The CIP at 18 months was 15% vs. 3% for new-HiR vs new-StR and at 36 months was 33% vs. 10%, respectively. For the same population, 4-year PFS for old-HiR vs. old-StR was 55% vs. 83% (HR 3.34, 95% CI 2.08-5.36, P<0.001). Overall, the new model produced the best fitness, with delta AIC = 9.3 (delta AIC>2 being generally considered meaningful). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the presence of old-HiR abnormalities did not affect outcomes of patients with new-HiR (P=0.70) or new-StR (P=0.56). In contrast, when we applied the new criteria to patients with old-HiR we were able to successfully classify two cohorts with very distinct outcomes (median PFS NR vs 49.3 mo, for new-StR vs new-HiR, respectively, p=0.05) similar to when we applied new criteria for old-StR patients (median PFS NR vs. 40.7 mo for new-StR vs new-HiR; p=0.007). We further explored the frequently used 3-tier system based on cumulative number of high-risk chromosomal abnormalities [HRCA; del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and gain/amp(1q)]. Among patients with new-HiR, the presence of 1 (P=0.99) or 2+ HRCA (P=0.49) did not affect outcomes. Conclusions: The 2025 IMS/IMWG consensus criteria for high-risk MM appears to be more prognostic in the setting of modern QUAD+ASCT (HR 4.17) compared to triplet+ASCT where the criteria were first created and validated (HR 2.17-2.94). Among patients with new-HiR, presence of old-HiR abnormalities or application of 3-tier HRCA system did not further improve the classification. Ultimately, the new simplified 2-tier system incorporating genomic data and B2M is most relevant in the era of QUADs and identifies patients at risk of early relapse with greater accuracy.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 5799-5799
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (13)

P

Priyanka Venkatesh

1The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States

G

Gayathri Ravi

1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL

K

Kelly Godby

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States

B

Binod Dhakal

2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI

E

Eva Medvedova

Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland

R

Rebecca Silbermann

2Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, United States

B

Bhagirathbhai Dholaria

F

Forest Huls

7Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL

L

Laura Joiner

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States

C

Caitlin Hagedorn

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States

N

Natalie Callander

University of Wisconsin, Madison

L

Luciano Costa

42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States

S

Susan Bal

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States