Evolving changes in disease biomarkers and risk of early progression in smoldering multiple myeloma

Three-dimensional telomere profiling predicts risk of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor stage that precedes multiple myeloma (MM). SMM is heterogenous with nearly 40% of patients progressing to MM in the first 5 years. The high rate of progression of SMM patients highlights the need for early intervention, which underscores the importance of identifying SMM patients with the highest risk of progression. Several risk stratification models showed utility in identifying high-risk SMM patients; however, these systems showed limited sensitivity. To date, identifying high-risk SMM patients remains an important clinical need. In this study, we present the 3-dimensional telomere profiling as a structural biomarker capable of stratifying SMM patients as a function of genomic instability. Quantifying telomere dysfunction using the TeloView technology showed utility in risk stratification of cancer patients, particularly hematological malignancies. In this study, we analyzed 168 SMM patients. We report an AUC in ROC analysis of 0.8 using a subset of the patients as a training dataset. We then conducted a blind validation on a different cohort and demonstrated a positive predictive value of 85% and negative predictive value of 73%, with sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 76%, respectively. We examined the correlation between the TeloView prediction and the 20-2-20 scoring system, and cytogenetic abnormalities. We report a correlation of 53% with the 20-2-20 scores and over 60% correlation with cytogenetic abnormalities. The result of this study presents the telomere profiling as an effective biomarker able to stratify SMM patients to their respective risk groups with high sensitivity and specificity.

Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: Observation Versus Control Versus Cure

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an intermediate clinical stage in the spectrum of monoclonal plasma cell disorders. It represents a heterogeneous clinically defined condition in which some patients (approximately 50%) have monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (premalignancy), and some (approximately 50%) have multiple myeloma (biologic malignancy). Using specific prognostic factors, patients with SMM, in whom malignant transformation has already likely occurred, can be identified. These patients are considered to have high-risk SMM. Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk SMM are candidates for early intervention with lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for 2 years, or enrollment in clinical trials.

Diagnosis and management of smouldering myeloma: A British Society for Haematology Good Practice Paper

Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based plasma cell tumour that develops from asymptomatic pre-cursor conditions smouldering myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and all are characterised by the presence of a monoclonal protein in the blood. Diagnosis and distinction between these conditions is based on blood tests, the bone marrow biopsy and cross sectional imaging. There are various risk stratification models that group patients with smouldering myeloma into risk groups based on risk of progression to symptomatic disease. Management is mainly observational for patients with smouldering myeloma although clinical trials for high-risk disease may be available. Restaging is required if evidence for progression.

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions: Diagnosis and Management of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance and Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Monoclonal proteins are common, with a prevalence in the United States around 5% and the incidence increases with age. Although most patients are asymptomatic, the vast majority of cases are caused by a clonal plasma cell disorder. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) are asymptomatic precursor conditions with variable risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM). In recent years, significant progress has been made to better understand the factors that lead to the development of symptoms and progression to myeloma. In this review, we summarize the current diagnosis treatment guidelines for MGUS and SMM and highlight recent advances that underscore a shifting paradigm in the evaluation and management of plasma cell precursor conditions.

Personalised progression prediction in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma (PANGEA): a retrospective, multicohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with precursors to multiple myeloma are dichotomised as having monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma on the basis of monoclonal protein concentrations or bone marrow plasma cell percentage. Current risk stratifications use laboratory measurements at diagnosis and do not incorporate time-varying biomarkers. Our goal was to develop a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smouldering multiple myeloma stratification algorithm that utilised accessible, time-varying biomarkers to model risk of progression to multiple myeloma.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicohort study, we included patients who were 18 years or older with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma. We evaluated several modelling approaches for predicting disease progression to multiple myeloma using a training cohort (with patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; annotated from Nov, 13, 2019, to April, 13, 2022). We created the PANGEA models, which used data on biomarkers (monoclonal protein concentration, free light chain ratio, age, creatinine concentration, and bone marrow plasma cell percentage) and haemoglobin trajectories from medical records to predict progression from precursor disease to multiple myeloma. The models were validated in two independent validation cohorts from National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Athens, Greece; from Jan 26, 2020, to Feb 7, 2022; validation cohort 1), University College London (London, UK; from June 9, 2020, to April 10, 2022; validation cohort 1), and Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (Czech Republic, Czech Republic; Jan 5, 2004, to March 10, 2022; validation cohort 2). We compared the PANGEA models (with bone marrow [BM] data and without bone marrow [no BM] data) to current criteria (International Myeloma Working Group [IMWG] monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 20/2/20 smouldering multiple myeloma risk criteria).

FINDINGS

We included 6441 patients, 4931 (77%) with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 1510 (23%) with smouldering multiple myeloma. 3430 (53%) of 6441 participants were female. The PANGEA model (BM) improved prediction of progression from smouldering multiple myeloma to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model, with a C-statistic increase from 0·533 (0·480-0·709) to 0·756 (0·629-0·785) at patient visit 1 to the clinic, 0·613 (0·504-0·704) to 0·720 (0·592-0·775) at visit 2, and 0·637 (0·386-0·841) to 0·756 (0·547-0·830) at visit three in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA model (no BM) improved prediction of smouldering multiple myeloma progression to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model with a C-statistic increase from 0·534 (0·501-0·672) to 0·692 (0·614-0·736) at visit 1, 0·573 (0·518-0·647) to 0·693 (0·605-0·734) at visit 2, and 0·560 (0·497-0·645) to 0·692 (0·570-0·708) at visit 3 in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA models improved prediction of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance progression to multiple myeloma compared with the IMWG rolling model at visit 1 in validation cohort 2, with C-statistics increases from 0·640 (0·518-0·718) to 0·729 (0·643-0·941) for the PANGEA model (BM) and 0·670 (0·523-0·729) to 0·879 (0·586-0·938) for the PANGEA model (no BM).

INTERPRETATION

Use of the PANGEA models in clinical practice will allow patients with precursor disease to receive more accurate measures of their risk of progression to multiple myeloma, thus prompting for more appropriate treatment strategies.

FUNDING

SU2C Dream Team and Cancer Research UK.

The consultant's guide to smoldering multiple myeloma

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor condition to multiple myeloma (MM). The prevalence of SMM is 0.5% in persons over 40 years old; it is higher in men than women and increases with age. When SMM is diagnosed, a thorough diagnostic workup is necessary to exclude myeloma-defining events and stratify patients according to risk of progression to MM. While close monitoring for progression remains the best management for most patients with SMM, in this article, we discuss if treatment initiation before myeloma-defining events occur might be relevant in selected high-risk cases. Two randomized clinical trials have shown a clinical benefit of initiating treatment at the SMM stage, whereof 1 showed an overall survival benefit for those receiving treatment. We discuss various risk stratification models in SMM, important treatment trials, and ongoing trials. Finally, we present how to approach the clinical management of patients with SMM.

Advances in the molecular characterization of multiple myeloma and mechanism of therapeutic resistance

Recent insight in the genomic landscape of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and its precursor conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), and smoldering myeloma have allowed the identification of patients with precursor conditions with a high risk of progression. These cases with "progressor" MGUS/SMM have a higher average mutation burden, have higher rates of mutations in specific genes such as MAPK, DNA repair, MYC, DIS3, and are enriched for specific mutational signatures when compared to non-progressors and are comparable to those found in NDMM. The highly preserved clonal heterogeneity seen upon progression of SMM, combined with the importance of these early variables, suggests that the identification of progressors based on these findings could complement and enhance the currently available clinical models based on tumor burden. Mechanisms leading to relapse/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are of clinical interest given worse overall survival in this population. An Increased mutational burden is seen in patients with RRMM when compared to NDMM, however, there is evidence of branching evolution with many of these mutations being present at the subclonal level. Likewise, alterations in proteins associated with proteosome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drugs activity could partially explain clinical resistance to these agents. Evidence of chromosomal events leading to copy number changes is seen, with the presence of TP53 deletion, mutation, or a combination of both being present in many cases. Additional chromosomal events such as 1q gain and amplification may also interact and lead to resistance.

Smoldering multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic condition that occupies a space between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and multiple myeloma (MM) along the spectrum of clonal plasma cell proliferative disorders. It is not a biologic intermediate stage between MGUS and MM, but rather represents a heterogeneous clinically defined condition in which some patients (approximately two-thirds) have MGUS (pre-malignancy), and some (approximately one-third) have MM (biologic malignancy). Unfortunately, no single pathologic or molecular feature can reliably distinguish these two groups of patients. For purposes of practice and clinical trials, specific risk factors are used to identify patients with SMM in whom malignant transformation has already likely occurred (high risk SMM). Patients with newly diagnosed high risk SMM should be offered therapy with lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) for 2 years, or enrollment in clinical trials. Patients with low risk SMM should be observed without therapy every 3–4 months.

How I approach smoldering multiple myeloma

The current standard of care in smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is close surveillance, outside of clinical trials. Efforts are being made to understand the pathobiologic process that leads to the progression of SMM to active MM. This review provides a critical description of available data, including risk factors and risk models of progression, as well as clinical trials investigating interventions for this patient population. We describe 2 cases in which patients were seen before the concept of a myeloma-defining event was established. Today, based on the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, both patients would have been identified as experiencing myeloma-defining events, and therapy would have been initiated. These cases show that occasionally, patients can undergo observation only, even when they exceed criteria for high-risk SMM.

Genetic subtypes of smoldering multiple myeloma are associated with distinct pathogenic phenotypes and clinical outcomes

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor condition of multiple myeloma (MM) with significant heterogeneity in disease progression. Existing clinical models of progression risk do not fully capture this heterogeneity. Here we integrate 42 genetic alterations from 214 SMM patients using unsupervised binary matrix factorization (BMF) clustering and identify six distinct genetic subtypes. These subtypes are differentially associated with established MM-related RNA signatures, oncogenic and immune transcriptional profiles, and evolving clinical biomarkers. Three genetic subtypes are associated with increased risk of progression to active MM in both the primary and validation cohorts, indicating they can be used to better predict high and low-risk patients within the currently used clinical risk stratification models.

Risk Stratification and Treatment in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Smoldering multiple myeloma is a heterogeneous asymptomatic precursor to multiple myeloma. Since its identification in 1980, risk stratification models have been developed using two main stratification methods: clinical measurement-based and genetics-based. Clinical measurement models can be subdivided in three types: baseline measurements (performed at diagnosis), evolving measurements (performed over time during follow-up appointments), and imaging (for example, magnetic resonance imaging). Genetic approaches include gene expression profiling, DNA/RNA sequencing, and cytogenetics. It is important to accurately distinguish patients with indolent disease from those with aggressive disease, as clinical trials have shown that patients designated as “high-risk of progression” have improved outcomes when treated early. The risk stratification models, and clinical trials are discussed in this review.

Advances in MGUS diagnosis, risk stratification, and management: introducing myeloma-defining genomic events

In the 1960s, Dr Jan Waldenström argued that patients who had monoclonal proteins without any symptoms or evidence of end-organ damage represented a benign monoclonal gammopathy. In 1978, Dr Robert Kyle introduced the concept of “monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance” (MGUS) given that, at diagnosis, it was not possible with available methods (ie, serum protein electrophoresis to define the concentration of M-proteins and microscopy to determine the plasma cell percentage in bone marrow aspirates) to determine which patients would ultimately progress to multiple myeloma. The application of low-input whole-genome sequencing (WGS) technology has circumvented previous problems related to volume of clonal plasma cells and contamination by normal plasma cells and allowed for the interrogation of the WGS landscape of MGUS. As discussed in this chapter, the distribution of genetic events reveals striking differences and the existence of 2 biologically and clinically distinct entities of asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies. Thus, we already have genomic tools to identify “myeloma-defining genomic events,” and consequently, it is reasonable to consider updating our preferred terminologies. When the clinical field is ready to move forward, we should be able to consolidate current terminologies—from current 7 clinical categories: low-risk MGUS, intermediate-risk MGUS, high-risk MGUS, low-risk smoldering myeloma, intermediate-risk smoldering myeloma, high-risk smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma—to future 3 genomic-based categories: monoclonal gammopathy, early detection of multiple myeloma (in which myeloma-defining genomic events already have been acquired), and multiple myeloma (patients who are already progressing and clinically defined cases). Ongoing investigations will continue to advance the field.

Smoldering multiple myeloma: evolving diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies

The adage for smoldering myeloma (SMM) has been to observe without treatment, until criteria for active multiple myeloma were satisfied. Definitions and risk stratification models have become more sophisticated, with prognostication tailored to include high-risk cytogenetics as per the most recent International Myeloma Working Group 2020 risk model. Moreover, progress in defining genomic evolution and changes in the bone marrow microenvironment through the monoclonal continuum have given insight into the complexities underlying the different patterns of progression observed in SMM. Given recent data showing improved progression-free survival with early intervention in high-risk SMM, the current dilemma is focused on how these patients should be treated. This case-based article maps the significant advancements made in the diagnosis and risk stratification of SMM. Data from landmark clinical trials will also be discussed, and ongoing trials are summarized. Ultimately, we outline our approach to SMM and hope to impart to the reader a sound concept of the current clinical management of SMM.

Assessing the prognostic utility of smoldering multiple myeloma risk stratification scores applied serially post diagnosis

The Mayo-2018 smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) risk score is used routinely in the clinical setting but has only been validated at diagnosis. In SMM patients, the progression risk decreases over time. However, the utility of applying risk stratification models after diagnosis is unknown. We retrospectively studied 704 SMM patients and applied the Mayo 2018 and IMWG-2020 risk stratification models at annual landmark timepoints up to 5 years post diagnosis. The Mayo-2018 and IMWG-2020 models reliably stratified patients based on progression risk when applied post diagnosis. The respective 2-year progression risk in Mayo-2018 high risk patients versus IMWG-2020 intermediate-high risk patients was 51% versus 62% at the 1-year landmark and 47% versus 45% at the 4-year landmark. We showed that patients categorized at Mayo-2018 high-risk at follow-up had a similar risk of progression if the baseline risk assessment was low-intermediate versus high-risk (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.46-2.36, p = 0.931 at 5-year landmark). Patients migrating to a higher risk category during follow up had a higher progression risk compared to patients with stable/decreased risk categorization. Our findings support the use of these risk scores post-diagnosis and suggest that patients evolving to a high-risk category may benefit from early intervention therapeutic approaches.

2021 European Myeloma Network review and consensus statement on smoldering multiple myeloma: how to distinguish (and manage) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

According to the updated International Myeloma Working Group criteria, smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder characterized by an M-component >3 g/dL, bone marrow plasma cell infiltration >10% and <60%, and absence of any myeloma-defining event. Active multiple myeloma is preceded by SMM, with a median time to progression of approximately 5 years. Cases of SMM range from the extremes of "monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance-like", in which patients never progress during their lifetimes, to "early multiple myeloma", in which transformation into symptomatic disease, based on genomic evolution, may be rapid and devastating. Such a "split personality" makes the prognosis and management of individual patients challenging, particularly with regard to the identification and possible early treatment of high-risk SMM. Outside of clinical trials, the conventional approach to SMM generally remains close observation until progression to active multiple myeloma. However, two prospective, randomized trials have recently demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in terms of time to progression, and of overall survival in one of the two studies, for some patients with higher-risk SMM treated with lenalidomide ± dexamethasone, raising the question of whether such an approach should be considered a new standard of care. In this paper, experts from the European Myeloma Network describe current biological and clinical knowledge on SMM, focusing on novel insights into its molecular pathogenesis, new prognostic scoring systems proposed to identify SMM patients at higher risk of early transformation, and updated results of completed or ongoing clinical trials. Finally, some practical recommendations for the real-life management of these patients, based on Delphi consensus methodology, are provided.

Smoldering multiple myeloma: biology, clinical manifestations and management

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a heterogeneous group of asymptomatic plasma cell disorder characterized by the presence of monoclonal protein ≥ 30 g/L and/or 10-60% of bone marrow plasma cells and no evidence of SLiM-CRAB criteria according to the 2014 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) recommendations. Once the effort to reclassify SMM with active disease as MM requiring treatment was completed, the need to redefine new high-risk SMM arose. The 20/2/20 and the IMWG risk model with the add-on high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities allow to identify high-risk SMM with 50% risk of progression to MM within 2 years, and therefore might help to propose a better therapeutic approach, either with the goal to « cure » by profoundly debulk the MM with aggressive therapies, or alternatively to restore the immune surveillance like a « delay » strategy with immune-based therapies. The debate is still ongoing but clearly challenges the watch-and-wait standard of care.

The benefits of early intervention using lenalidomide for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma: emerging data and its promising clinical impact

INTRODUCTION

Multiple myeloma is preceded by the early stages: monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (M.G.U.S.) and smoldering myeloma (S.M.M.), which are less genomically complex and where patients are overall healthier with preserved quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the current evidence in risk stratification and initial therapy for these patients with the goal to delay progression to and/or cure multiple myeloma.

EXPERT OPINION

Advances in the understanding of the factors that contribute to myeloma evolution coupled with new therapeutics that have high efficacy and limited toxicity have revolutionized our approach to early myeloma. Although our current recommendation continues to be to observe S.M.M. outside of clinical trials, the clinical benefit of lenalidomide sets the stage for combinations with immunotherapy, which, in our opinion, will likely lead to regulatory approvals and more widespread treatment of early myeloma.

Smoldering Myeloma Treatment: Who, What, and When

ABSTRACT

Smoldering multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell disorder characterized by excess marrow involvement and immunoglobulin production. It is the precursor of MM, differing by the lack of end-organ damage. Smoldering MM encompasses a heterogeneous group of patients, with a median risk of progression to active disease of 50% in the first 5 years. Until recently, the standard of care would dictate observation off therapy until the development of end-organ damage. The recognition of high-risk and ultrahigh-risk subgroups of smoldering MM, with more likely evolution to MM, has led to earlier initiation of therapy in the disease course. Ongoing studies to define the ideal timing and patient population are underway, as well as identification of which agents would be of greatest benefit, as the armamentarium for MM continues to grow.

Immunoparesis defined by heavy/light chain pair suppression in smoldering multiple myeloma shows initial isotype specificity and involves other isotypes in advanced disease

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic and biologically heterogeneous plasma cell disorder, with a highly variable clinical course. Immunoparesis, defined by total immunoglobulin measurements, has been shown to be an independent risk factor for progression to symptomatic disease. The heavy/light chain (HLC) assay allows precise measurement of the polyclonal immunoglobulin of the same isotype, enabling the evaluation of isotype-matched immunoparesis (IMI). In this study, we prospectively characterized immunoparesis, as determined by HLC measurements, in 53 SMM patients. Severe IMI was present in 51% of patients, while severe IP of uninvolved isotypes (HLC IP) was present in 39%. Most of the patients with severe HLC IP presented with severe IMI, but not the other way around. Isotype specificity of immune suppression was suggested by lower relative values of isotype-matched HLC pairs, both for IgG and IgA SMM. Severe IMI was associated with other risk factors for progression while patients with severe IMI and severe HLC IP showed an even higher risk profile. Both severe IMI and severe IgM HLC IP showed a significantly shorter time to progression. Finally, gene expression analysis demonstrated differences in the bone marrow microenvironment between patients with IMI and IMI plus HLC IP, with an increased expression of genes associated with cytolytic cells. In conclusion, our data supports isotype specificity of early immunoglobulin suppression mechanisms. While suppression of both involved and uninvolved isotypes is associated with risk of progression, the later appears to develop with more advanced disease and could be mediated by different mechanisms.

Smoldering multiple myeloma - Past, present, and future

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) routinely precedes the development of multiple myeloma. While some patients experience aggressive disease, others have more indolent courses akin to those with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Much effort has been made to understand the pathobiological basis of this heterogeneity. Scientific advancements have led to the emergence of various clinical and genomic markers of relevance, translating into evolution of disease definitions over time. More recently, the interest in manipulation of biological pathways has intensified in a bid to stall or halt disease progression. Studies with lenalidomide have exemplified the promise of early intervention, whereas numerous therapeutic approaches remain the subject of ongoing clinical investigation. This review summarizes the historic progress made in defining SMM as a distinct clinicopathologic entity, provides a critical appraisal of the evidence guiding risk assessment, and suggests a pragmatic approach to its modern-day management. Finally, an overview of developments on the horizon is also provided.

Progress in the Management of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is defined as an asymptomatic clonal proliferation of pre-malignant plasma cells and an increased risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM) relative to monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Whether patients with SMM should be treated prior to development of symptomatic disease is fiercely debated and is a highly active area of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ECOG E3A06 study demonstrated that early treatment with lenalidomide significantly reduced the risk of progression to MM compared to observation in patients with high risk SMM. The IMWG recently validated a risk stratification model to include cytogenetics and a personalized risk calculator for individual patients. Beyond this, molecular genomic aberrations and immunological phenomena that promote progression from asymptomatic disease to MM have been recently characterized and may help to more precisely identify patients who are most suitable for early intervention. As highly effective and tolerable therapies for plasma cell disorders evolve, the field is approaching a paradigm shift that involves the adoption of intervention for patients with SMM who are at high risk for progression to symptomatic myeloma in order to prevent morbidity and mortality. This review highlights our current understanding of the biology of patients with SMM, clarifies the rationale for early intervention, and summarizes early results of various treatment strategies for patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma.

What Is New in the Treatment of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma?

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic plasma cell neoplasm, is currently diagnosed according to the updated IMWG criteria, which reflect an intermediate tumor mass between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and active MM. However, SMM is a heterogeneous entity and individual case may go from an "MGUS-like" behavior to "early MM" with rapid transformation into symptomatic disease. This wide range of clinical outcomes poses challenges for prognostication and management of individual patients. However, initial studies showed a benefit in terms of progression or even survival for early treatment of high-risk SMM patients. While outside of clinical trials the conventional approach to SMM generally remains that of close observation, these studies raised the question of whether early treatment should be offered in high-risk patients, prompting evaluation of several different therapeutic approaches with different goals. While delay of progression to MM with a non-toxic treatment is clearly achievable by early treatment, a convincing survival benefit still needs to be proven by independent studies. Furthermore, if SMM is to be considered less biologically complex than MM, early treatment may offer the chance of cure that is currently not within reach of any active MM treatment. In this paper, we present updated results of completed or ongoing clinical trials in SMM treatment, highlighting areas of uncertainty and critical issues that will need to be addressed in the near future before the "watch and wait" paradigm in SMM is abandoned in favor of early treatment.

Comparative evaluation of involved free light chain and monoclonal spike as markers for progression from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant clonal plasma cell disorder, with a 1% yearly risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM). Evolution of M-spike and serum free light chain (sFLC) during follow-up could identify patients at high risk of progression. In this region-wide study, including 4756 individuals, 987 patients with MGUS were identified, and baseline factors as well as evolving involved FLC (iFLC) were evaluated as potential markers for risk of progression from MGUS to MM. Furthermore, evolving iFLC and M-spike were assessed quarterly for a median of 5 years. At baseline, patients that progressed had significantly higher iFLC compared to non-progressors. The risk factors of M-spike >1.5 g/dL, age >65 years and iFLC >100 mg/L were all independently associated with increased risk of MGUS to MM progression. For patients that had any two or three risk factors, the 5-year cumulative probability of progression was significantly higher (31%) compared to no risk factors (2%). Evolving iFLC >100 mg/L during follow-up was consistently associated with increased risk of progression. Based on our observations, we propose to include iFLC as a monitoring tool for all MGUS patients. Furthermore, we recommend a quarterly monitoring in all high-risk patients. Finally, we suggest that the risk of MGUS progression should be stratified with age, M-spike, and iFLC at baseline.

Diagnosis and Management of Monoclonal Gammopathy and Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

The presence of monoclonal proteins is common, with a prevalence in the United States around 5% that increases with age. Although most patients are asymptomatic, most cases are caused by a clonal plasma cell disorder. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) are asymptomatic precursor conditions with variable risk of progression to multiple myeloma. In recent years, significant progress has been made to better understand the factors that lead to the development of symptoms and progression to myeloma. This review summarizes the current diagnosis treatment guidelines for MGUS and SMM and highlights recent advances that underscore a shifting paradigm in the evaluation and management of plasma cell precursor conditions.

Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve rapidly with arrival of multiple new drugs, and emerging data from randomized trials to guide therapy. Along the disease course, the choice of specific therapy is affected by many variables including age, performance status, comorbidities, and eligibility for stem cell transplantation. In addition, another key variable that affects treatment strategy is risk stratification of patients into standard and high-risk MM. High-risk MM is defined by the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), gain 1q, del(17p), or p53 mutation. In this paper, we provide algorithms for the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed MM based on the best available evidence. We have relied on data from randomized controlled trials whenever possible, and when appropriate trials to guide therapy are not available, our recommendations reflect best practices based on non-randomized data, and expert opinion. Each algorithm has been designed to facilitate easy decision-making for practicing clinicians. In all patients, clinical trials should be considered first, prior to resorting to the standard of care algorithms we outline.

Daratumumab monotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma: a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study (CENTAURUS)

Current guidelines for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) recommend active monitoring until the onset of multiple myeloma (MM) before initiating treatment or enrollment in a clinical trial. Earlier intervention may delay progression to MM. In CENTAURUS, 123 patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk SMM were randomly assigned to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on extended intense (intense), extended intermediate (intermediate), or short dosing schedules. At the prespecified primary analysis (15.8-month median follow-up), the complete response (CR) rates (co-primary endpoint) were 2.4%, 4.9%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively; the co-primary endpoint of CR rate >15% was not met. Progressive disease (PD)/death rates (number of patients who progressed or died divided by total duration of progression-free survival [PFS] in patient-years; co-primary endpoint) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.055 (80% confidence interval [CI], 0.014-0.096), 0.102 (80% CI, 0.044-0.160), and 0.206 (80% CI, 0.118-0.295), respectively, translating to a median PFS ≥24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001, <0.0001, and =0.0213, respectively). With longer follow-up (median follow-up, 25.9 months), CR rates were 4.9%, 9.8%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. PD/death rates for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.059 (80% CI, 0.025-0.092), 0.107 (80% CI, 0.058-0.155), and 0.150 (80% CI, 0.089-0.211), respectively, again translating to a median PFS ≥ 24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001 for all arms). Twenty-four-month PFS rates were 89.9% (90% CI, 78.5-95.4%), 82.0% (90% CI, 69.0-89.9%), and 75.3% (90% CI, 61.1-85.0%) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated that intense dosing maintained target-saturating trough concentrations in most patients throughout weekly, every-2-week, and every-4-week dosing periods. No new safety signals were observed. These data provide the basis for an ongoing phase 3 study of daratumumab in SMM.

High-risk smoldering myeloma versus early detection of multiple myeloma: Current models, goals of therapy, and clinical implications

Multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer, is preceded by precursor stages called monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance and smoldering multiple myeloma. Over the past few years, highly effective and safe therapies have been made available to treat multiple myeloma. This represents a major breakthrough and has major therapeutic implications. Treatment for multiple myeloma has evolved to include treatment of precursor stages (early treatment) as these therapies are shown to be safe and effective also in smoldering myeloma. Randomized studies have shown that early treatment can delay the onset of multiple myeloma and even improve overall survival compared to observation in smoldering myeloma. The best therapeutic course and selection of patients with smoldering myeloma to treat is still a matter of debate. In this manuscript, we review the definition, management, clinical implications of smoldering myeloma and early detection of myeloma in the current context and with up-to-date data.

How We Approach Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors’ suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Plasma cell proliferative index is an independent predictor of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma

The plasma cell proliferative index (PCPI), determined by a slide technique or by flow cytometry, detects cells in the S phase of the cell cycle and is a useful prognostic tool in patients with plasma cell disorders such as multiple myeloma and amyloidosis. We conducted a retrospective review analyzing the prognostic effect of PCPI in 306 patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). Seventy-nine (26%) patients had an elevated PCPI (>0.5). An elevated PCPI predicted an inferior time to progression (median, 3.0 vs 7.1 years for those with a low PCPI; P = .0004). Within 24 months, the progression rate was significantly higher for patients with an elevated PCPI (49% vs. 20%; P < .0001). PCPI is a valuable tool in risk stratifying patients with SMM and identifies patients with earlier progression who may benefit from closer follow-up and consideration of early intervention trials.

Timing of treatment of smoldering myeloma: delay until progression

This article has a companion Point by Mateos and González-Calle.

Timing of treatment of smoldering myeloma: early treatment

This article has a companion Counterpoint by Kumar.

Association of Immune Marker Changes With Progression of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance to Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

Multiple myeloma is consistently preceded by monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Risk models that estimate the risk of progression from MGUS to multiple myeloma use data from a single time point, usually the initial workup.

OBJECTIVE

To longitudinally investigate the alterations of serum immune markers with stable vs progressive MGUS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cross-sectional cohort study included 77 469 adult participants aged 55 to 74 years in the screening arm of the National Cancer Institute Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial who had a diagnosis of progressing MGUS (n = 187) or stable MGUS (n = 498), including light-chain subtype, from November 1993, through December 2011. For each participant, all available serially stored prediagnostic serum samples (N = 3266) were obtained. Data analysis was performed from April 2018, to December 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Serum protein and monoclonal immunoglobulin levels, serum free light chains, and serum light chains within each immunoglobulin class were measured.

RESULTS

Of 685 individuals included in the study, 461 (67.3%) were men; the mean (SD) age was 69.1 (5.6) years. In cross-sectional modeling, risk factors associated with progressive MGUS were IgA isotype (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.03-3.13; P = .04), 15 g/L or more monoclonal spike (adjusted OR, 23.5; 95% CI, 8.9-61.9; P < .001), skewed (<0.1 or >10) serum free light chains ratio (adjusted OR, 46.4; 95% CI, 18.4-117.0; P < .001), and severe immunoparesis (≥2 suppressed uninvolved immunoglobulins) (adjusted OR, 19.1; 95% Cl, 7.5-48.3; P < .001). Risk factors associated with progressive light-chain MGUS were skewed serum free light chains ratio (adjusted OR, 44.0; 95% CI, 14.2-136.3; P < .001) and severe immunoparesis (adjusted OR, 48.6; 95% CI, 9.5-248.2; P < .001). In longitudinal analysis of participants with serial samples prior to progression, 23 of 43 participants (53%) had high-risk MGUS before progression; 16 of these 23 (70%) experienced conversion from low-risk or intermediate-risk MGUS within 5 years. Similar results were found for light-chain MGUS.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of evolving risk patterns support annual blood testing and risk assessment for patients with MGUS or light-chain MGUS.

Prognostic value of involved/uninvolved free light chain ratio determined by Freelite and N Latex FLC assays for identification of high-risk smoldering myeloma patients

Background

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder with a high risk of progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The serum free light chain (sFLC) ratio is a powerful prognostic factor for SMM: an sFLC ratio ≥8 has been reported to be associated with a high risk of progression to MM, and an sFLC ratio ≥100 has been described as a criterion for ultra-high-risk SMM, and has been integrated into the definition criteria for MM since 2014. However, all recommendations were based on sFLC measured using the first commercialized assay, Freelite™, while other assays are now available. We aimed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of N-Latex sFLC to identify high-risk and ultra-high-risk SMM.

Methods

The sFLC ratio was measured at diagnosis with both Freelite and N-Latex assays in a cohort of 176 SMM patients on a BN Prospec nephelometer. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic and laboratory data were collected at the time of diagnosis and at follow-up.

Results

Sixty-two patients (35.2%) progressed to MM within 2 years. Compared to Freelite™ sFLC, N Latex sFLC ratios ≥8 and ≥100 provided similar performances for the identification of high-risk and ultra-high risk SMM patients.

Conclusions

Our results evidenced that the N-Latex assay could be used for SMM monitoring, like Freelite. However, an N-Latex sFLC ratio ≥70 appears to provide similar performances to a Freelite sFLC ratio ≥100, with a slightly better positive predictive value. Both assays provided accurate identification of high-risk and ultra-high risk SMM patients. These results should be confirmed in an independent study.

Smoldering multiple myeloma: the role of different scoring systems in identifying high-risk patients in real-life practice

We explore the predictive role of 2014-updated International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria and of some of currently available risk models for progression to symptomatic myeloma when applied in our unselected population of 75 smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) patients observed between 2000 and 2015. Risk scores including routinely used clinical parameters such as bone marrow plasmacell infiltration rate, immunoparesis, serum monoclonal component (sMC) value, and altered free light chain ratio (FLCr), were clinically useful to identify SMM patients at higher risk of progression. Time to myeloma progression in our ultra-high risk SMM according to IMWG diagnostic update criteria was very short (12.4 months). Our analysis identified as independent reliable predictors of progression altered FLCr as well as increasing plasma cell infiltration which are part of most commonly applied risk models. Waiting for new scoring systems, bone marrow evaluation and complete laboratory screening are still milestones for SMM management.

Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma: predictive value of free light chains and group-based trajectory modeling

We investigated the predictive role for serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥100, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) ≥60%, and evolving biomarkers through group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) as high-risk defining events in 273 smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) patients with a median follow-up of 74 months. FLCr ≥100 was confirmed as a marker for high-risk progression with a median time to progression (TTP) of 40 months with a 44% risk of progression of disease (PD) at 2 years; however, 44% of FLCr ≥100 also did not progress during follow-up. For patients with BMPC ≥60% by core biopsy, the median TTP was 31 months with a 2-year PD of 41%. GBTM established high-risk trajectories for evolving hemoglobin (eHb; characterized as a 1.57 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin), evolving m-protein (eMP; 64% increase in m-protein), and evolving differences in FLC (edFLC; 169% increase in dFLC) within 1 year of diagnosis associated with a decreased median TTP and an increased 2 year rate of PD. Of all the variables examined, we identify a model where immunoparesis, eHb, eMP, and edFLC were significant predictors for ultra-high-risk progression with a median TTP of only 13 months with 3 or more variables present. Our results not only confirm a more modest 2 year PD associated with FLCr ≥100 and BMPC ≥60 but also suggest that eHb, eMP, and edFLC may help identify an ultra-high-risk SMM group.

Timing treatment for smoldering myeloma: is earlier better?

INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the International Myeloma Working Group determined that patients with ultra-high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) should be considered for treatment as per patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM), despite not having CRAB (hyperCalcemia, Renal insufficiency, Anemia, Bone disease) symptoms. Current research is elucidating whether patients with high-risk, and even intermediate-risk, SMM could benefit from early therapeutic strategies aimed at delaying progression to active MM and prolonging survival. Areas covered: The authors conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed to identify a series of patients with SMM in which prognostic and predictive factors for progression were investigated, plus the main clinical trials in SMM. Additionally, a search of active clinical trials in SMM was conducted at ClinicalTrials.gov. Expert opinion: Patients with high-risk SMM can benefit from active treatment strategies, which may prolong survival and, perhaps, provide a possible path to cure. Enabled by the limited toxicity of new drugs investigated in MM, this approach, together with consolidation with autologous transplantation, is under investigation by American and European groups. In patients with high-risk SMM who are not candidates for transplantation, combinations of oral drugs may prolong time to progression. In the near future, these approaches may be endorsed by results of ongoing clinical trials.

Immune marker changes and risk of multiple myeloma: a nested case-control study using repeated pre-diagnostic blood samples

Biomarkers reliably predicting progression to multiple myeloma (MM) are lacking. Myeloma risk has been associated with low blood levels of monocyte chemotactic protein-3 (MCP-3), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (MIP-1α), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), fractalkine, and transforming growth factor-alpha (TGF-α). In this study, we aimed to replicate these findings and study the individual dynamics of each marker in a prospective longitudinal cohort, thereby examining their potential as markers of myeloma progression. For this purpose, we identified 65 myeloma cases and 65 matched cancer-free controls each with two donated blood samples within the Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study. The first and repeated samples from myeloma cases were donated at a median 13 and 4 years, respectively, before the myeloma was diagnosed. Known risk factors for progression were determined by protein-, and immunofixation electrophoresis, and free light chain assays. We observed lower levels of MCP-3, VEGF, FGF-2, and TGF-α in myeloma patients than in controls, consistent with previous data. We also observed that these markers decreased among future myeloma patients while remaining stable in controls. Decreasing trajectories were noted for TGF-α (P=2.5 × 10⁻⁴) indicating progression to MM. Investigating this, we found that low levels of TGF-α assessed at the time of the repeated sample were independently associated with risk of progression in a multivariable model (hazard ratio = 3.5; P=0.003). TGF-α can potentially improve early detection of MM.

Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma incorporating revised IMWG diagnostic criteria

In 2014, the International Myeloma Working Group reclassified patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) and bone marrow-plasma cell percentage (BMPC%) ≥ 60%, or serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥ 100 or >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging as multiple myeloma (MM). Predictors of progression in patients currently classified as SMM are not known. We identified 421 patients with SMM, diagnosed between 2003 and 2015. The median time to progression (TTP) was 57 months (CI, 45–72). BMPC% > 20% [hazard ratio (HR): 2.28 (CI, 1.63–3.20); p < 0.0001]; M-protein > 2g/dL [HR: 1.56 (CI, 1.11–2.20); p = 0.01], and FLCr > 20 [HR: 2.13 (CI, 1.55–2.93); p < 0.0001] independently predicted shorter TTP in multivariate analysis. Age and immunoparesis were not significant. We stratified patients into three groups: low risk (none of the three risk factors; n = 143); intermediate risk (one of the three risk factors; n = 121); and high risk (≥2 of the three risk factors; n = 153). The median TTP for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 110, 68, and 29 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). BMPC% > 20%, M-protein > 2 g/dL, and FLCr > 20 at diagnosis can be used to risk stratify patients with SMM. Patients with high-risk SMM need close follow-up and are candidates for clinical trials aiming to prevent progression.

Volumetry based biomarker speed of growth: Quantifying the change of total tumor volume in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging over time improves risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma patients

The purpose of this study was to improve risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma patients, introducing new 3D-volumetry based imaging biomarkers derived from whole-body MRI.

Two-hundred twenty whole-body MRIs from 63 patients with smoldering multiple myeloma were retrospectively analyzed and all focal lesions >5mm were manually segmented for volume quantification. The imaging biomarkers total tumor volume, speed of growth (development of the total tumor volume over time), number of focal lesions, development of the number of focal lesions over time and the recent imaging biomarker ‘>1 focal lesion’ of the International Myeloma Working Group were compared, taking 2-year progression rate, sensitivity and false positive rate into account.

Speed of growth, using a cutoff of 114mm³/month, was able to isolate a high-risk group with a 2-year progression rate of 82.5%. Additionally, it showed by far the highest sensitivity in this study and in comparison to other biomarkers in the literature, detecting 63.2% of patients who progress within 2 years. Furthermore, its false positive rate (8.7%) was much lower compared to the recent imaging biomarker ‘>1 focal lesion’ of the International Myeloma Working Group.

Therefore, speed of growth is the preferable imaging biomarker for risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma patients.

Smoldering multiple myeloma: prevalence and current evidence guiding treatment decisions

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell proliferative disorder associated with risk of progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) or amyloidosis. In comparison to monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), SMM has a much higher risk of progression to MM. Thanks to advances in our understanding of the risk factors, the subset of patients with ultra-high risk of progression to MM (80%-90% at 2 years) has been identified. The revision of the diagnostic criteria resulted in changes in the management of this cohort of patients. In contrast to the management guidelines for MGUS patients, SMM patients need to be studied more intensively in order to identify biomarkers necessary for accurate risk stratification. In this review, we focus on the risk of progression from SMM to MM, as well as the influence of early treatment on overall survival, time to progression and quality of life.

How I manage monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is, in many ways, a unique hematologic entity. Unlike most hematologic conditions in which the diagnosis is intentional and credited to hematologists, the discovery of MGUS is most often incidental and made by nonhematologists. MGUS is considered an obligate precursor to several lymphoplasmacytic malignancies, including immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis, multiple myeloma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Therefore, long-term follow-up is generally recommended. Despite its high prevalence, there is surprisingly limited evidence to inform best clinical practice both at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up. We present 7 vignettes to illustrate common clinical management questions that arise during the course of MGUS. Where evidence is present, we provide a concise summary of the literature and clear recommendations on management. Where evidence is lacking, we describe how we practice and provide a rationale for our approach. We also discuss the potential harms associated with MGUS diagnosis, a topic that is rarely, if ever, broached between patients and providers, or even considered in academic debate.