Autotransplants in older multiple myeloma patients: hype or hope in the era of novel agents?

Choosing the Right Therapy for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) in Consideration of Patient-, Disease- and Treatment-Related Factors

Treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is more complex today due to the availability of novel therapeutic options, mostly applied as combination regimens. immunotherapy options have especially increased substantially, likewise the understanding that patient-, disease- and treatment-related factors should be considered at all stages of the disease. RRMM is based on definitions of the international myeloma working group (IMWG) and includes biochemical progression, such as paraprotein increase, or symptomatic relapse with CRAB criteria (hypercalcemia, renal impairment, anemia, bone lesions). When choosing RRMM-treatment, the biochemical markers for progression and severity of the disease, dynamic of disease relapse, type and number of prior therapy lines, including toxicity and underlying health status, need to be considered, and shared decision making should be pursued. Objectively characterizing health status via geriatric assessment (GA) at each multiple myeloma (MM) treatment decision point has been shown to be a better estimate than via age and comorbidities alone. The well-established national comprehensive cancer network, IMWG, European myeloma network and other national treatment algorithms consider these issues. Ideally, GA-based clinical trials should be supported in the future to choose wisely and efficaciously from available intervention and treatment options in often-older MM adults in order to further improve morbidity and mortality.

Risk of disease recurrence and survival in patients with multiple myeloma: A German Study Group analysis using a conditional survival approach with long-term follow-up of 815 patients

BACKGROUND

Unlike the traditional method of overall survival prediction in patients with cancer, conditional survival predicts the survival of patients dynamically throughout the course of disease, identifying how a prognosis evolves over time.

METHODS

The authors assessed 815 consecutive patients with multiple myeloma through the German Study Group on Multiple Myeloma (Deutsche Studiengruppe Multiples Myelom; DSMM) incentive. Over 10 variables, including patient-specific and multiple myeloma-specific parameters, were analyzed at the time of initial diagnosis and repeatedly during follow-up. The probability of survival for another 5 years was calculated according to disease-related and host-related risks. Multivariate Cox models were used to determine baseline and updated prognostic factors for survival.

RESULTS

The median follow-up and overall survival were 10.3 years and 5.1 years, respectively. When comparing 5-year conditional survival probabilities from the data derived at the time of initial diagnosis with those updated over time, substantially differing prognoses were observed when follow-up data were used. Multivariate Cox regression models for cohorts surviving 0 to 5 years demonstrated hazard ratios (HRs) for patients aged <60 years, 60 to 69 years, and >70 years of 1, 1.68, and 3.17, respectively. These HRs for age were found to decline for patients surviving 5 years, as well as for those with advanced stages of disease (II/III) and unfavorable cytogenetics, whereas progressive disease remained an important factor in patients surviving 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, with HRs of 1.85, 2.11, and 2.14, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first analysis of conditional survival in patients with multiple myeloma using both baseline and follow-up risk parameters, demonstrating that regular risk assessment throughout the course of disease and complete follow-up provide a more reliable conditional survival estimation than baseline assessment alone.

Time from first symptom onset to the final diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) - possible risks and future solutions: retrospective and prospective 'Deutsche Studiengruppe MM' (DSMM) and 'European Myeloma Network' (EMN) analysis

Multiple myeloma (MM) often presents with unspecific symptoms and is challenging to diagnose. We performed this DSMM/EMN-analysis via test-(retro-) and validation (prospective) study to determine the time interval from the onset of first symptoms to the diagnosis of MM. The retrospective and prospective analyses were performed in 101 and 176 patients, respectively. The median time from first symptoms to the MM diagnosis in both cohorts was 4 and 6 months, respectively. Frequencies of MM-related pathologic bone fractures, renal, and infectious complications at diagnosis occurred in 41%, 35%, and 16% of patients, respectively. Our MM-questionnaire determined that 39% of patients were dissatisfied with the diagnostic process. PFS and OS proved insignificantly different with shorter (≤6) and longer (>6 months) latency periods. In conclusion, our in depth studies demonstrate that delays in diagnosis do not decrease PFS or OS, but induce MM-related complications and influence patients' satisfaction with their medical care.

Current developments in immunotherapy in the treatment of multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy and represents approximately 10% of all hematological neoplasms. Standard therapy consists of induction therapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or, if ASCT cannot be performed, standard doublet, triplet, or quadruplet, novel agent-containing induction treatment until progression. Although MM is still regarded as mostly incurable by current standards, the development of several novel compounds, combination therapies, and immunotherapy approaches has raised great hopes about transforming MM into an indolent, chronic disease and possibly achieving a cure for individual patients. Several new inhibitory and immunological agents have been approved or are under intensive investigation and may lead to new therapeutic options for patients with relapsed/refractory MM, for patients ineligible for ASCT, and for patients after ASCT. Especially in the field of immunotherapy, including monoclonal antibodies, checkpoint inhibition, and chimeric antigen receptor T cells, current advances are rapid and highly promising. This review aims to summarize the newest and most promising immunotherapeutic agents for MM, their clinical efficacy, their adverse event (AE) profiles, and the ways in which these AEs can best be overcome or avoided. Cancer 2018;124:2075-85. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

From transplant to novel cellular therapies in multiple myeloma: European Myeloma Network guidelines and future perspectives

Survival of myeloma patients has greatly improved with the use of autologous stem cell transplantation and novel agents, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Compared to bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens alone, the addition of high-dose melphalan followed by autologous transplantation significantly improves progression-free survival, although an overall survival benefit was not observed in all trials. Moreover, follow up of recent trials is still too short to show any difference in survival. In the light of these findings, novel agent-based induction followed by autologous transplantation is considered the standard upfront treatment for eligible patients (level of evidence: 1A). Post-transplant consolidation and maintenance treatment can further improve patient outcome (1A). The availability of several novel agents has led to the development of multiple combination regimens such as salvage treatment options. In this context, the role of salvage autologous transplantation and allotransplant has not been extensively evaluated. In the case of prolonged remission after upfront autologous transplantation, another autologous transplantation at relapse can be considered (2B). Patients who experience early relapse and/or have high-risk features have a poor prognosis and may be considered as candidates for clinical trials that, in young and fit patients, may also include an allograft in combination with novel agents (2B). Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of novel cellular therapies, such as inclusion of antibody-based triplets and quadruplets, and chimeric antigen receptor-T cells. Despite encouraging preliminary results, longer follow up and larger patient numbers are needed before the clinical use of these novel therapies can be widely recommended.

Melphalan 140 mg/m2 or 200 mg/m2 for autologous transplantation in myeloma: results from the Collaboration to Collect Autologous Transplant Outcomes in Lymphoma and Myeloma (CALM) study. A report by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies Working Party

Melphalan at a dose of 200 mg/m² is standard conditioning prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma, but a dose of 140 mg/m² is often used in clinical practice in patients perceived to be at risk of excess toxicity. To determine whether melphalan 200 mg/m² and melphalan 140 mg/m² are equally effective and tolerable in clinically relevant patient subgroups we analyzed 1964 first single autologous transplantation episodes using a series of Cox proportional-hazards models. Overall survival, progression-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, hematopoietic recovery and second primary malignancy rates were not significantly different between the melphalan 140 mg/m² (n=245) and melphalan 200 mg/m² (n=1719) groups. Multivariable subgroup analysis showed that disease status at transplantation interacted with overall survival, progression-free survival, and cumulative incidence of relapse, with a significant advantage associated with melphalan 200 mg/m² in patients transplanted in less than partial response (adjusted hazard ratios for melphalan 200 mg/m²versus melphalan 140 mg/m²: 0.5, 0.54, and 0.56). In contrast, transplantation in very good partial or complete response significantly favored melphalan 140 mg/m² for overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.02). Age, renal function, prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, gender, or Karnofsky score did not interact with overall/progression-free survival or relapse rate in the melphalan dose groups. There were no significant survival or relapse rate differences between melphalan 200 mg/m² and melphalan 140 mg/m² patients with high-risk or standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities. In conclusion, remission status at the time of transplantation may favor the use of melphalan 200 mg/m² or melphalan 140 mg/m² for key transplant outcomes (NCT01362972).

Current and developing synthetic pharmacotherapy for treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of novel agents has significantly improved multiple myeloma (MM) patient outcome during the last two decades. MM received the most drug approvals for any one malignancy during this time period, both in the United States as well as in Europe. Areas covered: Proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies are prototype drug classes, which target both specific MM cell functions, as well as the tumor supportive bone marrow microenvironment, and represent current cornerstones of MM therapy. Importantly, the unprecedented extent and frequency of durable responses, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), in particular, is predominantly based on the combinatorial use of these agents with conventional chemotherapeutics or representatives of other drug classes. This article will summarize past landmark discoveries in MM that led to the dramatic progress of today's clinical practice. Moreover, developing strategies will be discussed that are likely to yet improve patient outcome even further. Expert opinion: Despite significant therapeutic advancements, MM remains an incurable disease. With several novel agents in the preclinical and early clinical pipeline, among those novel CD38 and BCMA mAbs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as ricolinostat, selinexor, venetoclax, CAR-T cells, and vaccines, further advances in MM patient outcome are expected in the near future.

A concise revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index as a valid prognostic instrument in a large cohort of 801 multiple myeloma patients

With growing numbers of elderly multiple myeloma patients, reliable tools to assess their vulnerability are required. The objective of the analysis herein was to develop and validate an easy to use myeloma risk score (revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index) that allows for risk prediction of overall survival and progression-free survival differences in a large patient cohort. We conducted a comprehensive comorbidity, frailty and disability evaluation in 801 consecutive myeloma patients, including comorbidity risks obtained at diagnosis. The cohort was examined within a training and validation set. Multivariate analysis determined renal, lung and Karnofsky Performance Status impairment, frailty and age as significant risks for overall survival. These were combined in a weighted revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index, allowing for the identification of fit (revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index ≤3 [n=247, 30.8%]), intermediate-fit (revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index 4-6 [n=446, 55.7%]) and frail patients (revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index >6 [n=108, 13.5%]): these subgroups, confirmed via validation analysis, showed median overall survival rates of 10.1, 4.4 and 1.2 years, respectively. The revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index was compared to other commonly used comorbidity indices (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Specific Comorbidity Index, Kaplan-Feinstein Index): if each were divided in risk groups based on 25% and 75% quartiles, highest hazard ratios, best prediction and Brier scores were achieved with the revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index. The advantages of the revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index include its accurate assessment of patients' physical conditions and simple clinical applicability. We propose the revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index to be tested with the "reference" International Myeloma Working Group frailty score in multicenter analyses and future clinical trials. The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-00003868).