scholarly journals Dynamic follow‐up of smoldering multiple myeloma identifies a subset of patients at high risk of progression

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gran ◽  
Vincent Luong ◽  
Johanna B. Bruchfeld ◽  
Johan Liwing ◽  
Gabriel Afram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) at High-Risk of Progression to Symptomatic Disease: A Phase III, Randomized, Multicenter Trial Based On Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Len-Dex) as Induction Therapy Followed by Maintenance Therapy with Len Alone Vs No Treatment

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1935-1935 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Lucía López-Corral ◽  
Miguel Hernández ◽  
Pilar Giraldo ◽  
Javier De La Rubia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 1935 Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic proliferative disorder of plasma cells (PCs) defined by a serum monoclonal component (MC) of 30 g/L or higher and/or 10% or more plasma cells in the bone marrow (BM), but no evidence of end-organ damage. There are several risk factors predicting high-risk of progression to symptomatic disease (>50% at 2 years): >10% of PCs in BM, serum MC >30g/L, >95% aberrant PCs by immunophenotyping, or abnormal free-light chains. Standard of care of SMM is close follow-up without treatment until progression disease. Several trials have evaluated the role of early treatment with convencional agents (melphalan), bisphosphonates and novel agents (thalidomide, anti-IL1a), with no clear benefit, but they didn't focus on high-risk patients. In this phase III trial, SMM patients at high-risk of progression were randomized to receive Len-dex as induction followed by Len alone as maintenance vs no treatment in order to evaluate whether the early treatment prolongs the time to progresión (TTP) to symptomatic disease. The high risk population was defined by the presence of both >PC 10% and MC >30g/L or if only one criterion was present, patients must have a proportion of aberrants PCs within the total PCsBM compartment by immunophenotyping of 95% plus immunoparesis. Len-dex arm received an induction treatment consisting on nine four-weeks cycles of lenalidomide at dose of 25 mg daily on days 1–21 plus dexamethasone at dose of 20 mg daily on days 1–4 and 12–15 (total dose: 160mg), followed by maintenance until progression disease with Lenalidomide at dose of 10 mg on days 1–21 every two months (ammended in May 2010 into monthly). The 124 planned patients were recruited between October 2006 and June 2010, and 118 were evaluables (three in Len-dex and three in therapeutic abstention arm didn't meet inclusion criteria). This second interim analysis was planned when all patients were recruited. According to baseline characteristics, both groups were well balanced. On an ITT analysis (n=57), based on IMWG criteria, the overall response rate during induction therapy was 75%, including 51% PR, 12% VGPR, 5% CR and 7% sCR. If we select the group of 33 patients who completed the nine induction cycles, the ORR was 91%, including 15% VGPR, 9% CR and 9% sCR. After a median of 8 cycles of maintenance therapy (1-15), the sCR increased to 16%. After a median follow-up of 16 months (range:1-33), four patients progressed to symptomatic disease in the Len-dex arm: two of them during maintenance therapy after 24 and 28 months from inclusion and the other two progressed 3 and 8 months after early discontinuation of the trial due to personal reasons. In addition, nine patients have developed biological progression during maintenance, but in all but one of these, Len has been able to control the disease without CRAB symptoms (median of 9·5 months (1-18)). In the therapeutic abstention arm, 21 out of 61 patients progressed to active MM. The estimated hazard ratio was 6·7 (95%CI= 2·3-19·9), corresponding to a median TTP from inclusion of 25 months for the not treatment arm vs median not reached in the treatment arm (p<0.0001). It should be noted that 10 out of these 21 patients developed bone lesions as a symptom of active MM. Deaths in the Len-dex and no treatment arms were 1 and 2, respectively (p=0·6). As far as toxicity is concerned, during induction therapy, no G4 adverse events (AEs) were reported with Len-dex; 1 pt developed G3 anemia, 4 patients G3 asthenia 2 patients G3 diarrhea and 1 patient G3 skin rash; 3 patients developped G2 DVT. During maintenance, no G4 AEs were reported and only 1 patient developed G3 infection. In conclusion, this second interim analysis shows that in high-risk SMM patients, delayed treatment resulted in early progression to symptomatic disease (median 25 months), while Len-dex as induction followed by Len as maintenance significantly prolonged the TTP (HR: 6·7), with excelent tolerability; moreover, biological progressions occurring under maintenance have remained controlled over a prolonged period of time. Disclosures: Mateos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for the treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma. De La Rubia:Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Celgene: Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia-Laraña:Celgene: Honoraria. Hernández:Celgene: Honoraria. Leal-da-Costa:Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Celgene: Honoraria. Quintana:Celgene: Employment. Baquero:Celgene: Employment. García:Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Celgene: Honoraria.

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

Leukemia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1840-1852 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ola Landgren ◽  
Ajai Chari ◽  
Yael C. Cohen ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Peter Voorhees ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Active Monitoring ◽  
Death Rates ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals High Throughput Genomic Analysis Identifies Low-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Anil Aktas-Samur ◽  
Mariateresa Fulciniti ◽  
Sanika Derebail ◽  
Raphael Szalat ◽  
Giovanni Parmigiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Dna Repair ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Mutational Processes

Multiple Myeloma is preceded by precursor states of monoclonal gammopathy of undermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). Studies have shown that progression to symptomatic MM five years after diagnosis is 1% for MGUS and 10% for SMM. However, based on the genomic background, this rate is highly variable, especially for SMM patients. Recent studies have evaluated the high-risk genomic features for SMM, but the genomic background of SMM patients who do not progress to MM after long-term follow-up (&gt;= 5 years) has not been described. Here, we evaluated genomic changes enriched in non-progressor (NP) (no progression after 5 years of follow-up) precursor conditions (N=31) with those progressed within a short time (N=71) as well as newly diagnosed Myeloma (N=192). We also studied additional unique samples from 18 patients at their precursor stage as well as when progressed to Myeloma. We report a similar large-scale CN alteration in non-progressor SMM compared to progressor SMMs or MM at diagnosis. However, whole-genome sequencing data showed that the overall mutational load for non-progressor SMM samples was lower than Progressor MGUS/SMM (median SNV 5460 vs. 7018). This difference significantly increased for mutations affecting the coding regions. NP samples at diagnosis had 26% and 53% less coding mutations (missense, nonsense, and frameshift mutations) compared to progressor MGUS/SMM (p=0.008) and newly diagnosed MM (p &lt; 0.001) respectively. We observed very low NRAS (3%, OR=8.86) and BRAF (3%, OR=2.17), mutation frequency in non-progressor SMM samples compared to newly diagnosed MM. We did not observe driver mutations in FAM46C, TTN, CYLD, TP53, KMT2C, IRF4, HIST1H1E that are otherwise frequently mutated in high-risk SMM or symptomatic MM. None of the non-progressor SMM samples had MYC alteration. We observed t(11;14), t(4;14), and t(14;16) translocations at similar frequency compared to newly diagnosed MM samples. We also observed a significant difference in non-recurrent focal deletions. Based on our recent data in newly-diagnosed MM, we quantified genomic scar score, and observed that non-progressor SMM have lower GSS (median=3,IQR=[1-9]) compared to progressor MGUS/SMM (median=11,IQR=[5-15] / median=9,IQR=[9-15], respectively) as well as MM samples at diagnosis (median=9, IQR= [5-16],p=0.002). We further validated this observation in an independent cohort with 69 SMM samples in whom progressor SMM patients had high GSS (median =4, IQR=[2-7.75]), compared to delayed progressor (&gt; four years) or non-progressor SMM (median =1.5, IQR= [0-3.5]; p=0.029). Moreover, non-progressor SMM had significantly low utilization of APOBEC and DNA repair mutational processes. Next, we compared non- progressor SMM with progressor SMM using RNAseq data. We identified 1653 differentially expressed genes (DEG) (762 up-regulated and 891 down-regulated). Genes that were upregulated in non-progressor SMM samples were enriched in IL6/JAK/STAT3 and IL2/STAT5 signaling and the regulation of cytokine secretion. Whereas genes up-regulated in progressor SMM were enriched in MYC targets, DNA repair, and mTOR pathways. Moreover, genes that control the translational initiation, translational elongation, mitochondrial translation, and ATP control were among the top highly expressed genes in progressor SMM. We used our MGUS/SMM to MM paired samples and showed that the E2F target, MYC target, and G2/M checkpoint pathways are more active at MM. We measured the distance between progressor and non-progressor SMM as well as MM and found that non-progressor SMM is less similar to MM compared to progressor SMM. In conclusion, the global CNA and translocations are similar between progressor and non-progressor SMM and symptomatic MM and confirm their role in the development of precursor condition but not adequate for progression to MM, which requires additional hits. On the other hand, lower GSS score reflecting genomic stability along with lower SNVs, low DNA damage and APOBEC mutational processes, down-regulated MYC target genes, and low DNA repair activation define low-risk SMM. These results now provide the basis to develop a genomic definition of SMM. Disclosures Fulciniti: NIH: Research Funding. Parmigiani:Phaeno Biotehnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; CRA Health: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Foundation Medicine Institute: Consultancy; Delphi Diagnostics: Consultancy; BayesMendel Laboratory: Other: Co-lead. Munshi:Janssen: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; C4: Current equity holder in private company; BMS: Consultancy; OncoPep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties.

scholarly journals Genomic Profiling of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Identifies Patients at a High Risk of Disease Progression

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (21) ◽  
pp. 2380-2389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Bustoros ◽  
Romanos Sklavenitis-Pistofidis ◽  
Jihye Park ◽  
Robert Redd ◽  
Benny Zhitomirsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Copy Number Variations ◽  
Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Single Nucleotide Variants ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

PURPOSE Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor condition of multiple myeloma (MM) with a 10% annual risk of progression. Various prognostic models exist for risk stratification; however, those are based on solely clinical metrics. The discovery of genomic alterations that underlie disease progression to MM could improve current risk models. METHODS We used next-generation sequencing to study 214 patients with SMM. We performed whole-exome sequencing on 166 tumors, including 5 with serial samples, and deep targeted sequencing on 48 tumors. RESULTS We observed that most of the genetic alterations necessary for progression have already been acquired by the diagnosis of SMM. Particularly, we found that alterations of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway ( KRAS and NRAS single nucleotide variants [SNVs]), the DNA repair pathway (deletion 17p, TP53, and ATM SNVs), and MYC (translocations or copy number variations) were all independent risk factors of progression after accounting for clinical risk staging. We validated these findings in an external SMM cohort by showing that patients who have any of these three features have a higher risk of progressing to MM. Moreover, APOBEC associated mutations were enriched in patients who progressed and were associated with a shorter time to progression in our cohort. CONCLUSION SMM is a genetically mature entity whereby most driver genetic alterations have already occurred, which suggests the existence of a right-skewed model of genetic evolution from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to MM. We identified and externally validated genomic predictors of progression that could distinguish patients at high risk of progression to MM and, thus, improve on the precision of current clinical models.

scholarly journals Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: Usefulness of Serum Heavy/Light Chain Measurements for the Evaluation of Evolving Pattern

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4514-4514
Author(s):  
Carlos Fernandez de Larrea ◽  
Ignacio Isola ◽  
Esther Moga ◽  
Maria Teresa Cibeira ◽  
Ester Lozano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Protein Level ◽  
Progressive Increase ◽  
M Protein ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Abstract Introduction: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic and biologically heterogeneous clonal plasma cell disorder. A number of prognostic factors to identify patients at a higher risk of progression have been described, such as the size of the M protein, proportion of abnormal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs), immunoparesis and serum free light chain (FLC) k/l ratio. More recently, isotype-specific uninvolved heavy and light chain (HLC) pair suppression measured with the Hevylite assay was also associated with an increased risk of progression. Recent studies have evaluated the key prognostic impact of an increase in M-protein levels during follow-up ("evolving" pattern). However, an important limitation could be the evaluation of M-protein level variations based on serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) in patients with a small size M-spike. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze the changes in M-protein according to SPE and HLC measurements, as well as other risk factors for progression, in patients with SMM. Methods: Thirty patients newly diagnosed with SMM at a single institution from January 2014 through September 2017 were prospectively included in the study. For each patient, baseline levels of known prognostic factors (serum M-protein, serum and urine immunofixation, clonal BMPCs percentage, total immunoglobulins, involved/uninvolved FLC and involved/uninvolved HLC pairs) were recorded. During the follow up, M-protein level, FLC and isotype specific HLC pairs were also analyzed. Evolving change in M-protein level according to SPE was defined as ³ 10% increase within the first 6 months of diagnosis (if M-protein was ³ 30 g/L) and/or ³ 25% increase within the first 12 months (for any level of M-protein); evolving change according to HLC was defined as a ³ 10% increase in the involved pair. A sequential increase in each of three or more consecutive measurements from diagnosis was considered an evolving change regardless of its magnitude. Results: The clinical characteristics of the total of patients, as well as of the patients with evolving changes in M-protein according to HLC are summarized in Table 1. During the study period, 5/30 (17%) of patients demonstrated an evolving behavior of the M-protein according to SPE. Four of these patients (4/5) also showed a progressive increase in the M-protein in the HLC measurements. One patient showed stable HLC levels even though both the M-protein and the involved FLC progressively increased. This patient was of intermediate and low risk according to Mayo Clinic and PETHEMA scores, respectively. On follow up, no progressive suppression of the isotype-specific uninvolved HLC pair or increase in the FLC ratio was noted, and there have been no signs of progression after a follow up of 3 years. According to involved HLC-pair levels, 12/30 (40%) of patients demonstrated an evolving behavior. Five out of 7 patients that were not classified as evolving by SPE, were IgA isotype. Eight out of 12 patients showed severe isotype-specific suppression of the uninvolved HLC-pair (> 50% below lower level of normal) as well as a highly abnormal FLC ratio (<0.125 or >8). Three out of the 4 remaining patients showed either severe isotype-specific HLC pair suppression or highly abnormal FLC ratio in follow up measurements. Compared to patients with no "HLC-evolving pattern", evolving patients were more likely to have highly abnormal FLC ratios (90 vs. 33%, p=0.009), severe suppression of the other isotypes (64 vs. 19%, p=0,024), highly abnormal isotype-specific HLC ratios (67 vs. 33%, p=NS), severe isotype-specific HLC-pair suppression (75 vs. 50%, p=NS), and immunoparesis (67 vs. 39%p=NS). Five patients progressed to symptomatic multiple myeloma during follow up; 4 of them showed a progressive increase in the involved HLC pair from diagnosis. The remaining patient demonstrated a progressive increase in the involved HLC pair that started 19 months prior to progression, followed 4 months later with an increase in M-protein as measured by SPE. Conclusions: In our series, the Hevylite assay allowed us to identify patients with a progressive increase in M-protein (clonal heavy/light chain pair) that was not evident with SPE measurements. This "HLC evolving pattern" was associated with other risk factors for progression to symptomatic disease and with worsening of other prognostic parameters during follow up. Disclosures Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen: Honoraria.

Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Len/dex) Vs Therapeutic Abstention in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma at High Risk of Progression to Symptomatic MM: Results of the First Interim Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 614-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Lucía López-Corral ◽  
Miguel T Hernández ◽  
Javier de la Rubia ◽  
Juan José Lahuerta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gi Bleeding ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 614 Smoldering MM (sMM) is a plasma cell (PC) disorder defined by the presence of ≥10% of PC and/or a serum M-component (MC) ≥3g/dl without end-organ damage. Recent studies have identified a subgroup of sMM at high risk of progression to active MM (>50% at 2 y): patients with both PC ≥10% & MC ≥3g/dl (Kyle R. NEJM 2007) or ≥95% aberrant PC (aPC) by immunophenotyping (Pérez E. Blood 2007) or abnormal FLCs (Dispenzieri A. Blood 2008). Standard of care for sMM is monitoring without treatment until disease progression. Several small studies have explored the value of early treatment with either conventional agents (melphalan/prednisone) or novel drugs (thalidomide, interleukin-1b), with no clear benefit. It should be noted that these trials didn't focus on high-risk sMM. In this phase III trial we investigated whether early treatment prolongs the time to progression (TTP) in sMM patients at high risk of progression to active MM. Patients were randomized to receive Len-dex versus no treatment. The high risk population was defined by the presence of both PC ≥10% and MC ≥3g/dl or if only one criterion was present, patients must have a proportion of aPC within the total PCBM compartment by immunophenotyping of ≥95% plus immunoparesis. 120 patients are planned to be recruited. The 60 patients randomized to the Len-dex arm receive nine four-weeks cycles of lenalidomide at dose of 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone at dose of 20 mg daily on days 1-4 and 12-15 (total dose: 160mg) (induction phase); subsequently maintenance with Lenalidomide at dose of 10 mg on days 1-21 every two months administered until disease progression. Between October 2006 and June 2008, 80 patients were randomized. In this interim analysis, we present the first 40 patients recruited. According to baseline characteristics, both groups were well balanced. In an ITT analysis (n=40), based on IMWG criteria, the overall response rate was 90%, including 53% PR, 21% VGPR, 11% CR and 5% sCR. If we select the group of 16 patients who completed the nine cycles, the ORR was 100%, including 27% VGPR, 13% CR and 7% sCR. After a median follow-up of 16 months (range:12-20), no disease progression was observed in the Len-dex arm, while 8 patients progressed to active MM in the therapeutic abstention arm with a median TTP from inclusion in the trial of 17.5 months (p<0.002). It should be noted that 6 of these 8 patients developed bone lesions as a symptom of active MM. As far as toxicity is concerned, no G4 adverse events (AEs) were reported with Len-dex; 1 pt developed G3 anemia, 2 patients G3 asthenia, 1 pt G3 diarrhea and 3 patients G3 DVT. Serious AEs occurred in 5 patients, 3 of these were dexamethasone-related (GI bleeding, delirium and glaucoma) and 2 were lenalidomide-related (two infections). Two SAEs lead to early discontinuation of the treatment (infection and delirium), and another 2 additional patients discontinued at pt's request. Four patients needed to reduce lenalidomide from 25 to 15 mg due to non-hematological AEs (asthenia (2), diarrhea (1) and GI bleeding (1). In conclusion, these preliminary results show that in sMM patients at high-risk for progression to active MM, delayed treatment is associated with early progression (median time 17.5 months) with bone disease, while so far Len-dex has been able not only to prolong the TTP (without any progression so far) but also to induce CRs with a manageable and acceptable toxicity profile. Disclosures: Mateos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for the treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma patients. de la Rubia:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. García-Laraña:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de Arriba:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Quintana:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Garcia:Celgene Corporation: Employment. San-Miguel:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Defining Genomic Probability of Progression to Identify Low-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 545-545
Author(s):  
Anil Aktas-Samur ◽  
Mariateresa Fulciniti ◽  
Sanika Derebail ◽  
Raphael Szalat ◽  
Giovanni Parmigiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Mutational Load ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Genomic Features ◽  
Genomic Deletions ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Short Period

Abstract On an average, 1% of monoclonal gammopathy of undermined significance (MGUS) and 10% of smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) progress to symptomatic MM every year within the first five years of diagnosis. The probability of progression significantly decreases for SMM patients after first 5 years. However, a distinct subset of SMM patients progress within 2 years and are re-classified as high-risk patients based on risk markers such as 20/2/20 or certain genomic features. Although recent studies have evaluated the high-risk genomic features for SMM but genomic background of SMM patients who do not progress to MM after long-term follow-up (&gt;= 5 years) has not been described. Here, we evaluated transcriptomic and genomic changes enriched in non-progressor (NP) (no progression after 5 years of follow-up) precursor conditions (N=31) with those progressed within short period of time (N=71) and compared them with changes observed in newly diagnosed MM (N=192). Additionally, using transcriptome, epigenome and whole genome profiling we also studied additional unique samples from 18 patients at their precursor stage as well as when progressed to MM. Overall, we have observed significantly lower mutational load for NP SMM from progressor SMM (median SNV 4900 vs. 7881 p &lt; 3e-04) with high sensitivity (0.83) and specificity (0.65) to separate NP from progressors. We have further developed a deep learning model by using more than 4500 genome wide features using ten-fold cross validation. This model indicated that not only the load but also the patterns of mutations (type, location, frequency) are different between two conditions. We also found that NP samples have significantly lower heterogeneity (p &lt; 0.05). However, progressed samples showed similar mutational load and heterogeneity at precursor stage and MM. Among CNA differences, absence of gain or deletion of chr8 (not involving MYC region) were strong predictor of NP (OR=7.2 95% CI 2.2-24). Focal genomic loss was also significantly lower for NP (p=0.004) which was also reflected by low genome scar score (GSS) (p=0.07). Structural variant and copy number signature analysis also showed that NPs were showing significantly low exposure to non-clustered variable size genomic deletions. We observed similar frequency of primary translocations [t(11;14), t(4;14), and t(14;16)] in both progressor and NP samples as well as newly diagnosed MM. MYC translocation with any partner was not observed in NP samples, whereas 37% of progressor samples had a MYC translocations (OR=12.8). Adding all these differences including chr8 CNAs, MYC translocations, mutation burden, GSS, focal deletions, all driver mutations as well as primary translocations into recursive partitioning model to predict non-progressor SMM, we have identified a simple genomic model only involving chr8 CN changes and overall mutational burden to achieve a high sensitivity (0.82) and specificity (74%). Our transcriptomic analysis measured the distance between progressor and NP SMM as well as MM and found that NP SMM has greater difference with MM which is closer to progressor SMM. We quantified transcriptomic heterogeneity by using molecular degree of perturbation. This analysis showed that consistent with DNA changes, DNA repair pathway and MYC target genes are expressed similarly in NP SMM as in normal plasma cells compared to progressor SMM. Epigenomic analysis yielded 75 SEs regions differentially utilized between precursor and symptomatic MM stage using paired samples. The targeted genes included BMP6, PRDM1, STAT1, SERTAD2 and RAB21 and possibly regulating genes related to oncogenic KRAS activities. In conclusion, we define genomic characterization of non-progressor SMM and our results now provide the basis to develop molecular definition of SMM as well as risk driving features. Disclosures Munshi: Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: scientific founder, Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Phase II Trial of the Combination of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 580-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Bustoros, MD ◽  
Omar Nadeem ◽  
Adam S Sperling ◽  
Giada Bianchi ◽  
Lily Ardente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Induction Phase ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Background.This study aimed to determine the progression-free survival and response rate using early therapeutic intervention in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) using the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Methods.Patients enrolled on study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al. (Blood 2014). The treatment plan was designed to be administered on an outpatient basis where patients receive 9 cycles of induction therapy of ixazomib (4mg) at days 1, 8, and 15, in combination with lenalidomide (25mg) at days 1-21 and dexamethasone at days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The induction phase was followed by ixazomib (4mg) and lenalidomide (15mg) maintenance for another 15 cycles. A treatment cycle was defined as 28 consecutive days for a total of 24 months period. Bone marrow samples of all patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment for minimal residual disease (MRD) testing, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and RNA sequencing of plasma and bone marrow microenvironment cells. Moreover, blood samples were obtained at screening and before each cycle for isolating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Results.In total, 53 of the planned 62 patients have been enrolled in this study from February 2017 to May 2019. The median age of the patients enrolled was 61 years (range, 41 to 84) with 22 male (41.5%). The analysis was conducted on patients who have completed at least 1 cycle of therapy (n=45). The median follow-up for the trial is 14.4 months (range: 2- 27.6). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) was successful in 37 patients (82.2%). High-risk cytogenetics (defined as the presence of t(4;14), 17p deletion, and 1q gain) were found in 20 patients (54%). The median number of cycles completed was 14 cycles (range: 1-24). According to the study's inclusion criteria, baseline markers showed that 15, 14, and 13 patients had 3, 4, and 5 high-risk features, respectively. Moreover, 24 patients (53.3%) met the criteria of high-risk SMM, according to the Mayo 2018 model. The most common grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (6.3%), hypophosphatemia (4.2%), and rash (4.2%). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were each reported in 4.4% of patients, and hyperglycemia was reported in 2.2%. Stem cells were collected in all eligible patients by the end of the induction phase. As of the abstract date, the overall response rate (partial response or better) in participants who completed at least 1 cycle of treatment was 91.1% (41/45), with 14 Complete Responses (CR, 31.1%), 9 very good partial responses (VGPR, 20%), 18 partial responses (40%), and 4 minimal Responses (MR, 10%). ORR in patients who completed the induction phase (≥9 cycles) was 97% (n= 32/33), with 14(42.4%) and 9 (27.2%) having CR and VGPR, respectively. All patients who had a CR have also achieved a stringent CR. Six patients have completed the treatment protocol and are currently on follow-up. As of July 2019, none of the patients have progressed to overt MM. MRD testing by next-generation sequencing is ongoing for patients who achieved CR or VGPR and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion.The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is an effective and well-tolerated intervention in high-risk smoldering myeloma with 91% ORR and 54.7% CR and VGPR to date. The high response rate, convenient schedule and manageable toxicity build on prior studies which have shown efficacy of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in high risk smoldering myeloma. Longer follow-up for disease outcome is ongoing. Disclosures Bustoros, MD: Takeda: Honoraria. Nadeem:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Prescott:Janssen: Equity Ownership. Munshi:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Anderson:OncoPep: Other: Scientific founder ; C4 Therapeutics: Other: Scientific founder ; Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board. Richardson:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghobrial:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone is an investigational combination in high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma and has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory agency worldwide for the use under investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document