David H. Vesole

International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma

New uniform response criteria are required to adequately assess clinical outcomes in myeloma. The European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant/International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry criteria have been expanded, clarified and updated to provide a new comprehensive evaluation system. Categories for stringent complete response and very good partial response are added. The serum free light-chain assay is included to allow evaluation of patients with oligo-secretory disease. Inconsistencies in prior criteria are clarified making confirmation of response and disease progression easier to perform. Emphasis is placed upon time to event and duration of response as critical end points. The requirements necessary to use overall survival duration as the ultimate end point are discussed. It is anticipated that the International Response Criteria for multiple myeloma will be widely used in future clinical trials of myeloma.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DISEASE RESPONSE AND PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA TREATED BY HIGH‐DOSE THERAPY AND HAEMOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell disorder accounting for about 10% of haematological malignancies. The disease is characterized by the clonal proliferation of plasma cells which produce a monoclonal immunoglobulin heavy and/or light chain (paraprotein, M-protein or Mcomponent). This patient-specific paraprotein is present in the serum and/or urine of all patients except in the 1–2% of patients with non-secretory myeloma. Typical clinical and laboratory features in patients with MM include bone pain (due to lytic lesions or osteoporosis), anaemia, renal insufficiency, hypercalcaemia, increased susceptibility to infection and constitutional symptoms resulting in poor performance status. Less common complications include cord compression due to extramedullary plasmacytomas or vertebral collapse, peripheral neuropathy, amyloidosis and hyperviscosity syndrome (Malpas, 1998). Prior to the introduction of alkylating agents, the median survival of patients with MM was less than a year (Korst et al, 1964; Holland et al, 1966). Approximately 60% of patients respond to initial treatment with conventional chemotherapy, but although survival is prolonged by treatment the median survival remains approximately 3 years (Bergsagel, 1998). Complete remissions are rare and all patients ultimately relapse, resulting in c 25% survival at 5 years and <10% survival at 10 years. Criteria by which different treatment regimens can be evaluated include the proportion of patients achieving an objective response, the duration of response, and survival. Over the past 10–15 years high-dose therapy followed by haemopoietic stem-cell rescue, either allogeneic or autologous, has been increasingly employed in the treatment of multiple myeloma. For a number of reasons the existing criteria for the assessment of disease response have not proved entirely satisfactory for the analysis of disease outcome after high-dose therapy. In particular, there has been no generally agreed definition of complete response. Agreed definitions of response and progression are essential to ensure consistency of reporting within the transplant registries and to enable comparison of results from different studies and/or different treatment centres. New criteria for response and progression have therefore been developed as a result of discussions between representatives of the Myeloma Subcommittee of the Chronic Leukaemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and representatives of the Myeloma Working Committee of the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry (ABMTR) and the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR). These criteria will now form the working definitions of response and progression for the purposes of data collection and registry-based studies. Currently none of the registries include specific diagnostic criteria, although all record the relevant investigations performed at diagnosis. However, we wish to emphasize that all patients undergoing high-dose therapy should have proven myeloma which requires treatment. At present highdose therapy is not recommended for patients with equivocal myeloma or those with stage I disease. We have not at this stage reviewed the criteria for the diagnosis of myeloma, but there may be a requirement for this in the future. For example, because of the increasing use of high-dose therapy for the treatment of primary amyloidosis, it will be important to establish clear guidelines for the differential diagnosis between this condition and multiple myeloma with amyloid.

Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group

Summary. The monoclonal gammopathies are a group of disorders associated with monoclonal proliferation of plasma cells. The characterization of specific entities is an area of difficulty in clinical practice. The International Myeloma Working Group has reviewed the criteria for diagnosis and classification with the aim of producing simple, easily used definitions based on routinely available investigations. In monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) or monoclonal gammopathy, unattributed/unassociated (MG[u]), the monoclonal protein is < 30 g/l and the bone marrow clonal cells < 10% with no evidence of multiple myeloma, other B‐cell proliferative disorders or amyloidosis. In asymptomatic (smouldering) myeloma the M‐protein is ≥ 30 g/l and/or bone marrow clonal cells ≥ 10% but no related organ or tissue impairment (ROTI)(end‐organ damage), which is typically manifested by increased calcium, renal insufficiency, anaemia, or bone lesions (CRAB) attributed to the plasma cell proliferative process. Symptomatic myeloma requires evidence of ROTI. Non‐secretory myeloma is characterized by the absence of an M‐protein in the serum and urine, bone marrow plasmacytosis and ROTI. Solitary plasmacytoma of bone, extramedullary plasmacytoma and multiple solitary plasmacytomas (± recurrent) are also defined as distinct entities. The use of these criteria will facilitate comparison of therapeutic trial data. Evaluation of currently available prognostic factors may allow better definition of prognosis in multiple myeloma.

Phase III Clinical Trial of Thalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Compared With Dexamethasone Alone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Clinical Trial Coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE To determine if thalidomide plus dexamethasone yields superior response rates compared with dexamethasone alone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive thalidomide plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. Patients in arm A received thalidomide 200 mg orally for 4 weeks; dexamethasone was administered at a dose of 40 mg orally on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks. Patients in arm B received dexamethasone alone at the same schedule as in arm A. RESULTS Two hundred seven patients were enrolled: 103 were randomly assigned to thalidomide plus dexamethasone and 104 were randomly assigned to dexamethasone alone; eight patients were ineligible. The response rate with thalidomide plus dexamethasone was significantly higher than with dexamethasone alone (63% v 41%, respectively; P = .0017). The response rate allowing for use of serum monoclonal protein levels when a measurable urine monoclonal protein was unavailable at follow-up was 72% v 50%, respectively. The incidence rates of grade 3 or higher deep vein thrombosis (DVT), rash, bradycardia, neuropathy, and any grade 4 to 5 toxicity in the first 4 months were significantly higher with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone (45% v 21%, respectively; P < .001). DVT was more frequent in arm A than in arm B (17% v 3%); grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy was also more frequent (7% v 4%, respectively). CONCLUSION Thalidomide plus dexamethasone demonstrates significantly superior response rates in newly diagnosed myeloma compared with dexamethasone alone. However, this must be balanced against the greater toxicity seen with the combination.

Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND High-dose dexamethasone is a mainstay of therapy for multiple myeloma. We studied whether low-dose dexamethasone in combination with lenalidomide is non-inferior to and has lower toxicity than high-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. METHODS Patients with untreated symptomatic myeloma were randomly assigned in this open-label non-inferiority trial to lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 of a 28-day cycle (high dose), or lenalidomide given on the same schedule with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle (low dose). After four cycles, patients could discontinue therapy to pursue stem-cell transplantation or continue treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was response rate after four cycles assessed with European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant criteria. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 15% in response rate. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00098475. FINDINGS 445 patients were randomly assigned: 223 to high-dose and 222 to low-dose regimens. 169 (79%) of 214 patients receiving high-dose therapy and 142 (68%) of 205 patients on low-dose therapy had complete or partial response within four cycles (odds ratio 1.75, 80% CI 1.30-2.32; p=0.008). However, at the second interim analysis at 1 year, overall survival was 96% (95% CI 94-99) in the low-dose dexamethasone group compared with 87% (82-92) in the high-dose group (p=0.0002). As a result, the trial was stopped and patients on high-dose therapy were crossed over to low-dose therapy. 117 patients (52%) on the high-dose regimen had grade three or worse toxic effects in the first 4 months, compared with 76 (35%) of the 220 on the low-dose regimen for whom toxicity data were available (p=0.0001), 12 of 222 on high dose and one of 220 on low-dose dexamethasone died in the first 4 months (p=0.003). The three most common grade three or higher toxicities were deep-vein thrombosis, 57 (26%) of 223 versus 27 (12%) of 220 (p=0.0003); infections including pneumonia, 35 (16%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.04), and fatigue 33 (15%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.08), respectively. INTERPRETATION Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with better short-term overall survival and with lower toxicity than lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. FUNDING National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

This phase 1/2 study is the first prospective evaluation of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone in front-line myeloma. Patients (N = 66) received 3-week cycles (n = 8) of bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, 11), lenalidomide 15 to 25 mg (days 1-14), and dexamethasone 40 or 20 mg (days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Responding patients proceeded to maintenance or transplantation. Phase 2 dosing was determined to be bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), lenalidomide 25 mg, and dexamethasone 20 mg. Most common toxicities included sensory neuropathy (80%) and fatigue (64%), with only 27%/2% and 32%/3% grade 2/3, respectively. In addition, 32% reported neuropathic pain (11%/3%, grade 2/3). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included lymphopenia (14%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (6%). Thrombosis was rare (6% overall), and no treatment-related mortality was observed. Rate of partial response was 100% in both the phase 2 population and overall, with 74% and 67% each achieving very good partial response or better. Twenty-eight patients (42%) proceeded to undergo transplantation. With median follow-up of 21 months, estimated 18-month progression-free and overall survival for the combination treatment with/without transplantation were 75% and 97%, respectively. Lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone demonstrates favorable tolerability and is highly effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00378105.

Micafungin versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections during Neutropenia in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

We hypothesized that chemoprophylaxis with the echinocandin micafungin would be an effective agent for antifungal prophylaxis during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We therefore conducted a randomized, double-blind, multi-institutional, comparative phase III trial, involving 882 adult and pediatric patients, of 50 mg of micafungin (1 mg/kg for patients weighing <50 kg) and 400 mg of fluconazole (8 mg/kg for patients weighing <50 kg) administered once per day. Success was defined as the absence of suspected, proven, or probable invasive fungal infection (IFI) through the end of therapy and as the absence of proven or probable IFI through the end of the 4-week period after treatment. The overall efficacy of micafungin was superior to that of fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis during the neutropenic phase after HSCT (80.0% in the micafungin arm vs. 73.5% in the fluconazole arm [difference, 6.5%]; 95% confidence interval, 0.9%-12%; P=.03). This randomized trial demonstrates the efficacy of an echinocandin for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients.

Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is more than 1‰ annually in the general population and increases further in cancer patients. The risk of VTE is higher in multiple myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide or lenalidomide, especially in combination with dexamethasone or chemotherapy. Various VTE prophylaxis strategies, such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin or aspirin, have been investigated in small, uncontrolled clinical studies. This manuscript summarizes the available evidence and recommends a prophylaxis strategy according to a risk-assessment model. Individual risk factors for thrombosis associated with thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy include age, history of VTE, central venous catheter, comorbidities (infections, diabetes, cardiac disease), immobilization, surgery and inherited thrombophilia. Myeloma-related risk factors include diagnosis and hyperviscosity. VTE is very high in patients who receive high-dose dexamethasone, doxorubicin or multiagent chemotherapy in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide, but not with bortezomib. The panel recommends aspirin for patients with ⩽1 risk factor for VTE. LMWH (equivalent to enoxaparin 40 mg per day) is recommended for those with two or more individual/myeloma-related risk factors. LMWH is also recommended for all patients receiving concurrent high-dose dexamethasone or doxorubicin. Full-dose warfarin targeting a therapeutic INR of 2–3 is an alternative to LMWH, although there are limited data in the literature with this strategy. In the absence of clear data from randomized studies as a foundation for recommendations, many of the following proposed strategies are the results of common sense or derive from the extrapolation of data from many studies not specifically designed to answer these questions. Further investigation is needed to define the best VTE prophylaxis.

Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1

It is essential that there be consistency in the conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trial results in myeloma. The goal of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1 was to develop a set of guidelines for the uniform reporting of clinical trial results in myeloma. This paper provides a summary of the current response criteria in myeloma, detailed definitions for patient populations, lines of therapy, and specific endpoints. We propose that future clinical trials in myeloma follow the guidelines for reporting results proposed in this manuscript.

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) was identified in 3.2% of 21 463 residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, 50 years of age or older. The risk of progression to multiple myeloma, Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia, AL amyloidosis or a lymphoproliferative disorder is approximately 1% per year. Low-risk MGUS is characterized by having an M protein <15 g/l, IgG type and a normal free light chain (FLC) ratio. Patients should be followed with serum protein electrophoresis at six months and, if stable, can be followed every 2–3 years or when symptoms suggestive of a plasma cell malignancy arise. Patients with intermediate and high-risk MGUS should be followed in 6 months and then annually for life. The risk of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma (SMM) progressing to multiple myeloma or a related disorder is 10% per year for the first 5 years, 3% per year for the next 5 years and 1–2% per year for the next 10 years. Testing should be done 2–3 months after the initial recognition of SMM. If the results are stable, the patient should be followed every 4–6 months for 1 year and, if stable, every 6–12 months.