Douglas E. Joshua

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 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.

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.

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study

BACKGROUND Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). INTERPRETATION For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. FUNDING Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary.

International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100).

Multiple myeloma is the most common indication for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support (ASCT) in North America today. Stem cell procurement for ASCT has most commonly been performed with stem cell mobilization using colony-stimulating factors with or without prior chemotherapy. The target CD34+ cell dose to be collected as well as the number of apheresis performed varies throughout the country, but a minimum of 2 million CD34+ cells/kg has been traditionally used for the support of one cycle of high-dose therapy. With the advent of plerixafor (AMD3100) (a novel stem cell mobilization agent), it is pertinent to review the current status of stem cell mobilization for myeloma as well as the role of autologous stem cell transplantation in this disease. On June 1, 2008, a panel of experts was convened by the International Myeloma Foundation to address issues regarding stem cell mobilization and autologous transplantation in myeloma in the context of new therapies. The panel was asked to discuss a variety of issues regarding stem cell collection and transplantation in myeloma especially with the arrival of plerixafor. Herein, is a summary of their deliberations and conclusions.

Myeloma in patients younger than age 50 years presents with more favorable features and shows better survival: An analysis of 10 549 patients from the International Myeloma Working Group

We analyzed the presenting features and survival in 1689 patients with multiple myeloma aged younger than 50 years compared with 8860 patients 50 years of age and older. Of the total 10 549 patients, 7765 received conventional therapy and 2784 received high-dose therapy. Young patients were more frequently male, had more favorable features such as low International Staging System (ISS) and Durie-Salmon stage as well as less frequently adverse prognostic factors including high C-reactive protein (CRP), low hemoglobin, increased serum creatinine, and poor performance status. Survival was significantly longer in young patients (median, 5.2 years vs 3.7 years; P < .001) both after conventional (median, 4.5 years vs 3.3 years; P < .001) or high-dose therapy (median, 7.5 years vs 5.7 years; P = .04). The 10-year survival rate was 19% after conventional therapy and 43% after high-dose therapy in young patients, and 8% and 29%, respectively, in older patients. Multivariate analysis revealed age as an independent risk factor during conventional therapy, but not after autologous transplantation. A total of 5 of the 10 independent risk factors identified for conventional therapy were also relevant for autologous transplantation. After adjusting for normal mortality, lower ISS stage and other favorable prognostic features seem to account for the significantly longer survival of young patients with multiple myeloma with age remaining a risk factor during conventional therapy.

Response assessment in Waldenström macroglobulinaemia: update from the VIth International Workshop

This report represents a further update of the consensus panel criteria for the assessment of clinical response in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM). These criteria have been updated in light of further data demonstrating an improvement in categorical responses with new drug regimens as well as acknowledgement of the fact that such responses are predictive of overall outcome. A number of key changes are proposed but challenges do however remain and these include the variability in kinetics of immunoglobulin M (IgM) reduction with different treatment modalities and the apparent discrepancy between IgM and bone marrow/tissue response noted with some regimens. Planned sequential bone marrow assessments are encouraged in clinical trials.

International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for global myeloma care

Recent developments have led to remarkable improvements in the assessment and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). New technologies have become available to precisely evaluate the biology and extent of the disease, including information about cytogenetics and genetic abnormalities, extramedullary manifestations and minimal residual disease. New, more effective drugs have been introduced into clinical practice, which enable clinicians to significantly improve the outcome of patients but also pose new challenges for the prevention and management of their specific side effects. Given these various new options and challenges, it is important to identify the minimal requirements for diagnosis and treatment of patients, as access to the most sophisticated advances may vary depending on local circumstances. Here, we propose the minimal requirements and possible options for diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: A consensus statement: Guideline

On February 25, 2009, a panel of international experts on plasma cell dyscrasia and skeletal disease met to discuss monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). This non‐malignant B‐cell disorder is the most common plasma cell dyscrasia and is associated with an increased risk of developing serious B‐cell disorders. Individuals with MGUS also have an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteopenia associated with an increased likelihood of developing fractures especially in the vertebral column, peripheral neuropathy and thromboembolic events. The goal of the meeting was to develop a consensus statement regarding the appropriate tests to screen, evaluate and follow‐up patients with MGUS. The panel also addressed the identification and treatment of MGUS‐related skeletal problems, thromboembolic events and neurological complications. The following consensus statement outlines the conclusions and marks the first time that a consensus statement for the screening and treatment of MGUS has been clearly stated.

Response of myeloma to the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is correlated with the unfolded protein response regulator XBP-1

Background Multiple myeloma, a malignancy of the antibody-secreting plasma cells, remains incurable by current therapy. However, the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and other new drugs are revolutionizing its treatment. It remains unclear why myelomas are peculiarly sensitive to bortezomib, or what causes primary or acquired resistance. The ‘unfolded protein response’ is necessary for folding and assembly of immunoglobulin chains in both normal and malignant plasma cells, as well as for the disposal of incorrectly folded or unpaired chains via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. We tested the hypothesis that levels of transcription factor XBP-1, a major regulator of the unfolded protein response, predict response to bortezomib. Design and Methods Expression of XBP-1 and other regulators of the unfolded protein response were measured in myeloma and other cancer cell lines and two cohorts of patients with refractory myeloma and correlated with sensitivity/response to bortezomib. Bortezomib-resistant myeloma cell lines were derived and the effects on expression of unfolded protein response regulators, immunoglobulin secretion, proteasome activity and cross-resistance to cytotoxic drugs and tunicamycin determined. The consequences of manipulation of XBP-1 levels for sensitivity to bortezomib were tested. Results Low XBP-1 levels predicted poor response to bortezomib, both in vitro and in myeloma patients. Moreover, myeloma cell lines selected for resistance to bortezomib had down-regulated XBP-1 and immunoglobulin secretion. Expression of ATF6, another regulator of the unfolded protein response, also correlated with bortezomib sensitivity. Direct manipulation of XBP-1 levels had only modest effects on sensitivity to bortezomib, suggesting it is a surrogate marker of response to bortezomib rather than a target itself. Conclusions The unfolded protein response may be a relevant target pathway for proteasome inhibitors in the treatment of myeloma and its regulator XBP-1 is a potential response marker. (The BIR study was registered with Australian Clinical Trial Registry Number 12605000770662)