Joan Bladé

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.

International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE There is a need for a simple, reliable staging system for multiple myeloma that can be applied internationally for patient classification and stratification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical and laboratory data were gathered on 10,750 previously untreated symptomatic myeloma patients from 17 institutions, including sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. Potential prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate techniques. Three modeling approaches were then explored to develop a staging system including two nontree and one tree survival assessment methodologies. RESULTS Serum beta2-microglobulin (Sbeta2M), serum albumin, platelet count, serum creatinine, and age emerged as powerful predictors of survival and were then used in the tree analysis approach. A combination of Sbeta2M and serum albumin provided the simplest, most powerful and reproducible three-stage classification. This new International Staging System (ISS) was validated in the remaining patients and consists of the following stages: stage I, Sbeta2M less than 3.5 mg/L plus serum albumin > or = 3.5 g/dL (median survival, 62 months); stage II, neither stage I nor III (median survival, 44 months); and stage III, Sbeta2M > or = 5.5 mg/L (median survival, 29 months). The ISS system was further validated by demonstrating effectiveness in patients in North America, Europe, and Asia; in patients less than and > or = 65 years of age; in patients with standard therapy or autotransplantation; and in comparison with the Durie/Salmon staging system. CONCLUSION) The new ISS is simple, based on easy to use variables (Sbeta2M and serum albumin), and recommended for early adoption and widespread use.

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.

International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma

This International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the disease definition of multiple myeloma to include validated biomarkers in addition to existing requirements of attributable CRAB features (hypercalcaemia, renal failure, anaemia, and bone lesions). These changes are based on the identification of biomarkers associated with near inevitable development of CRAB features in patients who would otherwise be regarded as having smouldering multiple myeloma. A delay in application of the label of multiple myeloma and postponement of therapy could be detrimental to these patients. In addition to this change, we clarify and update the underlying laboratory and radiographic variables that fulfil the criteria for the presence of myeloma-defining CRAB features, and the histological and monoclonal protein requirements for the disease diagnosis. Finally, we provide specific metrics that new biomarkers should meet for inclusion in the disease definition. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the implementation of these criteria in routine practice and in future clinical trials, and recommends that future studies analyse any differences in outcome that might occur as a result of the new disease definition.

Randomized Phase III Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Plus Bortezomib Compared With Bortezomib Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Combination Therapy Improves Time to Progression

PURPOSE This phase III international study compared the efficacy and safety of a combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus bortezomib with bortezomib monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Six hundred forty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of an every 21-days cycle, or the same bortezomib regimen with PLD 30 mg/m(2) on day 4. RESULTS Median time to progression was increased from 6.5 months for bortezomib to 9.3 months with the PLD + bortezomib combination (P = .000004; hazard ratio, 1.82 [monotherapy v combination therapy]; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.35). The 15-month survival rate for PLD + bortezomib was 76% compared with 65% for bortezomib alone (P = .03). The complete plus partial response rate was 41% for bortezomib and 44% for PLD + bortezomib, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median duration of response was increased from 7.0 to 10.2 months (P = .0008) with PLD + bortezomib. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in the combination group (80% v 64%), with safety profiles consistent with the known toxicities of the two agents. An increased incidence in the combination group was seen of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, fatigue, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION PLD with bortezomib is superior to bortezomib monotherapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The combination therapy is associated with a higher incidence of grade 3/4 myelosuppression, constitutional symptoms, and GI and dermatologic toxicities.

Continuous Lenalidomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide has tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity against multiple myeloma. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized study compared melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or melphalan-prednisone (MP) followed by placebo in patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-week cycles of MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until a relapse or disease progression occurred [152 patients]) or to receive MPR (153 patients) or MP (154 patients) without maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with MPR-R (31 months) than with MPR (14 months; hazard ratio, 0.49; P<0.001) or MP (13 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Response rates were superior with MPR-R and MPR (77% and 68%, respectively, vs. 50% with MP; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively, for the comparison with MP). The progression-free survival benefit associated with MPR-R was noted in patients 65 to 75 years of age but not in those older than 75 years of age (P=0.001 for treatment-by-age interaction). After induction therapy, a landmark analysis showed a 66% reduction in the rate of progression with MPR-R (hazard ratio for the comparison with MPR, 0.34; P<0.001) that was age-independent. During induction therapy, the most frequent adverse events were hematologic; grade 4 neutropenia was reported in 35%, 32%, and 8% of the patients in the MPR-R, MPR, and MP groups, respectively. The 3-year rate of second primary tumors was 7% with MPR-R, 7% with MPR, and 3% with MP. CONCLUSIONS MPR-R significantly prolonged progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefit observed in patients 65 to 75 years of age. (Funded by Celgene; MM-015 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405756.).

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.

Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) is significantly better than melphalan plus prednisone alone for elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma; however, toxic effects are high. We investigated a novel and less intensive bortezomib-based regimen to maintain efficacy and to reduce toxic effects. METHODS Between March, 2006, and October, 2008, 260 patients with untreated multiple myeloma, 65 years and older, from 63 Spanish centres, were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of VMP (n=130) or bortezomib plus thalidomide and prednisone (VTP; n=130) as induction therapy, consisting of one cycle of bortezomib twice per week for 6 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), plus either melphalan (9 mg/m² on days 1-4) or daily thalidomide (100 mg), and prednisone (60 mg/m² on days 1-4). The first cycle was followed by five cycles of bortezomib once per week for 5 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) plus the same doses of melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide plus prednisone. 178 patients completed the six induction cycles and were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bortezomib plus prednisone (n=87) or bortezomib plus thalidomide (n=91), consisting of one conventional cycle of bortezomib for 3 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone (50 mg every other day) or thalidomide (50 mg per day), for up to 3 years. Treatment codes were generated with a computerised random number generator, and neither participants nor study personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was response rate in induction and maintenance phases. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00443235. FINDINGS In the induction phase, 105 (81%) patients in the VTP group and 104 (80%) in the VMP group achieved partial responses or better (p=0·9), including 36 (28%) and 26 (20%) complete remissions, respectively (p=0·2). Treatment with VTP resulted in more serious adverse events (40 [31%] vs 20 [15%], p=0·01) and discontinuations (22 [17%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·03) than did treatment with VMP. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or worse) were infections (one [1%] in the VTP group vs nine [7%] in the VMP group), cardiac events (11 [8%] vs 0), and peripheral neuropathy (nine [7%] vs 12 [9%]). After maintenance therapy, the complete remission rate was 42% (40 [44%] patients in complete remission in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group, 34 [39%] in the bortezomib plus prednisone group). No grade 3 or worse haematological toxicities were recorded during maintenance therapy; two (2%) patients in the bortezomib plus prednisone group and six (7%) in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group developed peripheral neuropathy. INTERPRETATION Reduced-intensity induction with a bortezomib-based regimen, followed by maintenance, is a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. FUNDING Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases).

Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is standard in many hematologic malignancies but is considered investigational in multiple myeloma (MM). We report a prospective analysis of the prognostic importance of MRD detection by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) in 295 newly diagnosed MM patients uniformly treated in the GEM2000 protocol VBMCP/VBAD induction plus autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT]). MRD status by MFC was determined at day 100 after ASCT. Progression-free survival (PFS; median 71 vs 37 months, P < .001) and overall survival (OS; median not reached vs 89 months, P = .002) were longer in patients who were MRD negative versus MRD positive at day 100 after ASCT. Similar prognostic differentiation was seen in 147 patients who achieved immunofixation-negative complete response after ASCT. Moreover, MRD(-) immunofixation-negative (IFx(-)) patients and MRD(-) IFx(+) patients had significantly longer PFS than MRD(+) IFx(-) patients. Multivariate analysis identified MRD status by MFC at day 100 after ASCT as the most important independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR = 3.64, P = .002) and OS (HR = 2.02, P = .02). Our findings demonstrate the clinical importance of MRD evaluation by MFC, and illustrate the need for further refinement of MM re-sponse criteria. This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT00560053.