Thierry Facon

Heterogeneity of genomic evolution and mutational profiles in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma is an incurable plasma cell malignancy with a complex and incompletely understood molecular pathogenesis. Here we use whole-exome sequencing, copy-number profiling and cytogenetics to analyse 84 myeloma samples. Most cases have a complex subclonal structure and show clusters of subclonal variants, including subclonal driver mutations. Serial sampling reveals diverse patterns of clonal evolution, including linear evolution, differential clonal response and branching evolution. Diverse processes contribute to the mutational repertoire, including kataegis and somatic hypermutation, and their relative contribution changes over time. We find heterogeneity of mutational spectrum across samples, with few recurrent genes. We identify new candidate genes, including truncations of SP140, LTB, ROBO1 and clustered missense mutations in EGR1. The myeloma genome is heterogeneous across the cohort, and exhibits diversity in clonal admixture and in dynamics of evolution, which may impact prognostic stratification, therapeutic approaches and assessment of disease response to treatment.

Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Myeloma

BACKGROUNDnThe combination melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) is considered a standard therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. However, emerging data on the use of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone warrant a prospective comparison of the two approaches.nnnMETHODSnWe randomly assigned 1623 patients to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in 28-day cycles until disease progression (535 patients), to the same combination for 72 weeks (18 cycles; 541 patients), or to MPT for 72 weeks (547 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus MPT.nnnRESULTSnThe median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 20.7 months with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 21.2 months with MPT (hazard ratio for the risk of progression or death, 0.72 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. MPT and 0.70 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was superior to MPT for all secondary efficacy end points, including overall survival (at the interim analysis). Overall survival at 4 years was 59% with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 56% with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 51% with MPT. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were somewhat less frequent with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone than with MPT (70% vs. 78%). As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with fewer hematologic and neurologic toxic events, a moderate increase in infections, and fewer second primary hematologic cancers.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAs compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone given until disease progression was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with an overall survival benefit at the interim analysis, among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by Intergroupe, Francophone du Myélome and Celgene; FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00689936; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number, 2007-004823-39.).

Revised International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma: A Report From International Myeloma Working Group

PURPOSEnThe clinical outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) is heterogeneous. A simple and reliable tool is needed to stratify patients with MM. We combined the International Staging System (ISS) with chromosomal abnormalities (CA) detected by interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization after CD138 plasma cell purification and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to evaluate their prognostic value in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnClinical and laboratory data from 4,445 patients with NDMM enrolled onto 11 international trials were pooled together. The K-adaptive partitioning algorithm was used to define the most appropriate subgroups with homogeneous survival.nnnRESULTSnISS, CA, and LDH data were simultaneously available in 3,060 of 4,445 patients. We defined the following three groups: revised ISS (R-ISS) I (n = 871), including ISS stage I (serum β2-microglobulin level < 3.5 mg/L and serum albumin level ≥ 3.5 g/dL), no high-risk CA [del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16)], and normal LDH level (less than the upper limit of normal range); R-ISS III (n = 295), including ISS stage III (serum β2-microglobulin level > 5.5 mg/L) and high-risk CA or high LDH level; and R-ISS II (n = 1,894), including all the other possible combinations. At a median follow-up of 46 months, the 5-year OS rate was 82% in the R-ISS I, 62% in the R-ISS II, and 40% in the R-ISS III groups; the 5-year PFS rates were 55%, 36%, and 24%, respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe R-ISS is a simple and powerful prognostic staging system, and we recommend its use in future clinical studies to stratify patients with NDMM effectively with respect to the relative risk to their survival.

The use of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: recommendations of an expert panel on behalf of the European Myeloma Network

BACKGROUNDnBisphosphonates (BPs) prevent, reduce, and delay multiple myeloma (MM)-related skeletal complications. Intravenous pamidronate and zoledronic acid, and oral clodronate are used for the management of MM bone disease. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence for the use of BPs in MM and provide European Union-specific recommendations to support the clinical practice of treating myeloma bone disease.nnnDESIGN AND METHODSnAn interdisciplinary, expert panel of specialists on MM and myeloma-related bone disease convened for a face-to-face meeting to review and assess the evidence and develop the recommendations. The panel reviewed and graded the evidence available from randomized clinical trials, clinical practice guidelines, and the body of published literature. Where published data were weak or unavailable, the panel used their own clinical experience to put forward recommendations based solely on their expert opinions.nnnRESULTSnThe panel recommends the use of BPs in MM patients suffering from lytic bone disease or severe osteoporosis. Intravenous administration may be preferable; however, oral administration can be considered for patients unable to make hospital visits. Dosing should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. In general, BPs are well tolerated, but preventive steps should be taken to avoid renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The panel agrees that BPs should be given for 2 years, but this may be extended if there is evidence of active myeloma bone disease. Initial therapy of ONJ should include discontinuation of BPs until healing occurs. BPs should be restarted if there is disease progression.nnnCONCLUSIONSnBPs are an essential component of MM therapy for minimizing skeletal morbidity. Recent retrospective data indicate that a modified dosing regimen and preventive measures can greatly reduce the incidence of ONJ.

Analysis of Herpes Zoster Events Among Bortezomib-Treated Patients in the Phase III APEX Study

PURPOSEnThe aim of this subset analysis was to determine if bortezomib treatment is associated with increased incidence of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) reactivation in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM).nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnIncidence of herpes zoster was evaluated in 663 patients with relapsed MM from the phase III APEX trial comparing single-agent bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone.nnnRESULTSnBortezomib was associated with a significantly higher incidence of herpes zoster compared with dexamethasone treatment (13%, 42 of 331 v 5%, 15 of 332; P = .0002). Most herpes zoster infections were grade 1/2; incidences of grade 3/4 events (1.8% v 1.5%) and infections considered serious adverse events (1.5% v 0.9%) were similar between treatment arms, and no herpes zoster-related deaths occurred. Neither the time to onset of the herpes event nor the patients absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline differed significantly between arms. VZV reactivation was the only herpes viral event noted to be significantly elevated in the bortezomib treatment group compared with the dexamethasone treatment group (P = .0002). The incidence of non-VZV-related herpes viral infections was comparable between arms. No additional risk factors for herpes zoster reactivation were identified.nnnCONCLUSIONnFurther studies are needed to explain these observations and their implications; however, for patients treated with bortezomib or bortezomib-containing regimens, the risk of VZV reactivation should be monitored and routine use of antiviral prophylaxis considered.

Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: An International Myeloma Working Group report

We conducted a pooled analysis of 869 individual newly diagnosed elderly patient data from 3 prospective trials. At diagnosis, a geriatric assessment had been performed. An additive scoring system (range 0-5), based on age, comorbidities, and cognitive and physical conditions, was developed to identify 3 groups: fit (score = 0, 39%), intermediate fitness (score = 1, 31%), and frail (score ≥2, 30%). The 3-year overall survival was 84% in fit, 76% in intermediate-fitness (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P = .042), and 57% in frail (HR, 3.57; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of grade ≥3 nonhematologic adverse events at 12 months was 22.2% in fit, 26.4% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.23; P = .217), and 34.0% in frail (HR, 1.74; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment discontinuation at 12 months was 16.5% in fit, 20.8% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.41; P = .052), and 31.2% in frail (HR, 2.21; P < .001) patients. Our frailty score predicts mortality and the risk of toxicity in elderly myeloma patients. The International Myeloma Working group proposes this score for the measurement of frailty in designing future clinical trials. These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093136 (EMN01), #NCT01190787 (26866138MMY2069), and #NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Efficacy and safety of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment: results from the APEX phase 3 study

Renal impairment is associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM). This subgroup analysis of the phase 3 Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) study of bortezomib vs high-dose dexamethasone assessed efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed MM with varying degrees of renal impairment (creatinine clearance (CrCl) <30, 30–50, 51–80 and >80u2009mlu2009min−1). Time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and safety were compared between subgroups with CrCl ⩽50u2009mlu2009min−1 (severe-to-moderate) and >50u2009mlu2009min−1 (no/mild impairment). Response rates with bortezomib were similar (36–47%) and time to response rapid (0.7–1.6 months) across subgroups. Although the trend was toward shorter TTP/OS in bortezomib patients with severe-to-moderate vs no/mild impairment, differences were not significant. OS was significantly shorter in dexamethasone patients with CrCl ⩽50 vs >50u2009mlu2009min−1 (P=0.003), indicating that bortezomib is more effective than dexamethasone in overcoming the detrimental effect of renal impairment. Safety profile of bortezomib was comparable between subgroups. With dexamethasone, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations for AEs were significantly elevated in patients with CrCl ⩽50 vs >50u2009mlu2009min−1. These results indicate that bortezomib is active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed MM with varying degrees of renal insufficiency. Efficacy/safety were not substantially affected by severe-to-moderate vs no/mild impairment.

IMWG consensus on maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma

Maintaining results of successful induction therapy is an important goal in multiple myeloma. Here, members of the International Myeloma Working Group review the relevant data. Thalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation improved the quality of response and increased progression-free survival (PFS) significantly in all 6 studies and overall survival (OS) in 3 of them. In elderly patients, 2 trials showed a significant prolongation of PFS, but no improvement in OS. A meta-analysis revealed a significant risk reduction for PFS/event-free survival and death. The role of thalidomide maintenance after melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide is not well established. Two trials with lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation and one study after conventional melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction therapy showed a significant risk reduction for PFS and an increase in OS in one of the transplant trials. Maintenance therapy with single-agent bortezomib or in combination with thalidomide or prednisone has been studied. One trial revealed a significantly increased OS with a bortezomib-based induction and bortezomib maintenance therapy compared with conventional induction and thalidomide maintenance treatment. Maintenance treatment can be associated with significant side effects, and none of the drugs evaluated is approved for maintenance therapy. Treatment decisions for individual patients must balance potential benefits and risks carefully, as a widely agreed-on standard is not established.

Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone at first relapse in comparison with its use as later salvage therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

This subset analysis of data from two phase III studies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) evaluated the benefit of initiating lenalidomide plus dexamethasone at first relapse. Multivariate analysis showed that fewer prior therapies, along with β2‐microglobulin (≤2.5u2003mg/L), predicted a better time to progression (TTP; study end‐point) with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone treatment. Patients with one prior therapy showed a significant improvement in benefit after first relapse compared with those who received two or more therapies. Patients with one prior therapy had significantly prolonged median TTP (17.1 vs. 10.6u2003months; Pu2003=u20030.026) and progression‐free survival (14.1 vs. 9.5u2003months, Pu2003=u20030.047) compared with patients treated in later lines. Overall response rates were higher (66.9% vs. 56.8%, Pu2003=u20030.06), and the complete response plus very good partial response rate was significantly higher in first relapse (39.8% vs. 27.7%, Pu2003=u20030.025). Importantly, overall survival was significantly prolonged for patients treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone with one prior therapy, compared with patients treated later in salvage (median of 42.0 vs. 35.8u2003months, Pu2003=u20030.041), with no differences in toxicity, dose reductions, or discontinuations despite longer treatment. Therefore, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is both effective and tolerable for second‐line MM therapy and the data suggest that the greatest benefit occurs with earlier use.

Bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma: a dose-escalation, open-label, pharmacokinetic, phase 1 study

BACKGROUNDnThe first-in-class small molecule inhibitor OTX015 (MK-8628) specifically binds to bromodomain motifs BRD2, BRD3, and BRD4 of bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) proteins, inhibiting them from binding to acetylated histones, which occurs preferentially at super-enhancer regions that control oncogene expression. OTX015 is active in haematological preclinical entities including leukaemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. We aimed to establish the recommended dose of OTX015 in patients with haematological malignancies. We report the results from a cohort of patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma (non-leukaemia cohort).nnnMETHODSnIn this dose-escalation, open-label, phase 1 study, we recruited patients from seven university hospital centres (in France [four], Switzerland [one], UK [one], and Italy [one]). Adult patients with non-leukaemia haematological malignancies who had disease progression on standard therapies were eligible to participate. Patients were treated with oral OTX015 once a day continuously over five doses (10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, and 120 mg), using a conventional 3 + 3 design, with allowance for evaluation of alternative administration schedules. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in the first treatment cycle (21 days). Secondary objectives were to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of OTX015. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01713582.nnnFINDINGSnBetween Feb 4, 2013, and Sept 5, 2014, 45 patients (33 with lymphoma and 12 with myeloma), with a median age of 66 years (IQR 55-72) and a median of four lines of prior therapy (IQR 3-5), were enrolled and treated. No DLTs were observed in the doses up to and including 80 mg once a day (first three patients). We then explored a schedule of 40 mg twice a day (21 of 21 days). DLTs were reported in five of six patients receiving OTX015 at this dose and schedule (all five patients had grade 4 thrombocytopenia). We explored various schedules at 120 mg once a day but none was tolerable, with DLTs of thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal events (diarrhoea, vomiting, dysgeusia, mucositis), fatigue, and hyponatraemia in 11 of 18 evaluable patients. At this point, the Safety Monitoring Committee decided to establish the feasibility of 80 mg once a day on a continuous basis, and four additional patients were enrolled at this dose. DLTs (grade 4 thrombocytopenia) was noted in two of the patients. In light of these DLTs and other toxicities noted at 120 mg, the dose of 80 mg once a day was selected, although on a schedule of 14 days on, 7 days off. Common toxic effects reported in the study were thrombocytopenia (43 [96%] patients), anaemia (41 [91%]), neutropenia (23 [51%]), diarrhoea (21 [47%]), fatigue (12 [27%]), and nausea (11 [24%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events were infrequent other than thrombocytopenia (26 [58%]). OTX015 plasma peak concentrations and areas under the concentration versus time curve increased proportionally with dose. Trough concentrations increased less than proportionally at lower doses, but reached or exceeded the in-vitro active range at 40 mg twice a day and 120 mg once a day. Three patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma achieved durable objective responses (two complete responses at 120 mg once a day, and one partial response at 80 mg once a day), and six additional patients (two with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, four with indolent lymphomas) had evidence of clinical activity, albeit not meeting objective response criteria.nnnINTERPRETATIONnThe once-daily recommended dose for oral, single agent oral OTX015 in patients with lymphoma is 80 mg on a 14 days on, 7 days off schedule, for phase 2 studies. OTX015 is under evaluation in expansion cohorts using this intermittent administration (14 days every 3 weeks) to allow for recovery from toxic effects.nnnFUNDINGnOncoethix GmbH (a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp).