Myeloma Genome Project Panel is a Comprehensive Targeted Genomics Panel for Molecular Profiling of Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: We designed a comprehensive multiple myeloma targeted sequencing panel to identify common genomic abnormalities in a single assay and validated it against known standards. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The panel comprised 228 genes/exons for mutations, 6 regions for translocations, and 56 regions for copy number abnormalities (CNA). Toward panel validation, targeted sequencing was conducted on 233 patient samples and further validated using clinical FISH (translocations), multiplex ligation probe analysis (MLPA; CNAs), whole-genome sequencing (WGS; CNAs, mutations, translocations), or droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) of known standards (mutations). RESULTS: Canonical immunoglobulin heavy chain translocations were detected in 43.2% of patients by sequencing, and aligned with FISH except for 1 patient. CNAs determined by sequencing and MLPA for 22 regions were comparable in 103 samples and concordance between platforms was R2 = 0.969. Variant allele frequency (VAF) for 74 mutations were compared between sequencing and ddPCR with concordance of R2 = 0.9849. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we have developed a targeted sequencing panel that is as robust or superior to FISH and WGS. This molecular panel is cost-effective, comprehensive, clinically actionable, and can be routinely deployed to assist risk stratification at diagnosis or posttreatment to guide sequencing of therapies.

Evaluation of the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the new frailty-based outcome prediction model (Myeloma Risk Profile-MRP) in a UK real-world cohort of elderly newly diagnosed Myeloma patients.

The management of myeloma in the elderly is shifting its focus towards reducing the risk of under-treating fit patients and the risk of over-treating frail patients. Frailty assessment is required in this patient group in order to individualise treatment decisions. In addition to the proven prognostic values of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score and the revised Myeloma Co-morbidity Index (R-MCI), a new easy-to-use frailty-based risk profile score (high-risk (i.e. frail), medium risk (i.e. intermediate-fitness) and low-risk (i.e. fit)) named Myeloma Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to be predictive of survival in the clinical trial setting. In this retrospective real-world study, we set out to evaluate the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the different MRP scoring algorithm categories (frail vs. intermediate vs fit), in a high risk cohort of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with the fixed-duration triplet therapy VCD (bortezomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone). Clinical outcomes included: reason for treatment discontinuation, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Out of 100 patients, 62 were frail, 27 were intermediate and 11 were fit, according to MRP scores. To enable meaningful comparisons between comparable numbers, subgroups analyses for ORR, OS, PFS, and AEs focused on frail (n = 62) versus intermediate or fit (n = 38) patients. The proportion of patients in each subgroup who were able to complete the planned course of treatment was (frail: 43.5% vs. intermediate or fit: 55.3%). A higher proportion in the frail subgroup discontinued therapy due to progressive disease (19.4% vs. 2.6%). Discontinuation due to toxicity was comparable across subgroups (14.5% vs. 15.8%), ORR in the total cohort was 75%, and this was comparable between subgroups (frail: 74.2% vs. intermediate or fit: 76.3%). There was a trend for a shorter median OS in the frail subgroup but without a statistical significance: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (46 months vs. not reached, HR: 1.94, 95% CI 0.89-4.2, p = 0.094). There was no difference in median PFS between subgroups: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (11.8 vs. 9.9 months, HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.61-1.61, P = 0.982). This cohort demonstrated a higher incidence rate of AEs in frail patients compared to those in the intermediate or fit group: patients with at least one any grade toxicity (85.5% vs. 71.1%), patients with at least one ≥G3 AE (37.1% vs. 21.1%). In conclusion, our study is to the first to evaluate clinical outcomes according to MRP in a high risk real-world cohort of patients treated exclusively with the proteasome inhibitor-based VCD therapy. Our study demonstrated a trend for worse OS in addition to worse AE outcomes in the frail group, but no difference in PFS with this fixed-duration therapy. MRP is an easy-to-use tool in clinical practice; its prognostic value was validated in the real-world in a large cohort of patients from the Danish Registry. Further evaluation of MRP in the real-world when continuous therapies are used, can further support the generalisability of its prognostic value in elderly myeloma patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of VCD chemotherapy in a UK real-world dataset of elderly transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the efficacy and tolerability of VCD chemotherapy in transplant-non-eligible (TNE) newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) patients. In this retrospective study, we set out to evaluate this triplet combination in this setting across Thames Valley Cancer Network (UK). METHODS: The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In a total cohort of 158 patients, ORR for total cohort was 72.1%. Median EFS was 10.5 months, and for subgroups by age (<75:11.7 vs ≥75:10.3 months, P = .124), by Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) (<5:11.1 vs ≥5:8.2 months, P = .345). The 4-month landmark analysis showed the following median EFS results: by cumulative bortezomib dose (≥26 mg/m2 : 9.0 months vs <26 mg/m2 : 6.4, P = .13), by cumulative cyclophosphamide dose (≥7000 mg: 9.2 vs <7000 mg: 7.0 months, P = .02) and by cumulative dexamethasone dose (>600 mg: 7.8 vs ≤600 mg: 8.3 months, P = .665). Median OS was 46.9 months. The incidence rate of AE was as follows: any grade (76.8%), ≥G3 (27.1%), ≥G3 haematological AEs (7.9%), any grade infections (31.1%) and ≥G3 infections (11.9%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a good ORR achieved from fixed duration VCD, which was reasonably well tolerated. This was followed by modest median EFS. We envisage that the latter may be improved in this patient group with the use of a higher cumulative bortezomib dose (≥26 mg/m2 ) which showed a trend for improved EFS although without statistical significance (P = .13), and with the use of a higher cumulative cyclophosphamide doses (≥7000 mg, P = .02), subject to tolerability and close monitoring.

Pathophysiology and management of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance.

Recent years have witnessed a rapid growth in our understanding of the pathogenic property of monoclonal proteins. It is evident that some of these small monoclonal proteins are capable of inducing end-organ damage as a result of their intrinsic physicochemical properties. Hence, an umbrella term, monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance (MGCS), has been coined to include myriad conditions attributed to these pathogenic proteins. Because kidneys are the most commonly affected organ (but skin, peripheral nerves, and heart can also be involved), we discuss MGRS exclusively in this review. Mechanisms of renal damage may involve direct or indirect effects. Renal biopsy is mandatory and demonstration of monoclonal immunoglobulin in kidney, along with the corresponding immunoglobulin in serum or urine, is key to establish the diagnosis. Pitfalls exist at each diagnostic step, and a high degree of clinical suspicion is required to diagnose MGRS. Recognition of MGRS by hematologists and nephrologists is important, because timely clone-directed therapy improves renal outcomes. Autologous stem cell transplant may benefit selected patients.

Long term outcomes in monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance.

Unlike AL amyloid and cast nephropathy, the long-term outcomes of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) patients with other renal histopathologies remain unclear. It is uncertain if early intervention improves renal outcomes, because of a lack of evidence from prospective studies. In this retrospective study, we examined outcomes of 41 MGRS patients treated between 2004 and 2017 across five centres: four in the UK and one in the Republic of Ireland. The primary outcome measure was renal survival estimated by Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Thirty-three patients (80·5%) were kappa light chain (LC) restricted. Twenty-seven patients (65·9%) presented with LC deposition disease on renal histology. At 24 months follow-up, estimated renal survival was 81·6% for the whole cohort. The estimated overall survival was 80·3% at 48 months. At 24 months, patients who had chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 2-3b at diagnosis showed an estimated renal survival of 100% compared to 80·7% in those with CKD stage 4-5 at diagnosis (P = 0·04). Poorer outcomes in MGRS patients were historically attributed to delayed diagnosis due to small plasma cell clones, as well as the need for renal biopsy.