Potential future direction of measurable residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease plagued by high relapse rates. Deeper and more sustainable responses, however, have been consistently shown to improve outcomes and could eventually pave the way to achieving a cure. Our understanding of disease response has surpassed complete response (CR), because the current definitions are suboptimal, and the treatment goal should aim even beyond stringent CR, toward molecular and flow CR, that is, measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity. It has been more than 20 years since the discrepancy in the outcome between patients in CR with and without MRD has been demonstrated, and the field has come a long way from multiparameter flow cytometry to next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, able to detect up to a limit of detection of a single myeloma cell from 1 million healthy counterparts. This review aims to summarize the current available data regarding MRD but also its potential future use as a coprimary outcome both in clinical and trial settings as a survival surrogate as well as its use to evaluate treatment efficacy and for adaptive response-based and early-rescue therapy. Furthermore, we discuss whether these concepts are applicable in different settings (eg, newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma, patients who are eligible and ineligible for tansplant, and standard- and high-risk disease).

Current Advances in Multiple Myeloma: A Post International Myeloma Society (IMS 2022) Round Table Debate by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH).

This round table discussion organized by the International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH) was dedicated to the 19th annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS), which was held in Los Angeles between the 25th and 27th August 2022. After some key meetings of the discipline of the field of clinical hematology, the IACH organizes regular round table discussion in order to summarize the flow of information and get the opinion of a panel of experts and the key take-home messages. As part of this discussion, the panellists debated 6 key topics: disease monitoring, management of high-risk multiple myeloma (MM), induction for newly-diagnosed MM, management of relapsed MM, immune reconstitution, and vaccination and cellular therapy in MM.

Patient and Caregiver Experience Decision Factors in Treatment Decision Making: Results of a Systematic Literature Review of Multiple Myeloma Decision Aids.

OBJECTIVES: Decision-aids (DAs) may facilitate shared decision-making for patients and caregivers, by providing evidence-based information to assist healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in making choices about aspects of care, and/or highlighting decision factors to discuss with the potential of altering the treatment decision. These decision factors may not be well integrated in DAs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in the field of multiple myeloma (MM) on peer-reviewed publications, extended with a gray literature search. Data on whether and how patient and caregiver experience elements, other than survival and physical quality of life, were mentioned as decision factors in the identified MM DAs were extracted and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventy MM DAs were found and analyzed; 51% of DAs mentioned any patient non-routinely assessed experience decision factors and only 17% mentioned any caregiver-related information. One hundred and forty potential decision factors were extracted, deduplicated and categorized into the following categories: 1) financial, 2) mode of administration / transportation issues, 3) personal beliefs and values, 4) emotional and social quality of life, 5) other medical information, 6) availability of social support, 7) caregiver burden. None of the DAs presented a comprehensive framework on all seven categories of decision factors being consider when mapping patient and caregiver experience value elements in MM. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available DAs, we recommend a set of patient and caregiver experience decision factors that have the potential to affect treatment choices of patients with MM, which should be included in DAs, including MM clinical guidelines.

Systematic literature review of health economic models developed for multiple myeloma to support future analyses.

AIMS: The goal of this study was to review the economic evaluations of health technologies in multiple myeloma (MM) and provide guidance and recommendations for future health economic analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systemic literature review (SLR) was conducted on original economic assessment studies and structured review papers focusing on the studies in MM. The search was limited to English language papers published from 1 January 2000 onwards. Publications not applying any type of modelling methodology to describe disease progression and patient pathways over a specific time horizon were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 2,643 publications were initially identified, of which 148 were eligible to be included in the full-text review phase. From these, 49 publications were included in the final analysis. Most published health economic analyses supported by models came from high-income countries. Evaluations from middle-income countries were rarely published. Diagnostic technologies were rarely modelled and integrated care had not been modelled. Very few models investigated MM treatments from a societal perspective and there was a relative lack of evaluations regarding minimal residual disease (MRD). LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the publications included differences between trial populations and modelled populations, justification of methods, lack of confounder analyses, and small trial populations. Limitations of our study included the infeasibility of comparing MM economic evaluations due to the significant variance in modelled therapeutic lines and indications, and the relative scarcity of published economic evaluations from non-high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: As published economic models lacked many of the elements of the complex and heterogeneous patient pathways in MM and they focused on single decision problems, a thorough, open-source economic whole disease modelling framework is needed to assess the economic value of a wide range of technologies across countries with various income levels with a more detailed view on MM, by including patient-centric and societal aspects.

Beyond medicines' barriers: exploring the true cost of multiple myeloma.

AIM: The goal of this research was to quantify and qualify all the costs associated with multiple myeloma (MM) from a healthcare and societal perspective and to highlight certain costs that are often underestimated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used a mixed methods approach that consisted of three phases: a systemic literature review (SLR), a virtual roundtable discussion based on the results of the SLR, and an online survey. RESULTS: In total, 4321 records were identified by literature and snowball searches. After applying the eligibility criteria, 49 articles were included in the narrative summary. As combination treatments have become the mainstay of MM treatment, drug costs have become the most important component of the total healthcare costs. Collected evidence suggests that optimizing treatment pathways, besides prolonging patient survival and maintaining quality of life, has the potential to generate cost savings for all stakeholders (payers and patients). Improved patient access to new therapies that can improve outcomes may reduce the "financial toxicity" of MM by decreasing patients' and caregivers' productivity loss due to better prognosis and it also has the potential of reducing patients' direct health care payments. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of research objectives of included studies, costing methods, and applied measurement units limited the comparability of cost data between studies. Data for more than half of the world's population, including China, Russia, the Middle East, and Africa were not investigated. CONCLUSION: While treatment costs are burdensome for healthcare systems, it is only one of several items that make up the True Cost of MM. Understanding these burdens is one way to argue for optimized treatment pathways and improve patient outcomes by tearing down access barriers.

Induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an update.

The current standard of care model for newly diagnosed fit multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients is the sequential treatment of induction, high dose melphalan, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and maintenance. Adequate induction is required to achieve good disease control and induce deep response rates while minimizing toxicity as a bridge to transplant. Doublet induction regimens have greatly fallen out of favor, with current international guidelines favoring triplet or quadruplet induction regimens built around the backbone of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). In fact, the updated 2021 European Haematology Association (EHA) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of either lenalidomide-Vd (VRd), or daratumumab-thalidomide-Vd (Dara-VTd) as first-line options for transplant-eligible NDMM patients, and when not available, thalidomide-Vd (VTd) or cyclophosphamide-Vd (VCd) as acceptable alternatives. Quadruplet regimens featuring anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are extremely promising and remain heavily investigated, as is the incorporation of more recent proteasome inhibitors such as carfilzomib. This review will focus on induction therapies prior to ASCT examining the latest data and guidelines on triplet and quadruplet regimens.

Requirements for operational cure in multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma is usually considered an incurable disease. However, with the therapeutic improvement observed in the past few years, achievement of an operational cure is increasingly becoming a realistic goal. The advent of novel agents, with or without high-dose chemotherapy or autologous transplantation, revealed a correlation between depth of response to treatment and outcome. Of note, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been shown to be associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS), and MRD status is becoming a well-established and strong prognostic factor. Here, we discuss the impact of MRD negativity on PFS and long-term disease control, as a surrogate for potential cure in a significant proportion of patients. MRD value and impact should be examined by focusing on different parameters: (1) sensitivity or lower limit of detection level (method used), (2) timing of assessment and sustainability, (3) type and duration of treatment, (4) initial prognostic factors (most importantly cytogenetics), and (5) patient age. Currently, the highest probability of operational cure is in younger patients receiving the most active drugs, in combination with autologous transplantation followed by maintenance therapy. Older patients are also likely to achieve operational cure, especially if they are treated upfront with anti-CD38 antibody-based therapy but also with novel immunotherapies in future protocols. Incorporation of MRD as a surrogate end point in clinical trials would enable shorter trials, leading to more personalized management and achievement of long-term cure.

Comprehensive Review of AL amyloidosis: some practical recommendations.

Amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis is among the more common and more severe of the amyloidoses usually involving the slow proliferation of a bone-marrow-residing plasma cell (PC) clone and the secretion of unstable immunoglobulin-free light chains (FLC) that infiltrate peripheral tissues and result in detrimental end-organ damage. Disease presentation is rather vague, and the hallmark of treatment is early diagnosis before irreversible end-organ damage. Once diagnosed, treatment decision is transplant-driven whereby ~20% of patients are eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with or without bortezomib-based induction. In the setting of ASCT-ineligibility, bortezomib plays a central role in upfront treatment with the recent addition of daratumumab to the current emerging standard of care. In general, management of AL amyloidosis is aimed at achieving deep, durable responses with very close monitoring for early detection of relapse/refractory disease. This article provides a comprehensive review of the management of patients with AL amyloidosis including goals of therapy, current treatment guidelines in the setting of both ASCT-eligibility and ineligibility, treatment response monitoring recommendations, toxicity management, and treatment of relapse/refractory disease.

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes.

Relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: a comprehensive overview.

Most patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have been treated with drug combinations including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and/or an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD). The goal of therapy for such patients is therefore to achieve disease control with acceptable toxicity and patient-defined decent quality of life. Physicians face a difficult task not only deciding who to treat, but also when to treat and how to treat, utilizing knowledge of previously administered therapies, patient comorbidities, potential adverse events, and patient wishes to make such a critical decision. New drugs and combination regimens are continuously underway thus broadening the options for therapy and giving way to a more individualized approach for patients with RRMM. The integration of novel agents into the treatment paradigm has shifted the perception of multiple myeloma (MM) from an incurable, fatal disease to a manageable, chronic one. This comprehensive review addresses the results and challenges posed by many of the newer agents for the treatment of RRMM. It attempts to propose a universal strategy for optimal therapy decision-making thus answering three simple fundamental questions-when to treat, how to treat, and how long to treat for.

Current status of autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma.

More than 30 years after its introduction, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for young patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Not only did the arrival of novel agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PI) and monoclonal antibodies not replace ASCT, instead they solidified its central role as standard of care. Novel agent use is now inarguably essential in induction, maintenance, and possibly consolidation. In light of these new advancements, new challenges arise in deciding on optimal practice. Who is most suited to undergo ASCT? Is there an age threshold that should not be surpassed? Should transplantation be embarked on early or is it reasonable to delay it? What are the optimal induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapies? What is the role of tandem transplantation in the era of novel agents and where do patient-specific cytogenetics come into the equation when deciding on treatment? These are some of the questions addressed in this review which we will attempt to answer with the latest currently available data.

Analysis of Availability and Access of Anti-myeloma Drugs and Impact on the Management of Multiple Myeloma in Latin American Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Latin American countries (LATAMC) represent a large fraction of patients treated for multiple myeloma (MM) worldwide. In order to understand the difficulty of access to anti-myeloma therapy in LATAMC, we designed this study that explores areas involved in the availability of drugs, such as health care systems, approval times, coverage of new agents, old drugs, use of generics, and the first-line treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected data from 16 countries in 2015. RESULTS: The majority of LATAMC (88%; n = 14) had mixed public and private coverage, with patients with MM cared for in public institutions. Although bortezomib and lenalidomide were approved in 100% and 73% in LATAMC, these figures did not translate to real-world practice as one-half of the nations reported unequal access to the new agents (thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide) in both public and private systems. Conversely, cheaper old drugs, represented by melphalan, were not available commercially in 44% (n = 7) of nations. Thus, first-line MM treatments for old and young patients in public practice were triplets with thalidomide-alkylating agent-steroid, whereas in private practice, treatments involved bortezomib-alkylating agent-steroid. An alarming rate of 30% of the nations reported suboptimal regimens (eg, VAD [vincristine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone]) or the impossibility of transplantation. CONCLUSION: Our data indicates that bortezomib and transplant are still an unmet medical necessity in public systems. In the complex puzzle of myeloma drug access in LATAMC, important issues, such as the adjustment of disparities between health systems, the incorporation of new drugs with an economic cost-effectiveness view, and the re-establishment of essential old drugs, can be a platform to the future.

Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma.

The introduction of novel agents has led to major improvements in clinical outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. To shorten evaluation times for new treatments, health agencies are currently examining minimal residual disease (MRD) as a surrogate end point in clinical trials. We assessed the prognostic value of MRD, measured during maintenance therapy by next-generation sequencing (NGS). MRD negativity was defined as the absence of tumor plasma cell within 1 000 000 bone marrow cells (<10-6). Data were analyzed from a recent clinical trial that evaluated the role of transplantation in newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). MRD negativity was achieved at least once during maintenance in 127 patients (25%). At the start of maintenance therapy, MRD was a strong prognostic factor for both progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.34; P < .001) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.54; P = .001). Patients who were MRD negative had a higher probability of prolonged progression-free survival than patients with detectable residual disease, regardless of treatment group (RVD vs transplant), cytogenetic risk profile, or International Staging System disease stage at diagnosis. These results were similar after completion of maintenance therapy. Our findings confirm the value of MRD status, as determined by NGS, as a prognostic biomarker in multiple myeloma, and suggest that this approach could be used to adapt treatment strategies in future clinical trials.

How I treat first relapse of myeloma.

The standard treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma has been either lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD) or bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD) but it is changing rapidly for 2 reasons. First, lenalidomide and bortezomib are currently used in frontline treatment and many patients become resistant to these agents early in the course of their disease. Second, 6 second-line new agents have been recently developed and offer new possibilities (pomalidomide, carfilzomib and ixazomib, panobinostat, elotuzumab, and daratumumab). Recent randomized studies have shown that triple combinations adding 1 of these new agents (except pomalidomide) to the RD or VD regimens were superior to the double combinations in terms of response rate and progression-free survival (PFS). Their place in the treatment of first relapse is discussed here. Among these agents, daratumumab is clearly a breakthrough and daratumumab-based combinations might become the preferred option in the near future. However, all of these drugs are expensive and are not available or affordable in all countries. We propose a decision algorithm for first relapse in fit patients with the objective of achieving the best PFS. The choice of salvage regimen is based on lenalidomide/bortezomib resistance, daratumumab availability, and cost. Autologous transplantation should be considered in younger patients if not used upfront.

Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone with Transplantation for Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation has been the standard treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in adults up to 65 years of age. However, promising data on the use of combination therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) in this population have raised questions about the role and timing of transplantation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 700 patients with multiple myeloma to receive induction therapy with three cycles of RVD and then consolidation therapy with either five additional cycles of RVD (350 patients) or high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation followed by two additional cycles of RVD (350 patients). Patients in both groups received maintenance therapy with lenalidomide for 1 year. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the group that underwent transplantation than in the group that received RVD alone (50 months vs. 36 months; adjusted hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; P<0.001). This benefit was observed across all patient subgroups, including those stratified according to International Staging System stage and cytogenetic risk. The percentage of patients with a complete response was higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (59% vs. 48%, P=0.03), as was the percentage of patients in whom minimal residual disease was not detected (79% vs. 65%, P<0.001). Overall survival at 4 years did not differ significantly between the transplantation group and the RVD-alone group (81% and 82%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (92% vs. 47%), as were the rates of grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal disorders (28% vs. 7%) and infections (20% vs. 9%). No significant between-group differences were observed in the rates of treatment-related deaths, second primary cancers, thromboembolic events, and peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD therapy plus transplantation was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than RVD therapy alone, but overall survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches. (Supported by Celgene and others; IFM 2009 Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01191060 .).