Assessment of Molecular Residual Disease Using Circulating Tumor DNA to Identify Multiple Myeloma Patients at High Risk of Relapse.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (AHCT), patients with multiple myeloma (MM) invariably relapse. Molecular residual disease (MRD)-negativity post-AHCT has emerged as an important prognostic marker predicting the duration of remission. Current techniques for MRD assessment involve bone marrow (BM) aspirate sampling, which is invasive, subject to sample variability and is limited by spatial heterogeneity. We compared the performance of a non-invasive, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based MRD assay with multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) of marrow aspirate to predict relapse in AHCT recipients with MM. METHODS: MRD assessment using ctDNA was retrospectively analyzed on 80 plasma samples collected at different time points from 28 patients, post-AHCT. MFC was used to assess MRD from BM biopsy. Individual archived BM aspirate slides or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded slides from the time of MM diagnosis and matched blood were used to assess MRD at 3 months, post-AHCT, using a personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA assay. RESULTS: ctDNA was detectable in 70.8% (17/24) of pre-AHCT patients and 53.6% (15/28) of post-AHCT patients (3-month time point). Of the 15 post-AHCT ctDNA-positive patients, 14 relapsed on follow-up. The median PFS for ctDNA-positive patients was 31 months, and that for ctDNA-negative patients was 84 months (HR: 5.6; 95%CI: 1.8-17;p=0.0003). No significant difference in PFS was observed in patients stratified by MFC-based MRD status (HR 1.2; 95%CI: 0.3-3.4;p=0.73). The positive predictive value for ctDNA was also significantly higher than MFC (93.3% vs. 68.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates tumor-informed ctDNA analysis is strongly predictive of MM relapse.

Utilization and Cost Implications of Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells Stored for a Future Salvage Autologous Transplantation or Stem Cell Boost in Myeloma Patients.

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) is a standard initial treatment for multiple myeloma (MM). Consensus guidelines recommend collecting sufficient hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) for 2 autoHCTs in all eligible patients. Despite a lack of published data on the utilization of HPCs stored for future use, it is common practice across transplantation programs to collect enough HPCs for 2 autoHCTs in MM patients. In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed the utilization of HPCs collected and stored at the time of first autoHCT in patients with MM, along with the cost implications of HPC collection targets sufficient for 2 transplantations. In a cohort of 400 patients (median age, 63 years; range, 22 to 79 years), after a median follow-up of 50.4 months, 197 patients had relapsed and 36 had received HPC infusion as salvage autoHCT (n = 29) and/or HPC boost (n = 8). In this cohort, a median CD34+ cell dose of 4.3 × 106/kg (range, 1.1 to 12.94.3 × 106/kg) was used for first autoHCT, and a median of 4.4 × 106/kg (range, 1.0 to 20.2× 106/kg) CD34+ cells were stored for future use. At 6 years after the first autoHCT, the estimated cumulative incidence of salvage autoHCT was 12.0% without HPC boost and 13.9% with HPC boost. HPC utilization was significantly higher in the 60- to 64-year age group, whereas no patients who were age ≥70 years at the time of first autoHCT received salvage autoHCT. Using the CD34+ cell dose infused during the first autoHCT as the cutoff for individual patients, the estimated mean additional cost of HPC collection intended for subsequent use (over and above the HPCs used for first autoHCT) was $10,795 ($4.32 million for the entire cohort), an estimated 14% of which (ie, $583,600) was actually used up in salvage autoHCT by 6 years from first autoHCT. In conclusion, our results suggest the need for reappraisal of HPC collection targets for salvage autoHCT and argue against HPC collection and storage for salvage autoHCT in patients age ≥70 years at the time of first autoHCT.

Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.

Payment and Care for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Patients: Toward a Specialized Medical Home for Complex Care Patients.

Patient-centered medical home models are fundamental to the advanced alternative payment models defined in the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Plan Reauthorization Act (MACRA). The patient-centered medical home is a model of healthcare delivery supported by alternative payment mechanisms and designed to promote coordinated medical care that is simultaneously patient-centric and population-oriented. This transformative care model requires shifting reimbursement to include a per-patient payment intended to cover services not previously reimbursed such as disease management over time. Payment is linked to quality measures, including proportion of care delivered according to predefined pathways and demonstrated impact on outcomes. Some medical homes also include opportunities for shared savings by reducing overall costs of care. Recent proposals have suggested expanding the medical home model to specialized populations with complex needs because primary care teams may not have the facilities or the requisite expertise for their unique needs. An example of a successful care model that may provide valuable lessons for those creating specialty medical home models already exists in many hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) centers that deliver multidisciplinary, coordinated, and highly specialized care. The integration of care delivery in HCT centers has been driven by the specialty care their patients require and by the payment methodology preferred by the commercial payers, which has included bundling of both inpatient and outpatient care in the peritransplant interval. Commercial payers identify qualified HCT centers based on accreditation status and comparative performance, enabled in part by center-level comparative performance data available within a national outcomes database mandated by the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. Standardization across centers has been facilitated via voluntary accreditation implemented by Foundation for the Accreditation of Cell Therapy. Payers have built on these community-established programs and use public outcomes and program accreditation as standards necessary for inclusion in specialty care networks and contracts. Although HCT centers have not been described as medical homes, most HCT providers have already developed the structures that address critical requirements of MACRA for medical homes.