Response-Adapted Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development of potent novel agents has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Heterogeneity of response to therapy, an expanding arsenal of treatment options, and cost are however major challenges for physicians making treatment decisions. Response-adapted therapy is hence an attractive strategy for sequencing of therapy in MM. Despite its successful application in other haematologic malignancies, response-adapted therapy is yet to become a standard of care for MM. We provide our perspective on response-adapted therapeutic strategies evaluated thus far and how they may be implemented and improved on in treatment algorithms of the future. RECENT FINDINGS: While older studies suggested that early response based on International Myeloma Working Group response criteria could impact long-term outcomes, recent data have contradicted these findings. The advent of minimal residual disease (MRD) as a powerful prognostic factor in MM has raised the promise of MRD-adapted treatment strategies. The development of more sensitive techniques for paraprotein quantification as well as imaging modalities to detect extramedullary disease is likely to change response assessment in MM. These techniques combined with MRD assessment may provide sensitive and holistic response assessments which could be evaluated in clinical trials. Response-adapted treatment algorithms have the potential to allow an individualised treatment strategy, maximising efficacy, while minimising toxicities and cost. Standardisation of MRD methodology, incorporation of imaging into response assessment, and the optimal management of MRD positive patients are key questions to be addressed in future trials.

Role of Conventional Karyotyping in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Modern Treatment and FISH Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) has been widely adopted to prognosticate multiple myeloma. As a result, the continued utility of conventional metaphase karyotyping has been called into question. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multi-center study for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who received novel agent(s) at induction was conducted. Conventional metaphase karyotype information was categorized based on ploidy. We evaluated the impact of ploidy on overall survival (OS) including multivariate analysis, taking into account the R-ISS stages, transplant status, age, and novel agent(s) used at induction. We also evaluated if it is possible to identify high-risk (HR) patients with conventional karyotyping when a fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis is not available. Results were validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: There were 308 patients evaluable. Ploidy significantly affected the OS of patients with R-ISS stage II, with non-hyperdiploid patients doing the worst. In the multivariate analysis, ploidy was significantly associated with OS. R-ISS stage II patients with or without non-hyperdiploid karyotype had significantly different survival. We replaced HR fluorescence in situ hybridization abnormalities with HR metaphase karyotypic abnormalities (non-hyperdiploid karyotype). When compared with R-ISS, there was a high level of concordance in HR patients identified using HR karyotypic abnormalities. These results were validated with an independent cohort of 375 patients. CONCLUSION: Conventional metaphase karyotyping is an independent prognostic factor even in the setting of R-ISS.

Identification of novel fusion transcripts in multiple myeloma.

AIMS: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease characterised by genetically complex abnormalities. The classical mutational spectrum includes recurrent chromosomal aberrations and gene-level mutations. Recurrent translocations involving the IGH gene such as t(11;14), t(4;14) and t(14;16) are well known. However, the presence of complex genetic abnormalities raises the possibility that fusions other than the recurrent IGH translocations exist. We therefore employed a targeted RNA-sequencing panel to identify novel putative fusions in a local cohort of MM. METHODS: Targeted RNA-sequencing was performed on 21 patient samples using the Illumina TruSight RNA Pan-Cancer Panel (comprising 1385 genes). Fusion calls were generated from the Illumina RNA-Sequencing Alignment software (V.1.0.0). These samples had conventional cytogenetic and fluorescence in situ hybridisation data for the common recurrent chromosomal abnormalities (t(11;14), t(4;14), t(14;16) and 17p13 deletion). The MMRF CoMMpass dataset was analysed using the TopHat-fusion pipeline. RESULTS: A total of 10 novel fusions were identified by the TruSight RNA Pan-Cancer Panel. Two of these fusions, HGF/CACNA2D1 and SMC3/MXI1, were validated by reverse transcription PCR and Sanger sequencing as they involve genes that may have biological relevance in MM genesis. Four of these (MAP2K4/MAP2K4P1) are likely to be spurious secondary to misalignment of reads to a pseudogene. One record of the HGF/CACNA2D1 fusion was identified from the MMRF CoMMpass dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of novel fusions offers insights into the biology of MM and might have clinical relevance. Further functional studies are required to determine the biological and clinical relevance of these novel fusions.

Pegylated Filgrastim Versus Filgrastim for Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma After Novel Agent Induction.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for transplant-eligible myeloma patients is novel agent-based induction, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue. Chemo-mobilization of peripheral blood CD34+ stem cells (PBSCs) with pegylated filgrastim (pegfilgrastim), a sustained-duration formulation of filgrastim, has been used as an alternative to filgrastim in several studies involving heterogeneous cohorts of lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) patients and shown to be equivalent in PBSC yield and cost-effectiveness. The present study focused on the efficacy of pegfilgrastim in PBSC mobilization compared with filgrastim exclusively after novel agent-based induction in a homogeneous group of MM patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data from 89 patients with MM treated at 2 transplant centers in Singapore who had received novel agent-based induction chemotherapy, PBSC mobilization with vinorelbine/cyclophosphamide, high-dose melphalan conditioning, and autologous stem cell rescue. Of the 89 patients, 61 were included in the pegfilgrastim group and 28 in the filgrastim group, with a similar median age and disease characteristics. PBSC harvesting was performed at a similar median time of 9.51 ± 0.84 days for both, and the peak peripheral blood CD34+ stem cell count was 19.90 × 106/kg for pegfilgrastim and 32.50 × 106/kg for filgrastim (95% confidence interval, -4.36 to 0.70 × 106/kg). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the median PBSC collection between the 2 groups (pegfilgrastim, 7.90 × 106/kg vs. filgrastim, 10.10 × 106/kg; P = .16). CONCLUSION: The present study has demonstrated that a single dose of pegfilgrastim is comparable to filgrastim in terms of the timing and efficacy of PBSC harvest and could potentially spare the patient 6 days of filgrastim injections. In addition, ours is the first study to compare these growth factors using vinorelbine/cyclophosphamide as mobilization chemotherapy.

Vinorelbine-Cyclophosphamide compared to cyclophosphamide in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization for multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: High dose Cyclophosphamide (Cy) and Vinorelbine Cyclophosphamide (Vino-Cy) are stem cell (SC) mobilisation options for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We present a comparison of mobilisation outcomes using these regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Vino-Cy patients received Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on day 1, cyclophosphamide 1500 mg/m2 on day 2, and pegylated GCSF on day 4 or GCSF 10 mcg/kg/day from day 4 onwards. Cy patients were given cyclophosphamide 4000 mg/m2 on day 1 and GCSF10 mcg/kg/day from day 5 onwards. The target CD34 + SC collection was 5 × 106 per kg/BW. RESULTS: 149 patients were included. SC collection was lower in the Vino-Cy group (8.20 × 106/Kg BW) compared to the Cy group (11.43 × 106/Kg BW), with adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.86, p = 0.006). Time taken to achieve an adequate PB SC count was shorter for Vino-Cy (9 ±â€¯1 day compared to 12 ±â€¯2 days for Cy, adjusted absolute mean difference -3.95, 95% CI -4.85 to -3.06, P < .001). Mobilisation related toxicities (in particular, neutropaenic fever) were greater for Cy. CONCLUSION: Vino-Cy is a potential alternative to Cy given the need for effective mobilisation protocols with acceptable toxicity.

Modified cIg-FISH protocol for multiple myeloma in routine cytogenetic laboratory practice.

The International Myeloma Working Group recommends that fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) be performed on specifically identified plasma cells (PC). This is because chromosomal abnormalities are not frequently detected by traditional karyotyping due to the low proliferative rate of PC in multiple myeloma (MM). Conventional FISH enhances the sensitivity but lacks the specificity, as it does not distinguish PC from other hematopoetic cells. To fulfill this recommendation, PC need to be selected either by flow cytometry or immunomagnetic bead-based PC sorting or by concomitant labeling of the cytoplasmic immunoglobulin light chain, which allows for unambiguous identification. These techniques require expertise, time, and funding and are not easily incorporated into the routine workflow of the cytogenetic laboratory. We have modified and refined the technique using fixed cell pellets to achieve nicely separated and easily identifiable PC. With immunostaining and subsequent FISH (i.e., cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH, cIg-FISH), this technique can be easily incorporated into every cytogenetic laboratory. Twenty samples from patients with MM were subjected to routine FISH, cIg-FISH, and chromosomal karyotyping and the results were compared. Three FISH probes, which enabled detection of the t(4;14), t(14;16) and deletion of TP53, were used to validate this modified technique successfully.