Predictors and Impact of Timing of Disease Progression Following Primary Therapy in Multiple Myeloma.

In multiple myeloma (MM) significant variation in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is observed. We examined the outcomes of 1557 MM patients stratified into short (<2 years), medium (between 2 and 5 years) and long (>5 years) PFS. Short PFS occurred in 758 patients (48.7%), medium in 561 patients (36.2%), and long in 238 patients (15.3%). Median post-progression PFS was 9.2 months (95% CI: 8.1-11.0) in the short PFS and 33.1 months (95% CI: 29.0-42.1; P < .001) in the long PFS group. Median post-progression OS was 26.6 months (95% CI: 23.9-29.8) in the short PFS and 87.8 months (95% CI: 71.3- NR; P < .001) in the long PFS. Worse survival in the short PFS was irrespective of high risk (HR) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) features, defined as deletion 17p and/or translocation t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20). In a multivariable analysis short PFS was associated with HR FISH, extramedullary plasmacytoma, plasma cell labeling index ≥2% at diagnosis, nonimmunoglobulin G isotype, treatment without autologous stem cell transplantation and achieving less than very good partial remission. In conclusion, the duration of the PFS significantly influences survival, regardless of HR cytogenetic features. Therefore, it should be considered an important parameter for risk stratification in patients experiencing a relapse.

Mode of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma: a study of 406 patients.

The approach to patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) varies among clinicians; while some advocate early intervention, others reserve treatment at progression to multiple myeloma (MM). We aimed to describe the myeloma-defining events (MDEs) and clinical presentations leading to MM diagnosis among SMM patients seen at our institution. We included 406 patients diagnosed with SMM between 2013-2022, seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. The 2018 Mayo 20/2/20 criteria were used for risk stratification. Median follow-up was 3.9 years. Among high-risk patients who did not receive treatment in the SMM phase (n = 71), 51 progressed by last follow-up; the MDEs included: bone lesions (37%), anemia (35%), hypercalcemia (8%), and renal failure (6%); 24% met MM criteria based on marrow plasmacytosis (≥60%) and/or free light chain ratio (>100); 45% had clinically significant MDEs (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, and/or bone lesions). MM diagnosis was made based on surveillance labs/imaging(45%), testing obtained due to provider suspicion for progression (14%), bone pain (20%), and hospitalization/ED presentations due to MM complications/symptoms (4%). The presentation was undocumented in 14%. A high proportion (45%) of patients with high-risk SMM on active surveillance develop end-organ damage at progression. About a quarter of patients who progress to MM are not diagnosed based on routine interval surveillance testing.

Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to standard dose vs low dose lenalidomide.

Refractoriness to lenalidomide is an important factor determining the choice of therapy at first relapse in multiple myeloma (MM). It remains debatable if resistance to lenalidomide varies among MM refractory to standard doses vs low dose maintenance doses. In this study, we assessed the outcomes with subsequent therapies in patients with MM refractory to standard dose vs low dose lenalidomide. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with MM at our institution who received first line therapy with lenalidomide containing regimens, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival for these patients for second line therapy, and with lenalidomide retreatment. For second line therapy, we found no difference in the PFS between standard dose refractory and low dose refractory groups (median PFS 14 months vs 14 months, p = 0.95), while the PFS for both these groups was inferior to the not refractory group (median PFS 30 months, p < 0.001 for both pairs). Similar trends were seen among these groups on lenalidomide retreatment, and on multivariable analysis. These data suggest that refractoriness to lenalidomide is not dose dependent, and definition of lenalidomide refractoriness should not depend on the dose of lenalidomide to which the disease was considered refractory.