Leleu, Xavier

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a disorder of lymphoplasmacytoid cells that inhabit lymph nodes and the bone marrow. WM cells are characterized by secretion of monoclonal pentameric IgM. These cells are CD19+, CD20+, CD22+, CD38+, CD138+/- and phenotypically resemble IgM plasmablasts or plasma cells. In addition, 91% of WM cases carry an activating mutation of MyD88 (L265P). Mature resting B cells can be driven to differentiate to IgM secreting plasmablasts and plasma cells with similar phenotypes using the TLR4 ligand lipopolysaccharide (LPS). We have demonstrated that LPS (+ cytokine)-differentiated cells become Bcl-xL dependent during this process, rendering them sensitive to the Bcl-xL/Bcl-2 inhibitor ABT-737. For this reason, we hypothesized that activation of MyD88 in WM cells could drive Bcl-xL dependence in a similar manner conferring ABT-737 sensitivity. We treated three WM cell lines, BCWM.1, MWCL-1 and RPCI-WM1 which all harbor the MyD88 (L265P) mutation with ABT-737. We found varying levels of resistance to ABT-737 with an IC50 > 2 μM for all three lines as compared with the ABT-737 sensitive multiple myeloma cell line MM.1s which has an IC50 of 0.4 μM. The RPCI-WM1 cell line was the most insensitive to ABT-737-induced apoptosis with no apoptosis above baseline up to 1.6 μM of drug. Since the WM cell lines were not sensitive to direct inhibition of intrinsic survival regulators, we then examined the sensitivity of these cell lines to other activators of the intrinsic apoptosis pathway. Two of the three cell lines were moderately sensitive to bortezomib with IC50 ≈ 5 nM as compared with the sensitive multiple myeloma cell line MM.1s with an IC50 of 2 nM. The RPCI-WM1 cell line was insensitive to bortezomib with no apoptosis above baseline up to 20 nM bortezomib. Similarly, we found that two of the cell lines were moderately sensitive to arsenic trioxide with an IC50 ≈ 6 μM as compared with the multiple myeloma cell line MM1.s (IC50 ≈ 4 μM). The RPCI-WM1 cell line was insensitive to ATO as well with an IC50 > 20 μM. Given the lack of sensitivity of the three WM cell lines we tested to Bcl-xL/Bcl-2 inhibition with ABT-737 treatment, and that RPCI-WM1 appears insensitive to multiple inducers of intrinsic apoptosis, we examined the expression levels of Bcl-2 family members in these cells. Both BCWM.1 cells and MWCL-1 cells expressed Bim mRNA at very low levels with MWCL-1 expressing no detectable Bim at the protein level. Surprisingly, more moderate levels of Bim were detected in RPCI-WM1 cells. These findings were confirmed at the mRNA level by qRT-PCR. Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 were detectable in all three lines at moderate levels while Bcl-2 which was only expressed at significant levels in MWCL-1 cells and undetectable in BCWM.1 cells. We examined the expression levels of the Bax and Bak in these cells and remarkably there was no detectable Bax and very small amounts of Bak protein in RPCI-WM1 cells. Consistent with a defect in gene expression, Bax mRNA was also low in RPCI-WM1. This was not due to copy number variation, as determined by array-CGH in both the initial patient isolate and the established cell line. Additionally, no loss of Bax, Bak or Bim (Bcl2l11) was observed in SNP array analysis of 46 patients with WM. Interestingly, Bak mRNA levels in RPCI-WM1 were similar to the other WM lines, suggesting a defect in translation or post-translational regulation is responsible for the low protein expression. These results lead us to conclude that these WM cell lines are not sensitive to Bcl-xL/ Bcl-2 inhibition despite activation of MyD88. We have further shown that there are multiple and distinct differences in Bcl-2 family protein expression that lead to this insensitivity. While low levels of Bim combined with expression of Mcl-1 confer resistance to ABT-737 in MWCL-1 and BCWM.1, the lack of Bax and Bak confers resistance to intrinsic apoptotic stimuli in general in RPCI-WM1. Moreover, the loss of Bax and Bak protein expression occur through distinct mechanisms. These WM cell lines demonstrate that sensitivity to agents that kill through the intrinsic apoptotic pathway may vary within a disease that is characterized by a single activating mutation and suggests that additional heterogeneous events regulate the expression of Bcl-2 family proteins in WM. Disclosures: Leleu: CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Boise:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Background:Despite recent advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and new treatment options are needed to continue to improve patient outcomes. This is the first randomized, phase 3 trial of an anti‐CD38 antibody in combination with pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d) in RRMM.Aims:The primary objective of this phase 3 trial (NCT02990338) was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody targeting a specific epitope, combined with Pd versus (vs) Pd in RRMM.Methods:Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4 mg PO days 1–21; 40 mg [20 mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36–86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2–11); estimated GFR: <60 ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high‐risk cytogenetics. At median follow‐up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44–0.81), P = 0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P < 0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10−5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461–1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3 h at 1st inf. and 2.8 h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3–4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd.Summary/Conclusion:Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone, with a manageable safety profile. Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM.

AbstractWe performed analyses of the randomized phase 3 ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR trials to investigate the efficacy of carfilzomib among subgroups of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients who had early or late disease relapse following initiation of the immediately prior therapy. In ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, patients had received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Patients in ASPIRE received carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), and patients in ENDEAVOR received carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) or bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). Patients with relapse ≤1 year after initiating the most recent prior line of therapy were categorized as early relapsers, and patients with relapse after >1 year were categorized as late relapsers. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) in ASPIRE for early relapsers was 21.4 months for KRd vs 10.7 months for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.714; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.508–1.004; P = 0.0257), and for late relapsers was 29.7 months for KRd vs 18.2 months for Rd (HR: 0.675; 95% CI: 0.533–0.854; P = 0.0005). The overall response rate (ORR) for early relapsers was 83.2% for KRd vs 54.8% for Rd, and for late relapsers was 89.0% for KRd vs 69.7% for Rd. The median PFS in ENDEAVOR (Kd vs Vd) for early relapsers was 13.9 months vs 5.7 months (HR: 0.598; 95% CI: 0.423–0.846; P = 0.0017), and for late relapsers was 22.2 months vs 10.2 months (HR: 0.486; 95% CI: 0.382–0.620; P < 0.0001). The ORR (Kd vs Vd) for early relapsers was 63.4% vs 49.1% and for late relapsers was 81.8% vs 66.8%. In conclusion, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received carfilzomib‐containing regimens had improved PFS and ORR compared with control groups, regardless of whether they had an early or late relapse following the most recent prior therapy.

Key Points Rd continuous significantly extended OS compared with MPT and resulted in comparable OS to that with Rd18 in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients achieving complete or very good partial response with Rd benefited greatly from continuous vs fixed treatment in terms of PFS.

SummaryThe diagnosis of Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) can be challenging given the variety of signs and symptoms patients can present. Furthermore, once the diagnosis of WM is established, the initial evaluation should be thorough as well as appropriately directed. During the 8th International Workshop for WM in London, United Kingdom, a multi‐institutional task force was formed to develop consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and initial evaluation of patients with WM. In this document, we present the results of the deliberations that took place to address these issues. We provide recommendations for history‐taking and physical examination, laboratory studies, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy analysis and imaging studies. We also provide guidance on the initial evaluation of special situations, such as anaemia, hyperviscosity, neuropathy, Bing‐Neel syndrome and amyloidosis. We hope these recommendations serve as a practical guidance to clinicians taking care of patients with a suspected or an established diagnosis of WM.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a distinct B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder for which clearly defined criteria for the diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and treatment strategy have been proposed as part of the consensus panels of International Workshops on WM (IWWM). As part of the IWWM-7 and based on recently published and ongoing clinical trials, the panels updated treatment recommendations. Therapeutic strategy in WM should be based on individual patient and disease characteristics (age, comorbidities, need for rapid disease control, candidacy for autologous transplantation, cytopenias, IgM-related complications, hyperviscosity, and neuropathy). Mature data show that rituximab combinations with cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, bendamustine, or bortezomib/dexamethasone provided durable responses and are indicated for most patients. New monoclonal antibodies (ofatumumab), second-generation proteasome inhibitors (carfilzomib), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, and Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors are promising and may expand future treatment options. A different regimen is typically recommended for relapsed or refractory disease. In selected patients with relapsed disease after long-lasting remission, reuse of a prior effective regimen may be appropriate. Autologous stem cell transplantation may be considered in young patients with chemosensitive disease and in newly diagnosed patients with very-high-risk features. Active enrollment of patients with WM in clinical trials is encouraged.

Purpose The aim of the International Myeloma Working Group was to develop practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma (MM) –related bone disease. Methodology An interdisciplinary panel of clinical experts on MM and myeloma bone disease developed recommendations based on published data through August 2012. Expert consensus was used to propose additional recommendations in situations where there were insufficient published data. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were assigned and approved by panel members. Recommendations Bisphosphonates (BPs) should be considered in all patients with MM receiving first-line antimyeloma therapy, regardless of presence of osteolytic bone lesions on conventional radiography. However, it is unknown if BPs offer any advantage in patients with no bone disease assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Intravenous (IV) zoledronic acid (ZOL) or pamidronate (PAM) is recommended for preventing skeletal-related events in patients with MM. ZOL is preferred over oral clodronate in newly diagnosed patients with MM because of its potential antimyeloma effects and survival benefits. BPs should be administered every 3 to 4 weeks IV during initial therapy. ZOL or PAM should be continued in patients with active disease and should be resumed after disease relapse, if discontinued in patients achieving complete or very good partial response. BPs are well tolerated, but preventive strategies must be instituted to avoid renal toxicity or osteonecrosis of the jaw. Kyphoplasty should be considered for symptomatic vertebral compression fractures. Low-dose radiation therapy can be used for palliation of uncontrolled pain, impending pathologic fracture, or spinal cord compression. Orthopedic consultation should be sought for long-bone fractures, spinal cord compression, and vertebral column instability.

Abstract Detailed genomic studies have shown that cytogenetic abnormalities contribute to multiple myeloma (MM) pathogenesis and disease progression. Nevertheless, little is known about the characteristics of MM at the epigenetic level and specifically how microRNAs regulate MM progression in the context of the bone marrow milieu. Therefore, we performed microRNA expression profiling of bone marrow derived CD138+ MM cells versus their normal cellular counterparts and validated data by qRT-PCR. We identified a MM-specific microRNA signature characterized by down-expression of microRNA-15a/-16 and overexpression of microRNA-222/-221/-382/-181a/-181b (P < .01). We investigated the functional role of microRNA-15a and -16 and showed that they regulate proliferation and growth of MM cells in vitro and in vivo by inhibiting AKT serine/threonine-protein-kinase (AKT3), ribosomal-protein-S6, MAP-kinases, and NF-κB-activator MAP3KIP3. Moreover, miRNA-15a and -16 exerted their anti-MM activity even in the context of the bone marrow milieu in vitro and in vivo. These data indicate that microRNAs play a pivotal role in the biology of MM and represent important targets for novel therapies in MM.