Wechalekar, Ashutosh

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 the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM). At IWWM-8, a task force for treatment recommendations was impanelled to review recently published and ongoing clinical trial data as well as the impact of new mutations (MYD88 and CXCR4) on treatment decisions, indications for B-cell receptor and proteasome inhibitors, and future clinical trial initiatives for WM patients. The panel concluded that therapeutic strategies in WM should be based on individual patient and disease characteristics. Chemoimmunotherapy combinations with rituximab and cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone, bendamustine, or bortezomib-dexamethasone provide durable responses and are still indicated in most patients. Approval of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in the United States and Europe represents a novel and effective treatment option for both treatment-naive and relapsing patients. Other B-cell receptor inhibitors, second-generation proteasome inhibitors (eg, carfilzomib), and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors are promising and may increase future treatment options. Active enrollment in clinical trials whenever possible was endorsed by the panel for most patients with WM.

Amyloidosis is caused by deposition in tissues of abnormal protein in a characteristic fibrillar form. There are many types of amyloidosis, classified according to the soluble protein precursor from which the amyloid fibrils are derived. Accurate identification of amyloid type is critical in every case since therapy for systemic amyloidosis is type specific. In ∼20–25% cases, however, immunohistochemistry (IHC) fails to prove the amyloid type and further tests are required. Laser microdissection and mass spectrometry (LDMS) is a powerful tool for identifying proteins from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. We undertook a blinded comparison of IHC, performed at the UK National Amyloidosis Centre, and LDMS, performed at the Mayo Clinic, in 142 consecutive biopsy specimens from 38 different tissue types. There was 100% concordance between positive IHC and LDMS, and the latter increased diagnostic accuracy from 76% to 94%. LDMS in expert hands is a valuable tool for amyloid diagnosis.

Purpose To identify the criteria for hematologic and cardiac response to treatment in immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis based on survival analysis of a large patient population. Patients and Methods We gathered for analysis 816 patients with AL amyloidosis from seven referral centers in the European Union and the United States. A different cohort of 374 patients prospectively evaluated at the Pavia Amyloidosis Research and Treatment Center was used for validation. Data was available for all patients before and 3 and/or 6 months after initiation of first-line therapy. The prognostic relevance of different criteria for hematologic and cardiac response was assessed. Results There was a strong correlation between the extent of reduction of amyloidogenic free light chains (FLCs) and improvement in survival. This allowed the identification of four levels of response: amyloid complete response (normal FLC ratio and negative serum and urine immunofixation), very good partial response (difference between involved and uninvolved FLCs [dFLC] < 40 mg/L), partial response (dFLC decrease > 50%), and no response. Cardiac involvement is the major determinant of survival, and changes in cardiac function after therapy can be reliably assessed using the cardiac biomarker N-terminal natriuretic peptide type B (NT-proBNP). Changes in FLC and NT-proBNP predicted survival as early as 3 months after treatment initiation. Conclusion This study identifies and validates new criteria for response to first-line treatment in AL amyloidosis, based on their association with survival in large patient populations, and offers surrogate end points for clinical trials.