Kastritis, Efstathios

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.

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.

A variety of medications have been implicated in the causation of thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Recently, a few case reports have emerged of TMA attributed to the proteasome inhibitors (PI) bortezomib and carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma. The aim of this case series was to better characterize the role of PI in the etiology of drug‐induced TMA. We describe eleven patients from six medical centers from around the world who developed TMA while being treated with PI. The median time between medication initiation and diagnosis of TMA was 21 days (range 5 days to 17 months). Median laboratory values at diagnosis included hemoglobin—7.5 g dL−1, platelet count—20 × 109/L, LDH—698 U L−1, creatinine—3.12 mg dL−1. No patient had any other cause of TMA, including ADAMTS13 inhibition, other malignancy or use of any other medication previously associated with TMA. Nine patients had resolution of TMA without evidence of hemolysis after withdrawal of PI. Two patients had stabilization of laboratory values but persistent evidence of hemolysis despite medication withdrawal. One patient had recurrence of TMA with rechallenge of PI. There is a strong level of evidence that PI can cause DITMA. In evaluating patients with suspected TMA, PI use should be recognized as a potential etiology, and these medications should be discontinued promptly if thought to be the cause of TMA. Am. J. Hematol. 91:E348–E352, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Purpose The aim of the International Myeloma Working Group was to develop practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma–related renal impairment (RI). Methods Recommendations were based on published data through December 2015, and were developed using the system developed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Recommendations All patients with myeloma at diagnosis and at disease assessment should have serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and electrolytes measurements as well as free light chain, if available, and urine electrophoresis of a sample from a 24-hour urine collection (grade A). The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, preferably, or the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula should be used for the evaluation of estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with stabilized serum creatinine (grade A). International Myeloma Working Group criteria for renal reversibility should be used (grade B). For the management of RI in patients with multiple myeloma, high fluid intake is indicated along with antimyeloma therapy (grade B). The use of high-cutoff hemodialysis membranes in combination with antimyeloma therapy can be considered (grade B). Bortezomib-based regimens remain the cornerstone of the management of myeloma-related RI (grade A). High-dose dexamethasone should be administered at least for the first month of therapy (grade B). Thalidomide is effective in patients with myeloma with RI, and no dose modifications are needed (grade B). Lenalidomide is effective and safe, mainly in patients with mild to moderate RI (grade B); for patients with severe RI or on dialysis, lenalidomide should be given with close monitoring for hematologic toxicity (grade B) with dose reduction as needed. High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (with melphalan 100 mg/m 2 to 140 mg/m 2 ) is feasible in patients with RI (grade C). Carfilzomib can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 15 mL/min, whereas ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone can be safely administered to patients with creatinine clearance > 30 mL/min (grade A).

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.

Abstract Recently, the term monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) was introduced to distinguish monoclonal gammopathies that result in the development of kidney disease from those that are benign. By definition, patients with MGRS have B-cell clones that do not meet the definition of multiple myeloma or lymphoma. Nevertheless, these clones produce monoclonal proteins that are capable of injuring the kidney resulting in permanent damage. Except for immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis with heart involvement in which death can be rapid, treatment of MGRS is often indicated more to preserve kidney function and prevent recurrence after kidney transplantation rather than the prolongation of life. Clinical trials are rare for MGRS-related kidney diseases, except in immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis. Treatment recommendations are therefore based on the clinical data obtained from treatment of the clonal disorder in its malignant state. The establishment of these treatment recommendations is important until data can be obtained by clinical trials of MGRS-related kidney diseases.

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.