San-Miguel, Jesus

Abstract Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Summary: The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

Abstract We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10−5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172.

Abstract In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10−5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The first step to the cure of Multiple myeloma (MM) is achieving a clinical complete response (CR). However, a majority of patients relapse in part due to the persistence of low levels of pathological plasma cells after treatment (minimal residual disease (MRD)). In previous work, we have shown that Next generation sequencing (NGS) of immunoglobulin (IG) rearranged genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM, and also it is a good predictor of patient prognosis. However, this technology is a proprietary multiplex PCR, uses a reference plasmid, it is performed at the centralized laboratories, and it is not broadly available. AIMS: To present a new in-house simplified method for quantification of IG gene clonal rearrangements by NGS. To test the suitability of the method for MRD detection in MM patients compared with 8-color high sensitivity Flow Cytometry (8c-MFC) data on a prospective way. To determine its capability as a predictor of patient prognosis. METHOD: We use deep sequencing to prospectively analyzed DNA from bone marrow samples of 58 patients (58 diagnostic samples and 80 follow-up samples) of patients included the GEM10 clinical trial. The method employs the primers developed by BIOMED-2 for IGH and IGK, and a set of specific mathematical and bioinformatics tools. First, we identified the clonal rearrangement(s) (clonotype) in the diagnostic sample by fragment analysis and NGS. Second, we searched the NGS sequences from follow-up samples to detect and quantitate (MRD) the presence of the clonotype identified in the diagnostic sample. Overall Survival (OS) and Progression free Survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The survival curves generated were compared with the log-rank test for trend. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the method is 10-5 for 150.000 cells. Reproducibility is >90%. The Spearman correlation coefficient between NGS and 8c-MFC data for diagnosis and follow-up samples was R=0.6903, p<0.0001. When we applied the criteria of 10-5 for NGS, discordant results were as follow: 121 cases were positive by both methods, 2 cases were positive (>10-5) by 8c-MFC but negative (<10-5) by NGS; 7 samples were negative (<10-5) by 8c-MFC but positive (>10-5) by NGS; and 7 cases were negative by both methods. Next we analyzed de correlation of OS and PFS with MRD levels determined by NGS and by 8c-MFC. For NGS data, median PFS (FigA) was 34 months for patients with values of MRD>10-5 vs not reached for patients with values of MRD<10-5 (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Also, for 8c-MFC data, the patients with values of MRD<10-5 had longer PFS than those with values of MRD>10-5 (34 months versus 47; HR = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Median OS (FigB) was also significantly longer in MRD<10-5 (NGS) patients (not yet reached), compared to MRD>10-5 (NGS) patients (41 months, HR = 3.6, P =0.0495). For 8c-MFC we did not get a significant association (41 vs 50 months, HR=1.979, p=0.228). It should be noted that this comparison was made with the standard 8c-MFC and it is probable that the sensitivity will be inferior to that of the Next generation flow. There were no significant differences in terms of PFS between the data obtained by our in-house method, 8c-FCM and previous data obtained with LymphoSight technology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirms that analysis of MRD levels determined by deep sequencing is capable of predict survival outcomes in myeloma patients. NGS sequencing of Ig genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM. This approach is a methodological and economical alternative to MFC and other methods for MRD follow-up. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Paiva: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BD Bioscience: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; EngMab AG: Research Funding. Ocio:Pharmamar: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jassen: Honoraria. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. San Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation.MethodsData were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once‐ or twice‐weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan‐prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide‐dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single‐agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsA total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice‐weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice‐weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug‐related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance.ConclusionsIxazomib maintenance following ixazomib‐based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long‐term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

Key Points Using the largest set of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, we identified 63 mutated driver genes. We identified oncogenic dependencies, particularly relating to primary translocations, indicating a nonrandom accumulation of genetic hits.

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 IRd was associated with a consistent PFS benefit vs placebo-Rd in RRMM patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics. The addition of ixazomib to Rd overcomes the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetics in patients with RRMM.