Turesson, Ingemar

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 Abstract 743 Background There has been considerable recent focus upon the molecular classification of myeloma. However, the prognostic impact of molecular changes has mostly been assessed from small and/or incomplete studies from single institutions or groups. There has been no large scale analysis of molecular features linked to ISS stage. Methods In order to clarify the overall impact of molecular changes we undertook a collective analysis of 9,897 patients through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Within this population 2,295 patients had presence of cytogenetic abnormalities (Any CA); 1,713 hypodiploidy; 1,673 hyperdiploidy; 2,309 cytogenetic deletion 13; 3,226 deletion 13 by FISH; 1,573 FISH t(4;14); 1,486 FISH del p17; 1, 683 FISH t(11:14); and 366 FISH t(4;16). Enrolled patients had complete clinical and treatment details available including baseline standard prognostic factors, ISS stage, as well as both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) information. Data came from 14 sites: 3 from the US and the remainder from Europe, Asia, and Latin America as for the ISS staging system analyses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results Each of the known adverse molecular features had a negative impact upon both PFS and OS (p=002 - <0.0001). Among the deleterious FISH abnormalities the t(4;14) abnormality was the most highly correlated with poorer outcomes by PFS: 4 year estimate: 32% vs. 60% (p<0.0001). The t(4;14) abnormality combined with ISS Stage also significantly enhanced predictive capability: ISS Stage I without t(4;14) OS 81% @ 4 years; ISS Stage III with t(4;14) OS 22% @ 4 years (P<0.0001) [Figure 1]. The best outcomes were for ISS Stage I in the presence of t(11;14): OS 89% @ 4 years. Absence of any one adverse feature correlated with 80-81% OS @ 4 years for Stage I. Presence of any one adverse feature had a more variable impact and correlated with 22%-40% OS at 4 years for Stage III. In univariate correlations the most predictive correlations with OS were presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy, cytogenetic 13q- with R2 values of 6.9%, 4.5%, 4.1% and 3.8% respectively. In multivariate analyses, ISS stage provided the best predictions: R2 values = 13.3%. The added contributions from molecular features were: t(4;14) 3.8%; cytogenetic 13q- 2.9%; Any CA 2.3%; and 17p- 1.0%. The maximum total R2 for OS was 22%. Conclusions This large multicenter analysis confirms the correlations between abnormal molecular findings and outcomes. Combinations with ISS Stage provide the best predictive capability. Presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy and cytogenetic 13q- contribute to poorer outcomes by ISS stage. The presence of hyperdiploidy and/or t(11;14) contribute to better outcomes. There is thus validation of prior molecular studies related to prognosis utilizing this large IMWG database. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

Purpose To assess the impact of age on outcome and to analyze the projected years of life lost in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods Ten thousand five hundred forty-nine patients were evaluated; 6,996 patients were treated with conventional chemotherapy, and 3,553 patients were treated with high-dose therapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation. Results Mean observed and relative overall survival times in the entire cohort were 3.7 and 3.9 years, respectively. Observed survival decreased steadily from 6.4 years in patients younger than age 50 years to 2.5 years in patients ≥ age 80 years. A similar decrease was noted for relative survival. Higher age correlated significantly with higher International Staging System (ISS) stage. Relative excess risk of death differed significantly between 10-year age cohorts beginning from age 40 years (P < .001 for age 50 to 59 v age 40 to 49, P < .001 for age 60 to 69 v age 50 to 59, P < .001 for age 70 to 79 v age 60 to 69, and P = .009 for age ≥ 80 v 70 to 79). The average years of life lost per patient was 16.8 years in the entire patient cohort and decreased steadily from 36.1 years in patients younger than 40 years old to 4.6 years in patients ≥ age 80 years. Conclusion Age is associated with higher ISS stage and is an important risk factor for early mortality. Survival declined continuously by each decade from age 50 to age ≥ 80 from more than 6 to less than 3 years. The average of years of life lost in patients with myeloma is higher than in many other cancers and amounts to more than 30 years in patients younger than 40 years old but decreases to less than 5 years in patients age 80 years or older.

AbstractWe analyzed the presenting features and survival in 1689 patients with multiple myeloma aged younger than 50 years compared with 8860 patients 50 years of age and older. Of the total 10 549 patients, 7765 received conventional therapy and 2784 received high-dose therapy. Young patients were more frequently male, had more favorable features such as low International Staging System (ISS) and Durie-Salmon stage as well as less frequently adverse prognostic factors including high C-reactive protein (CRP), low hemoglobin, increased serum creatinine, and poor performance status. Survival was significantly longer in young patients (median, 5.2 years vs 3.7 years; P < .001) both after conventional (median, 4.5 years vs 3.3 years; P < .001) or high-dose therapy (median, 7.5 years vs 5.7 years; P = .04). The 10-year survival rate was 19% after conventional therapy and 43% after high-dose therapy in young patients, and 8% and 29%, respectively, in older patients. Multivariate analysis revealed age as an independent risk factor during conventional therapy, but not after autologous transplantation. A total of 5 of the 10 independent risk factors identified for conventional therapy were also relevant for autologous transplantation. After adjusting for normal mortality, lower ISS stage and other favorable prognostic features seem to account for the significantly longer survival of young patients with multiple myeloma with age remaining a risk factor during conventional therapy.

Purpose There is a need for a simple, reliable staging system for multiple myeloma that can be applied internationally for patient classification and stratification. Patients and Methods Clinical and laboratory data were gathered on 10,750 previously untreated symptomatic myeloma patients from 17 institutions, including sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. Potential prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate techniques. Three modeling approaches were then explored to develop a staging system including two nontree and one tree survival assessment methodologies. Results Serum beta 2 -microglobulin (Sβ 2 M), serum albumin, platelet count, serum creatinine, and age emerged as powerful predictors of survival and were then used in the tree analysis approach. A combination of Sβ 2 M and serum albumin provided the simplest, most powerful and reproducible three-stage classification. This new International Staging System (ISS) was validated in the remaining patients and consists of the following stages: stage I, Sβ 2 M less than 3.5 mg/L plus serum albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL (median survival, 62 months); stage II, neither stage I nor III (median survival, 44 months); and stage III, Sβ 2 M ≥ 5.5 mg/L (median survival, 29 months). The ISS system was further validated by demonstrating effectiveness in patients in North America, Europe, and Asia; in patients less than and ≥ 65 years of age; in patients with standard therapy or autotransplantation; and in comparison with the Durie/Salmon staging system. Conclusion The new ISS is simple, based on easy to use variables (Sβ 2 M and serum albumin), and recommended for early adoption and widespread use.