Rajkumar, S. Vincent

Abstract Background New immunoglobulin free light chain (FLC) assays are available. Despite analytical differences, it seems possible to use free light chain ratios (FLCr) generated by different assays and apply similar cut-points for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. It is still unknown if we can use different assays for risk stratification of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Methods Patients diagnosed with MGUS (N = 923) had FLC tested using a nephelometric FreeLite (Binding Site) assay on BNII instruments (Siemens) and a Sebia FLC assay (Sebia) on a DS2 ELISA analyzer (Dynex). Patients were followed up for progression to any plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) for several decades. The Mayo MGUS risk stratification model for progression was assessed with both assays (M-spike >1.5 g/dL; non-IgG isotype and abnormal FLCr), using package insert reference intervals (RI) and a new metric called principal component 2 (PC2). Results There were 94 events of progression to PCD in the cohort during a median of 38 years of follow-up. Freelite and Sebia FLC showed similar hazard ratios in the risk models for elevated FLCr. An alternative clinical decision point lower than the package insert RI was evaluated for the Sebia assay, which improved risk stratification for patients with a low FLCr. The PC2 metric showed similar performance to the FLCr in models, without superior benefit. Conclusions The Sebia ELISA-based FLC assay can be employed in an MGUS risk stratification model with similar performance to the original 2005 risk stratification model using the FreeLite assay.

Abstract Disease overview Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies. Diagnosis The diagnosis requires ≥10% clonal bone marrow plasma cells or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of one or more multiple myeloma defining events (MDE): CRAB (hyper c alcemia, r enal failure, a nemia, or lytic b one lesions) attributable to the plasma cell disorder, bone marrow clonal plasmacytosis ≥60%, serum involved/uninvolved free light chain (FLC) ratio ≥100 (provided involved FLC is ≥100 mg/L and urine monoclonal protein is ≥200 mg/24 h), or >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Risk stratification The presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), gain 1q, del 1p, or p53 mutation is considered high‐risk multiple myeloma. Presence of any two high risk factors is considered double‐hit myeloma; three or more high risk factors is triple‐hit myeloma. Risk‐adapted initial therapy In patients who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation, induction therapy consists of anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (VRd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Selected standard risk patients can delay transplant until first relapse. Frail patients who not candidates for transplant are treated with VRd for approximately 8–12 cycles followed by maintenance or alternatively with daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (DRd) until progression. Maintenance therapy Standard risk patients need lenalidomide maintenance, while bortezomib plus lenalidomide maintenance is needed for high‐risk myeloma. Management of relapsed disease A triplet regimen is usually needed at relapse, with the choice of regimen varying with each successive relapse. Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell therapy and bispecific antibodies are additional options.

7558 Background: Survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) continues to improve with the newer therapies, but there is no clear evidence of a cure and patients continue to relapse. However, most patients have the most extended period without progression with their first-line therapy, and subsequent therapies often provide a shorter duration of response due to the use of drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and, more importantly, a shorter first remission, pointing toward more aggressive disease biology. With newer immunotherapies being used at 1st relapse, this may change. We designed this study to explore the natural history of MM after the 1st relapse and define the predictors of outcome after the initial relapse. Methods: We identified all patients in the Mayo Clinic database diagnosed between Jan 2004-June 2019 who had had initial disease progression. The study cohort included 2005 patients. We explored the overall survival (OS) from the time of documented disease progression or the start of second-line treatment in patients who had not met IMWG criteria before second-line therapy. Front-line therapy was grouped into those with either an IMiD or PI, both IMiD and PI, daratumumab with IMiD and PI, and none of these agents. The IMiD and PI were always used with dexamethasone with or without an alkylator. Results: The median age was 63 (range 24-95) years and 60% were male. The median estimated follow-up from diagnosis for all patients was 86 mos. (95% CI; 82, 88) and the median time to progression from the start of therapy was 25 mos. (95% CI; 24, 26). The median OS from the first progression was 45 mos. (95% CI; 42, 50), 36 mos. for those diagnosed before 2009, and 52-53 mos. for those diagnosed later. On univariate analysis, age <70 at 1st relapse, RISS I, novel agents in initial therapy, CR in the first line, diagnosis after 2009, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse (Table). On multivariate analysis, age <70, RISS I, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse. Conclusions: The study provides an estimate of the outcomes and significant predictors of outcomes after 1st relapse in patients with MM. These factors should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials in this patient population. In particular, these factors identify a high-risk group of patients not always identified by baseline characteristics and should be the focus of future trials. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) have disparate outcomes. Newer therapies have emerged since the development of International Prognostic Scoring System, and MYD88 L265P mutation is now frequently assessed at diagnosis, warranting reexamination of the prognostic parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed records of 889 treatment-naïve patients with active WM, consecutively seen between January 01, 1996, and December 31, 2017, to identify clinical predictors of overall survival (OS) in univariate analyses. Patients with complete data for the parameters significant on the univariate analyses (n = 341) were included in a multivariable analysis to derive a prognostic model, subsequently validated in a multi-institutional cohort. RESULTS In the derivation cohort (n = 341), age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.1]; P = .0009), serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above upper limit of normal (HR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5]; P = .007), and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.99 to 2.3]; P = .056) were independently prognostic. By assigning a score of 1 point each to albumin <3.5 g/dL (HR, 1.5) and age 66-75 years (HR 1.4) and 2 points for age >75 years (HR, 2.6) or elevated LDH (HR, 2.3), four groups with distinct outcomes were observed on the basis of the composite scores. Five-year OS was 93% for the low-risk (score 0), 82% for low-intermediate risk (score 1), 69% for intermediate-risk (score 2), and 55% for the high-risk (score ≥3; P < .0001) groups. In the validation cohort (N = 335), the model maintained its prognostic value, with a 5-year OS of 93%, 90%, 75%, and 57% for the four groups, respectively ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION Modified Staging System for WM (MSS-WM), utilizing age, albumin, and LDH is a simple, clinically useful, and externally validated prognostic model that reliably risk-stratifies patients with symptomatic WM into four groups with distinct prognosis.

AbstractSeveral tools exist for assessing frailty in multiple myeloma (MM), but most are based on clinical trial datasets. In this study, we evaluate the prognostic impact of frailty based on the cumulative deficit frailty index (FI), and the prognostic impact of relationship and socioeconomic status (SES) in newly diagnosed MM patients. This is a retrospective study including 515 patients with MM seen at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) at diagnosis between 2005–2018. The FI was calculated using patient-reported data on activities of daily living and comorbidity data. Items were scored as 0/0.5/1, with 1 indicating deficit. The FI was calculated by adding individual scores and dividing that by the number of non-missing items. Frailty was defined as FI ≥ 0.15; 61% were non-frail and 39% were frail. Frailty and non-married/relationship status were associated with higher disease stage, decreased likelihood of early transplantation, and independently associated with decreased survival. SES was not independently associated with survival. Frail patients reported worse scores for fatigue, pain, and quality of life. In conclusion, a cumulative deficit FI was associated with higher symptom burden and decreased survival in a real-world cohort of newly diagnosed MM patients. Social support has prognostic value and should be assessed in clinical practice.

AbstractSmoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor stage that precedes multiple myeloma (MM). SMM is heterogenous with nearly 40% of patients progressing to MM in the first 5 years. The high rate of progression of SMM patients highlights the need for early intervention, which underscores the importance of identifying SMM patients with the highest risk of progression. Several risk stratification models showed utility in identifying high‐risk SMM patients; however, these systems showed limited sensitivity. To date, identifying high‐risk SMM patients remains an important clinical need. In this study, we present the 3‐dimensional telomere profiling as a structural biomarker capable of stratifying SMM patients as a function of genomic instability. Quantifying telomere dysfunction using the TeloView technology showed utility in risk stratification of cancer patients, particularly hematological malignancies. In this study, we analyzed 168 SMM patients. We report an AUC in ROC analysis of 0.8 using a subset of the patients as a training dataset. We then conducted a blind validation on a different cohort and demonstrated a positive predictive value of 85% and negative predictive value of 73%, with sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 76%, respectively. We examined the correlation between the TeloView prediction and the 20‐2‐20 scoring system, and cytogenetic abnormalities. We report a correlation of 53% with the 20‐2‐20 scores and over 60% correlation with cytogenetic abnormalities. The result of this study presents the telomere profiling as an effective biomarker able to stratify SMM patients to their respective risk groups with high sensitivity and specificity.

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Background:Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare, indolent B‐cell lymphoplasmacytic malignancy. Patient outcomes are highly heterogeneous, with a proportion of patients surviving less than 5 years (short survivors) and another proportion that survive longer than 10 years. The laboratory parameters in the currently used International Prognostic Scoring System for WM (IPSSWM) include hemoglobin, serum IgM, platelet count, and serum β2‐microglobulin.Aims:We aim to identify unique patient characteristics and prognostic features associated with short survival in WM.Methods:The medical records of patients with active WM that were diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida between January 1st, 1996 and December 31st, 2013 were reviewed. The patients with smoldering WM were excluded. Cohorts of patients who either survived ≤ 5 years (Short Survival Group) or those with an overall survival (OS) ≥ 10 years (Long Survival Group) from the diagnosis of active disease were compared. Survivors with a follow‐up of ≤ 5 years were not included in the analyses. Two‐sided Wilcoxon rank sum test and Chi square/Fisher's exact test were used to compare the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The variables that were statistically significant on univariate analysis (P < 0.05) were included in a multivariate logisitic regression analysis.Results:Of 893 consecutively seen WM patients (median follow‐up of 9 years [95% CI 8.4–9.7]), we identified 387 patients who could be categorized into either the Short Survival Group (n = 171 patients, 44%) or the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%). The Short Survival Group had a median OS of 2.4 years (2.1–2.8) and median age at diagnosis of 73 years (42–93), while the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%) had a median OS of 18.9 years (16‐NR) and median age at diagnosis of 62 years (31–85). The baseline characteristics and significant findings between the two groups are listed in the Table. Parameters significant on univariate analysis included age >65 years, albumin < 3.5 g/dL, β2‐microglobulin >3 μg/ml, and LDH > upper limit of normal (ULN). On multivariate analysis, albumin <3.5 g/dL and LDH > ULN were independently associated with short survival. Among the Long Survivors, 60 (28%) patients survived 15 years or more.Summary/Conclusion:Lactate dehydrogenase above the ULN and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL are independent biomarkers of short survival in WM. The MYD88 L265P status and the size of serum IgM are not prognostic in WM. Our data suggest the need for simplification of the current staging system with the use of widely available markers: serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase.image

Introduction: Most induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) contain bortezomib. In most clinical trials, bortezomib has been prescribed either intravenously or subcutaneously twice per week in 21-day or 28-day cycles. However, several retrospective single-center studies have shown that once-weekly bortezomib has comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy compared to twice-weekly bortezomib ( Sidana et al, PLoS One 2017; Cook et al, AJH 2021). These findings have also been confirmed by a secondary analysis of data from three prospective Phase 3 randomized studies ( Mateos et al, Haematologica 2014). As such, many clinicians have adopted once-weekly bortezomib regimens in routine care in the past decade. However, the real-world (RW) prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly vs twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in a larger population have not yet been characterized. Methods: This study used US nationwide longitudinal Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified data. We included patients aged 18-70 years with newly diagnosed MM between 2017-2022 with ≥ 6 months of follow-up and ≥ 2 clinical visits who were treated with a first-line (1L) bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients aged &gt;70 were excluded a priori given the likelihood of altered practice patterns and more frequent comorbidities. Twice-weekly bortezomib was defined as patients for whom the most frequent interval between two doses of 1L bortezomib within a cycle was 3.0-4.9 days, while once-weekly bortezomib was defined as a corresponding interval of 5.0-9.9 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with once-weekly vs twice-weekly (reference) bortezomib. RW progression free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) from 1L treatment initiation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model including transplant as a time-varying covariate and adjustment for other demographic and clinical factors. Results: Of 2,522 patients included, 927 (36.8%) received twice-weekly while 1,522 (63.2%) received once-weekly bortezomib. Approximately half of patients (50.3%) were non-Latinx White, 21.7% non-Latinx Black, and 8.0% Latinx. Most patients were treated in the community setting (78.8%). Rates of once-weekly bortezomib administration were 66.2% and 62.1% among patients treated at academic and community practices, respectively. The frequency of weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 58.0% between 2017-2019 to 68.8% between 2020-2022. In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; [95% CI 1.14 to 1.99] vs ECOG PS 0), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.14; [95% CI 1.08 to 1.20] per year) were associated with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Conversely, Latinx patients vs non-Latinx White (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.82]) and patients with ≥ 2 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) vs 0 HRCA (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.91]) had lower odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib administration. No significant associations were found between gender, ISS stage, practice setting, insurance category, or baseline creatinine. There was no statistically significant difference in rwPFS among patients receiving once-weekly (median 37.3 months, 95% CI 33.8 to 42.5) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 39.2 months, 95% CI 32.9 to 42.8) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00]) (Figure 1A). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in rwOS with median 25.5 months follow-up (Figure 1B). Median rwOS was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.07]). Discussion: We evaluated US bortezomib prescribing patterns for the first time in the modern era using a large nationwide RW-study. Whereas prescribing patterns have shifted towards once-weekly bortezomib over time, over 30% of patients diagnosed in the last three years received twice-weekly bortezomib. Importantly, once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib performed comparably with regard to rwPFS and rwOS. While our study did not analyze neuropathy or patient quality of life, once-weekly bortezomib is known to be associated with less neuropathy and less time in clinic. These data further support the conclusion that once-weekly bortezomib should be considered the standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with MM.