D’Agostino, Mattia

Despite significant improvements in survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and a significant proportion of patients experience suboptimal outcomes. Importantly, traditional prognostic factors based on data from patients treated with older therapies no longer capture prognosis accurately in the contemporary era of novel triplet or quadruplet therapies. Therefore, risk stratification requires refinement in the context of available and investigational treatment options in routine practice and clinical trials, respectively. The current identification of high-risk MM (HRMM) in routine practice is based on the Revised International Staging System, which stratifies patients using a combination of widely available serum biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities assessed via fluorescence in situ hybridization. In recent years, a substantial body of evidence concerning additional clinical, biological, and molecular/genomic prognostic factors has accumulated, along with new MM risk stratification tools and consensus reports. The International Myeloma Society, along with the International Myeloma Working Group, convened an Expert Panel with the primary aim of revisiting the definition of HRMM and formulating a practical and data-driven consensus definition, based on new evidence from molecular/genomic assays, updated clinical data, and contemporary risk stratification concepts. The Panel proposes the following Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of HRMM which relies upon the presence of at least one of these abnormalities: (1) del(17p), with a cutoff of >20% clonal fraction, and/or TP53 mutation; (2) an IgH translocation including t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) along with 1q+ and/or del(1p32); (3) monoallelic del(1p32) along with 1q+ or biallelic del(1p32); or (4) β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L with normal creatinine (<1.2 mg/dL).

PURPOSE Newly approved drugs and combinations treating multiple myeloma (MM) have resulted in substantial improvements in patients' survival. To deliver rapid access to newer therapies, an earlier end point to expedite clinical trials is needed. Our objective was to evaluate the minimal residual disease–negative complete response (MRD-CR) as an intermediate end point for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed (ND) transplant-eligible (NDTE) patients, ND transplant-ineligible (NDTinE) patients, and patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 20 randomized multicenter trials were collected. Eleven studies (4,773 patients) with sufficient data were analyzed to evaluate whether 9- or 12-month MRD-CR classified at a 10 –5 threshold could be reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of new agents regarding PFS and OS. Global odds ratio (OR) was estimated using the bivariate Plackett Copula model. Supportive evaluation included correlations of the treatment effects on MRD-CR end points and PFS/OS, evaluated by both linear regression ( R 2 weighted least squared ) and Copula ( R 2 Copula ) models. RESULTS The analysis demonstrated that both 9- and 12-month MRD-CR strongly correlated with PFS at patient level in NDTE patients, NDTinE patients, and patients with RRMM. Global ORs ranged from 3.06 to 16.24, all with 95% CIs excluding 1.0. Encouraging trial-level correlations ( R 2 , 0.61-0.70) were observed by pooling three populations and were stronger ( R 2 , 0.67-0.78) in the ND population. Similar results were observed for OS. CONCLUSION Our findings provided the support for use of MRD-CR classified at a 10 –5 threshold at either 9 or 12 months after starting of the treatment, as an intermediate end point to support accelerated approvals, in future trials in NDTE patients, NDTinE patients, and patients with RRMM.

Despite significant improvement in the outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with novel therapies, there is still an underserved high-risk (HR) population that experiences early disease progression and death. With the median survival crossing 10 years, we defined ultrahigh-risk (uHR)MM as MM leading to death within 24-36 months of diagnosis and HRMM as MM leading to death within 36-60 months. Several features have emerged as markers of uHRMM: the co-occurrence of two or more high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia and a high-risk gene expression profiling signature. The heterogeneous risk definition across trials, the few trials available designed for HR patients, and the small HR subgroups in all-comers trials make it difficult to generate recommendations with high levels of evidence. Nevertheless, regardless of treatment administered, several studies consistently showed that achieving and maintaining measurable residual disease negativity is now considered the main factor able to mitigate the adverse prognosis related to baseline features. For fit patients with HR transplant-eligible (TE) NDMM, quadruplet induction/consolidation treatment with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors and dexamethasone, and autologous stem-cell transplant and maintenance with, if available, at least a doublet combination could be considered the option of choice. For non-TE NDMM, considering the recent data generated and carefully reviewing those upcoming, quadruplet treatment consisting of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and dexamethasone should also be considered. Future trials integrating BCMA-directed novel generation immunotherapies hold great potential for further advancing the treatment landscape in all NDMM patients with HR disease.