Rajkumar, S Vincent

Abstract Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies. The diagnosis requires ≥10% clonal bone marrow plasma cells or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of one or more multiple myeloma defining events: CRAB (hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or lytic bone lesions) features felt related 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), or >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with del(17p), t(14;16), and t(14;20) have high‐risk multiple myeloma. Patients with t(4;14) translocation and gain(1q) have intermediate‐risk. All others are considered standard‐risk. Initial treatment consists of bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (VRd). In high‐risk patients, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRd) is an alternative to VRd. In eligible patients, initial therapy is given for approximately 3‐4 cycles followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Standard risk patients can opt for delayed ASCT at first relapse. Patients not candidates for transplant are treated with VRd for approximately 8‐12 cycles followed by lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. After ASCT, lenalidomide maintenance is recommended for standard risk patients, while maintenance with a bortezomib‐based regimen is needed for patients with intermediate or high‐risk disease. Most patients require a triplet regimen at relapse, with the choice of regimen varying with each successive relapse. Aggressive relapse with extramedullary plasmacytomas or plasma cell leukemia may require anthracycline containing combination chemotherapy regimens.

AbstractDetection of myeloma progression (PD) relies on serial 24‐h urinary M protein measurements in patients without measurable serum M spike. We examined whether serial difference free light chain (dFLC) levels could be used as a surrogate for serial 24‐h urine M protein measurements in monitoring for PD in patients with baseline measurable urine M protein. We studied 122 patients who had serial measurement of urine M protein and serum FLC and had demonstrated PD. The median increase in dFLC with progression as defined by urine M spike was 110% (IQR: 55‐312) and median absolute increase was 74 mg/dL; while 89% of patients had dFLC increase ≥ 25%, 94% had absolute increase in dFLC > 10 mg/dL, and 98% met at least 1 of these 2 criteria at PD. In patients with baseline measurable serum FLC (n = 118), 89% had increase in dFLC ≥ 25%, 97% had dFLC increase of > 10 mg/dL, and 98% had 1 of the 2. We conclude that serial dFLC assessments can be used in place of serial 24‐h urine protein assessments during myeloma surveillance to monitor for PD. Once patients have an absolute increase in dFLC of >10 mg/dL from the nadir, a 24‐h urine collection can then be assessed to document PD as per the International Myeloma Working Group criteria.

Abstract Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is, in many ways, a unique hematologic entity. Unlike most hematologic conditions in which the diagnosis is intentional and credited to hematologists, the discovery of MGUS is most often incidental and made by nonhematologists. MGUS is considered an obligate precursor to several lymphoplasmacytic malignancies, including immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis, multiple myeloma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Therefore, long-term follow-up is generally recommended. Despite its high prevalence, there is surprisingly limited evidence to inform best clinical practice both at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up. We present 7 vignettes to illustrate common clinical management questions that arise during the course of MGUS. Where evidence is present, we provide a concise summary of the literature and clear recommendations on management. Where evidence is lacking, we describe how we practice and provide a rationale for our approach. We also discuss the potential harms associated with MGUS diagnosis, a topic that is rarely, if ever, broached between patients and providers, or even considered in academic debate.

Abstract Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma have come at a rapid pace, especially with several new drugs entering the market in the last few years. However, access to and affordability of new treatments poses a major challenge, both in the United States and around the world. High costs of life-saving drugs are detrimental to both the personal finances of the individual patient, as well as society which must bear the increasing costs in terms of increased health insurance premiums, taxes, or both. The challenges are not unique to myeloma, but are commonly encountered in several other cancers as well. But to some extent these pharmacoeconomic concerns are amplified in myeloma due to the need for multidrug regimens that combine 2 or more expensive new drugs, continuous therapy, and the prolonged disease course in most patients. We examine current myeloma therapy from a pharmacoeconomic perspective, and discuss the costs involved. We outline the underlying reasons why cancer drugs are so expensive, the measures that are required to lower cost, and propose potential ways in which costs can be reduced while still delivering high-quality care.

Abstract Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic clonal plasma cell disorder. SMM is distinguished from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance by a much higher risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM). There have been major advances in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of SMM in the last few years. These include a revised disease definition, identification of several new prognostic factors, a classification based on underlying cytogenetic changes, and new treatment options. Importantly, a subset of patients previously considered SMM is now reclassified as MM on the basis of biomarkers identifying patients with an ≥80% risk of progression within 2 years. SMM has assumed greater significance on the basis of recent trials showing that early therapy can be potentially beneficial to patients. As a result, there is a need to accurately diagnose and risk-stratify patients with SMM, including routine incorporation of modern imaging and laboratory techniques. In this review, we outline current concepts in diagnosis and risk stratification of SMM, and provide specific recommendations on the management of SMM.

Key Points Survival of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia has improved in recent years, but is still inferior to those patients with multiple myeloma. This survival benefit appears to be mainly in patients older than 65 years of age.

Objectives To define whether the high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) assay in patients with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL) improves risk prediction. Background Cardiac involvement is the major cause of death in patients with AL amyloidosis. Risk stratification is facilitated by cardiac biomarkers such as cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Methods Stored serum from patients with newly diagnosed AL was used to measure hs-cTnT, cTnT, and NT-proBNP. Survival modelling was performed. Results The direct numeric result from hs-cTnT measurement cannot merely be substituted for a cTnT measurement in the Mayo AL staging system. The performance of the receiver operator curve derived an hs-cTnT cut-point of 54 ng/L which improves on the value of 35 ng/L validated with the prior iteration of the assay. An alternate staging option using hs-cTnT alone—using the two thresholds 14 ng/L and 54 ng/L—performs as well as either the original Mayo AL staging system or other systems incorporating hs-cTnT. On multivariate analysis, an hs-cTnT alone staging system was independent of period of diagnosis, type of therapy, and NT-proBNP value, the last of which dropped out of the model. Alternate models were explored, but none performed better than the original system or the new hs-cTnT system. Thus, hs-cTnT can be used alone for the staging of disease prognosis. Conclusions A survival model based on hs-cTnT improves the prognostic staging of patients with AL amyloidosis, relegating NT-proBNP to a measure of cardiac response.

Abstract Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) bridges the gap between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (a mostly premalignant disorder) and active multiple myeloma (MM). Until recently, no interventional study in patients with SMM showed improved overall survival (OS) with therapy as compared with observation. A report from the PETHEMA-GEM (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologica) group described both fewer myeloma-related events and better OS among patients with high-risk SMM who were treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. This unique study prompted us to review current knowledge about SMM and address the following questions: (1) Are there patients currently defined as SMM who should be treated routinely? (2) Should the definitions of SMM and MM be reconsidered? (3) Has the time come when not treating is more dangerous than treating? (4) Could unintended medical harm result from overzealous intervention? Our conclusion is that those patients with the highest-risk SMM (extreme bone marrow plasmacytosis, extremely abnormal serum immunoglobulin free light chain ratio, and multiple bone lesions detected only by modern imaging) should be reclassified as active MM so that they can receive MM-appropriate therapy and the paradigm of careful observation for patients with SMM can be preserved.

BACKGROUNDTwo randomized trials have demonstrated improved progression‐free survival (PFS) with lenalidomide maintenance after autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Overall survival (OS) results are conflicting, and quality‐of‐life (QOL) data are lacking. The authors conducted a systematic survey of patients with MM regarding what constitutes a meaningful benefit that would make burdens of maintenance treatments (toxicity and cost) acceptable.METHODSA self‐administered survey was mailed to 1159 consecutive, living patients who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic. The survey provided background information on the standard of care for MM and data on maintenance. Patients were asked to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit that would be acceptable for various degrees of toxicity and cost.RESULTSOf 1159 surveys sent, 886 patients (83.2%) responded, and 736 patients returned a completed survey (66% raw response rate). The most worrisome potential toxicity was identified as peripheral neuropathy by 27% of patients, cytopenias by 24%, deep vein thrombosis by 20%, fatigue by 15%, nausea by 8%, and diarrhea/constipation by 7%. If treatment was free, had no toxicity, and the OS benefit was ≤1 year, then 49% of patients indicated that they would choose maintenance; with moderate toxicity, this proportion decreased to 42%. Adding a treatment cost of $25 per month decreased the proportion that would choose maintenance to 39% of patients.CONCLUSIONSThe current results indicated that willingness to receive maintenance treatment declined when actual benefits were provided in concrete numeric terms compared with a general statement of PFS benefit. The authors also observed that the magnitude of benefit required to consider maintenance was affected by cost and toxicity. Cancer 2013;119:4308–4315. © 2013 American Cancer Society.