Miguel, Jesús F. San

Key Points Elderly patients with myeloma are heterogeneous and assessment strategies are needed to define the frailty profile. The proposed frailty score aims to better assess patients and provide them with more suitable therapies.

Purpose To provide an update on recent advances in the management of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature on diagnostic criteria is provided, and treatment options and management of adverse events are summarized. Results Patients with symptomatic disease and organ damage (ie, hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions) require immediate treatment. The International Staging System and chromosomal abnormalities identify high- and standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, corticosteroids, and alkylating agents are the most active agents. The presence of concomitant diseases, frailty, or disability should be assessed and, if present, treated with reduced-dose approaches. Bone disease, renal damage, hematologic toxicities, infections, thromboembolism, and peripheral neuropathy are the most frequent disabling events requiring prompt and active supportive care. Conclusion These recommendations will help clinicians ensure the most appropriate care for patients with myeloma in everyday clinical practice.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with certain genetic features [eg, t(4;14), del17p] associated with worse outcome. The introduction of thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib has dramatically improved the outlook for patients with MM, but their relative benefit (or harm) for different genetic patient subgroups remains unclear. Unfortunately, the small number of patients in each subgroup frequently limits the analysis of high-risk patients enrolled in clinical trials. Strategies that result in survival of high-risk genetic subgroups approximating that of patients lacking high-risk features are said to overcome the poor prognostic impact of these high-risk features. This outcome has been difficult to achieve, and studies in this regard have so far been limited by inadequate sample size. In contrast, strategies that compare the survival of high-risk genetic subgroups randomized to different treatment arms can identify approaches that improve survival. This type of analysis is clinically useful, even if the absolute gains do not improve outcomes to levels seen in patients without high-risk cytogenetics. Reviewing available data in high-risk MM from this perspective, it appears that bortezomib has frequently been associated with improved survival, whereas thalidomide maintenance has sometimes been associated with a shorter survival.

Abstract Maintaining results of successful induction therapy is an important goal in multiple myeloma. Here, members of the International Myeloma Working Group review the relevant data. Thalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation improved the quality of response and increased progression-free survival (PFS) significantly in all 6 studies and overall survival (OS) in 3 of them. In elderly patients, 2 trials showed a significant prolongation of PFS, but no improvement in OS. A meta-analysis revealed a significant risk reduction for PFS/event-free survival and death. The role of thalidomide maintenance after melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide is not well established. Two trials with lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation and one study after conventional melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction therapy showed a significant risk reduction for PFS and an increase in OS in one of the transplant trials. Maintenance therapy with single-agent bortezomib or in combination with thalidomide or prednisone has been studied. One trial revealed a significantly increased OS with a bortezomib-based induction and bortezomib maintenance therapy compared with conventional induction and thalidomide maintenance treatment. Maintenance treatment can be associated with significant side effects, and none of the drugs evaluated is approved for maintenance therapy. Treatment decisions for individual patients must balance potential benefits and risks carefully, as a widely agreed-on standard is not established.

AbstractThe role of high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve in the novel agent era. The choice of induction therapy has moved from conventional chemotherapy to newer regimens incorporating the immunomodulatory derivatives thalidomide or lenalidomide and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. These drugs combine well with traditional therapies and with one another to form various doublet, triplet, and quadruplet regimens. Up-front use of these induction treatments, in particular 3-drug combinations, has affected unprecedented rates of complete response that rival those previously seen with conventional chemotherapy and subsequent ASCT. Autotransplantation applied after novel-agent-based induction regimens provides further improvement in the depth of response, a gain that translates into extended progression-free survival and, potentially, overall survival. High activity shown by immunomodulatory derivatives and bortezomib before ASCT has recently led to their use as consolidation and maintenance therapies after autotransplantation. Novel agents and ASCT are complementary treatment strategies for MM. This article reviews the current literature and provides important perspectives and guidance on the major issues surrounding the optimal current management of younger, transplantation-eligible MM patients.

AbstractA panel of members of the 2009 International Myeloma Workshop developed guidelines for risk stratification in multiple myeloma. The purpose of risk stratification is not to decide time of therapy but to prognosticate. There is general consensus that risk stratification is applicable to newly diagnosed patients; however, some genetic abnormalities characteristic of poor outcome at diagnosis may suggest poor outcome if only detected at the time of relapse. Thus, in good-risk patients, it is necessary to evaluate for high-risk features at relapse. Although detection of any cytogenetic abnormality is considered to suggest higher-risk disease, the specific abnormalities considered as poor risk are cytogenetically detected chromosomal 13 or 13q deletion, t(4;14) and del17p, and detection by fluorescence in situ hybridization of t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p. Detection of 13q deletion by fluorescence in situ hybridization only, in absence of other abnormalities, is not considered a high-risk feature. High serum β2-microglobulin level and International Staging System stages II and III, incorporating high β2-microglobulin and low albumin, are considered to predict higher risk disease. There was a consensus that the high-risk features will change in the future, with introduction of other new agents or possibly new combinations.

AbstractA panel of members of the 2009 International Myeloma Workshop developed guidelines for standard investigative workup of patients with suspected multiple myeloma. Both serum and urine should be assessed for monoclonal protein. Measurement of monoclonal protein both by densitometer tracing and/by nephelometric quantitation is recommended, and immunofixation is required for confirmation. The serum-free light chain assay is recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with plasma cell dyscrasias. Bone marrow aspiration and/or biopsy along with demonstration of clonality of plasma cells are necessary. Serum β2-microglobulin, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase are necessary for prognostic purposes. Standard metaphase cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization for 17p, t(4;14), and t(14;16) are recommended. The skeletal survey remains the standard method for imaging screening, but magnetic resonance imaging frequently provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. Most of these tests are repeated during follow-up or at relapse.

Abstract It is essential that there be consistency in the conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trial results in myeloma. The goal of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1 was to develop a set of guidelines for the uniform reporting of clinical trial results in myeloma. This paper provides a summary of the current response criteria in myeloma, detailed definitions for patient populations, lines of therapy, and specific endpoints. We propose that future clinical trials in myeloma follow the guidelines for reporting results proposed in this manuscript.