Citations

Abstract Introduction: For decades conventional skeletal survey (CSS) has been the standard imaging technique for the detection of bone impairment caused by Multiple Myeloma (MM). The development of cross-sectional imaging techniques like Whole Body Computed Tomography (WBCT) with or without Positron Emission Tomography (PET/PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) led to the use of these techniques in several centers worldwide and to the implementation of their findings into the revised diagnostic criteria of MM. The aim of the current multicenter study was to compare sensitivity and prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS in patients with monoclonal plasma disorders. Methods: For the current retrospective analysis 308 patients with different stages of monoclonal plasma cell disorders from 8 centers were included. Compact discs with pseudonymized imaging data of WBCT and CSS were sent to the organizing center and uploaded to the picture archiving and communication system. In addition, questionnaires were completed by each center to collect clinical data of the patients. Image analysis was performed in consensus reading by three experienced radiologists (LAM, SD, VK) blinded to the clinical data of the patients. Osteolytic lesions in 19 pre-specified anatomic regions were characterized as "definitely present", "probably present", "probably absent" and "definitely absent". For the analysis only "definitely present" and "probably present" entries were counted as myeloma lesions. To define symptomatic or active versus smoldering myeloma based on the presence of bone lesions, findings of CSS were used to simulate the situation before the introduction of WBCT. For comparison of WBCT and CSS only those anatomic regions having valid measurements from both methods performed within 30 days without treatment in the meantime were considered. WBCT and CSS were tested for differences in detection sensitivity with the exact McNemar test. Results: Of 308 submitted datasets; 160 patients were without prior treatment and 56 of them had smoldering myeloma. Of 160 patients 80 (50%) had no osteolytic lesions on either CSS or WBCT and 33 (20.6%) showed osteolyses on both techniques. In 9 patients (5.6%) osteolyses were found on CSS but not in WBCT while 38 patients (23.8%) were positive on CT alone. Of note is that for some CT-scans, the upper extremities were not evaluable due to positioning during the examination. Odds ratio for osteolyses on WBCT compared to CSS was 4.22 (P < 0.0001). The regions where WBCT was most significantly superior in detecting osteolyses were the iliac bone, thoracic and lumbar spine as well as the ribs. CSS compared to WBCT revealed osteolyses in more patients only in the proximal extremities: for left humerus 10 (6.5%) versus 3 (1.9%), right humerus 12 (7.7%) versus 4 (2.6%), left femur 11 (7.1%) versus 7 (4.5%) and right femur 10 (6.5%) versus 8 (5.2%) respectively. Of 157 evaluable patients 63 (40.1%) showed osteoporosis (defined by radiological criteria) on both techniques while 29 (18.5%) had osteoporosis on WBCT only and 10 (6.4%) on CSS only (OR 2.90, P = 0.003). In the 56 patients with smoldering myeloma, with bone disease being defined according to the findings of CSS 12 (21.4%), were positive for osteolyses on WBCT (P = 0.0005). Conclusion: WBCT shows significantly more sites of bone destruction compared to conventional X-ray imaging particularly in skeletal regions composed primarily of trabecular bone while CSS shows more osteolyses in the appendicular skeleton - in part due to a limited field of view. More than 20% of patients with smoldering myeloma based on CSS have active disease that needs treatment based on WBCT. Therefore, WBCT is the current standard for the detection of osteolytic lesions in myeloma. The prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS findings for survival and correlation with clinical parameters will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Hillengass: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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. Goldschmidt:Janssen: 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, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Terpos:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 3661 Objective: We conducted this trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and schedule of temsirolimus added to an established regimen comprised of rituximab and cladribine for the initial treatment of mantle cell lymphoma and to generate preliminary information on the toxicity and efficacy of this combination. Methods: A standard phase I cohort of 3 study design was utilized. MTD was defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients (at least 2 of a maximum of 6 new patients). DLT was defined as grade 4 ANC (<500) for ≥5 days, grade 4 ANC (<500) associated with fever (>100.5 F) and/or active infection, PLT <25,000, grade 4 infection, or ≥grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity during the first cycle of therapy as per NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. The fixed doses of rituximab and cladribine were 375 mg/m2 IV day 1 and 5 mg/m2/d IV days 1–5 of a 28 day cycle, respectively, as previously published. There were 5 planned temsirolimus IV dose levels: 15 mg day 1; 25 mg day 1; 25 mg days 1 and 15; 25 mg days 1,8 and 15; and 25 mg days 1,8,15, and 22. The fifth dose level is as previously published in combination with rituximab. Results: A total of 17 patients were treated: 3 each at dose levels 1–4 and 5 at dose level 5 (25 mg temsirolimus days 1,8,15, and 22). The median age was 75 years (52–86). There were 11 males and 6 females. At presentation 88% had stage IV disease, and 94% had extranodal disease. MIPI scores were low in 6% (1 patient), intermediate in 59% (10 patients), and high in 35% (6 patients). There was a single DLT recorded at dose level 3 based on the initial DLT criteria, though this cytokine release syndrome was clearly rituximab related, and occurred prior to the first dose of temsirolimus. Five patients were treated at the highest planned temsirolimus dose level (25 mg days 1,8,15, and 22) with no DLT observed. No further dose escalation was planned, and this level was determined to be tolerated, though higher levels may be tolerable. All patients were evaluable for adverse events. Hematologic toxicity was frequent, with grade 3 anemia in 12% of patients, grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 35%, grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 30%, grade 4 lymphopenia in 47%, grade 3 neutropenia in 24%, and grade 4 neutropenia in 18% of patients. There were 3 thrombotic episodes, 2 of which were attributed to therapy, and 3 episodes of pneumonitis. The overall response rate was 94% with 53% CR and 41% PR. The median progression free survival was 18.7 months. Conclusions: Temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly may be safely added to rituximab and cladribine at 375 mg/m2 IV day 1 and 5 mg/m2/d IV days 1–5 of a 28 day cycle, respectively. This regimen had promising preliminary activity in an elderly cohort of patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Temsirolimus for mantle cell lymphoma.

ABSTRACT Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

AbstractBoth cancer and therapies used in the treatment of cancer can have significant deleterious effects on the skeleton, increasing the risks for both bone loss and fracture development. While advancements in cancer therapies have resulted in enhanced cancer survivorship for patients with many types of malignancies, it is increasingly recognized that efforts to reduce bone loss and limit fractures must be considered for nearly all patients undergoing cancer therapy in order to diminish the anticipated future skeletal consequences. To date, most studies examining the impact of cancer therapies on skeletal outcomes have focused on endocrine‐associated cancers of the breast and prostate, with more recent advances in our understanding of bone loss and fracture risk in other malignancies. Pharmacologic efforts to limit the adverse effects of cancer therapies on bone have nearly universally employed anti‐resorptive approaches, although studies have frequently relied on surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers, rather than on fractures or other skeletal‐related events, as primary study endpoints. Compounding current deficiencies for the provision of optimal care is the recognition that despite clearly written and straightforward society‐based guidelines, vulnerable eligible patients are very often neither identified nor provided with appropriate treatments to limit the skeletal impact of their cancer therapies.

The biological effects of the bisphosphonates (BPs) as inhibitors of calcification and bone resorption were first described in the late 1960s. In the 50 years that have elapsed since then, the BPs have become the leading drugs for the treatment of skeletal disorders characterized by increased bone resorption, including Paget's disease of bone, bone metastases, multiple myeloma, osteoporosis and several childhood inherited disorders. The discovery and development of the BPs as a major class of drugs for the treatment of bone diseases is a paradigm for the successful journey from “bench to bedside and back again”. Several of the leading BPs achieved “blockbuster” status as branded drugs. However, these BPs have now come to the end of their patent life, making them highly affordable. The opportunity for new clinical applications for BPs also exists in other areas of medicine such as ageing, cardiovascular disease and radiation protection. Their use as inexpensive generic medicines is therefore likely to continue for many years to come. Fifty years of research into the pharmacology of bisphosphonates have led to a fairly good understanding about how these drugs work and how they can be used safely in patients with metabolic bone diseases. However, while we seemingly know much about these drugs, a number of key aspects related to BP distribution and action remain incompletely understood. This review summarizes the existing knowledge of the (pre)clinical and translational pharmacology of BPs, and highlights areas in which understanding is lacking.