Allogeneic transplantation in multiple myeloma – How, when or at all?

Allogeneic transplantation (allo) of patients with multiple myeloma is a controversial treatment due to high transplant related mortality (TRM) with myeloablative conditioning before the transplant. However, using reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and previous autologous transplantation (auto) has dramatically reduced TRM. This, in combination with a lower relapse/progression rate, has in two out of six prospective studies resulted in prolongation of both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as compared to auto. No prospective study has proven auto – single or tandem – to be better than the auto/RICallo modality. The rapid development of relatively effective drugs in multiple myeloma has made most centers reluctant to use upfront RICallo. Considering the initial TRM of 12–16% with this treatment, it is now mainly used after progression-relapse following auto. New studies including more effective GVHD prevention and combination of allo with new drugs in the conditioning and as maintenance therapy are ongoing or in planning. Until clear advantageous results have been shown it seems reasonable to use the auto/RICallo procedure mainly in relapsed patients or upfront in patients with poor prognostic parameters such as del17p, del8p or gain 1q. The prospects for long-term survival or perhaps cure for a fraction of patients seem highest following some kind of allo

Phase II Trial of Allogeneic Transplantation Plus Novel Drugs in Multiple Myeloma: Effect of Intensifying Reduced-Intensity Conditioning with Bortezomib and Adding Maintenance Treatment

The use of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens has decreased the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). In contrast, disease relapse remains the most frequent cause of treatment failure and death. Owing to both their antimyeloma effect and immunomodulatory properties, novel drugs could improve outcomes after alloSCT. This phase II European Myeloma Network trial was designed to evaluate the combination of alloSCT with novel agents. The study was conducted to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of RIC intensified with bortezomib (Bz) prior to alloSCT for high-risk (HR) multiple myeloma (MM) patients, as well as the efficacy of post-transplantation maintenance with Bz and lenalidomide (Len). Patients received RIC with Bz on days -9 and -2, fludarabine on days -6 to -4, and melphalan on day -3. Patients who were in complete response (CR) or near CR at day +100 post-transplantation received 6 cycles of Bz every 56 days, and the remaining received Bz, Len, and dexamethasone. Len maintenance was started on day +180 at a dose of 5 mg and continued until relapse or toxicity occurred. Of the 24 patients included, 21 were evaluable on day +100, including 12 in CR, 4 in very good partial response, 3 in partial response, and 2 with relapse or progression. The cumulative incidence (CuI) of relapse was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2% to 31.3%) at 1 year and 28.5% (95% CI, 11.1% to 48.9%) at 2 years. The CuI of NRM was 21.1% (95% CI, 7.4% to 39.4%) at 2 years. With a median follow-up of 39 months (range, 1 to 67 months), the median event-free survival (EFS) was 29 months, and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. EFS and OS at 3 years were 42.5% (95% CI, 21.9% to 61.7%) and 74.01% (95% CI, 50.9% to 87.5%), respectively. The use of Bz within an RIC regimen allows for a high response rate after alloSCT. Maintenance with Bz and Len is feasible and provides remarkable results in terms of EFS and OS in HR MM patients

Efficacy and Outcome of Allogeneic Transplantation in IgD and Nonsecretory Myeloma. A Report on Behalf of the Myeloma Subcommittee of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

AbstractWe have recently reported on the outcome of autologous transplantation in the rare myelomas (IgD, IgE, IgM, and nonsecretory [NS]) but there is no real information on the outcome of these conditions after allogeneic transplantation. We used the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation myeloma database to compare the outcomes after allogeneic transplantation of 1354 common myelomas (IgG, IgA, and light chain myeloma) with the outcome in 26 IgD myelomas and 52 NS myelomas. There was little difference between common and the IgD and NS myeloma patients with respect to prognostic factors although the IgD group had a higher beta 2 microglobulin at diagnosis, shorter time to transplantation, and more T cell depletion. IgD and NS patients had a significantly greater achievement of complete remission at conditioning but this did not translate into equivalent progression-free survival and overall survival for the IgD patients although the NS outcome was very similar to that of common myeloma. The PFS and OS of IgD, common, and NS myelomas appear similar after allogeneic transplantation, despite a tendency for higher early relapse rate in IgD myeloma. Allogeneic transplantation may, therefore, be an option to investigate in prospective observational studies

Primary plasma cell leukemia: consensus definition by the International Myeloma Working Group according to peripheral blood plasma cell percentage

Primary plasma cell leukemia (PCL) has a consistently ominous prognosis, even after progress in the last decades. PCL deserves a prompt identification to start the most effective treatment for this ultra-high-risk disease. The aim of this position paper is to revisit the diagnosis of PCL according to the presence of circulating plasma cells in patients otherwise meeting diagnostic criteria of multiple myeloma. We could identify two retrospective series where the question about what number of circulating plasma cells in peripheral blood should be used for defining PCL. The presence of ?5% circulating plasma cells in patients with MM had a similar adverse prognostic impact as the previously defined PCL. Therefore, PCL should be defined by the presence of 5% or more circulating plasma cells in peripheral blood smears in patients otherwise diagnosed with symptomatic multiple myeloma.Funding: This work has been supported in part by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS PI19/00669), Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and 2017SGR00792 (AGAUR; Generalitat de Catalunya)

Deletion of chromosomal region 8p21 confers resistance to Bortezomib and is associated with upregulated Decoy trail receptor expression in patients with multiple myeloma

Loss of the chromosomal region 8p21 negatively effects survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). In this study, we aimed to identify the immunological and molecular consequences of del(8)(p21) with regards to treatment response and bortezomib resistance. In patients receiving bortezomib as a single first line agent without any high-dose therapy, we have observed that patients with del(8)(p21) responded poorly to bortezomib with 50% showing no response while patients without the deletion had a response rate of 90%. In vitro analysis revealed a higher resistance to bortezomib possibly due to an altered gene expression profile caused by del(8)(p21) including genes such as TRAIL-R4, CCDC25, RHOBTB2, PTK2B, SCARA3, MYC, BCL2 and TP53. Furthermore, while bortezomib sensitized MM cells without del(8)(p21) to TRAIL/APO2L mediated apoptosis, in cells with del(8)(p21) bortezomib failed to upregulate the pro-apoptotic death receptors TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 which are located on the 8p21 region. Also expressing higher levels of the decoy death receptor TRAIL-R4, these cells were largely resistant to TRAIL/APO2L mediated apoptosis. Corroborating the clinical outcome of the patients, our data provides a potential explanation regarding the poor response of MM patients with del(8)(p21) to bortezomib treatment. Furthermore, our clinical analysis suggests that including immunomodulatory agents such as Lenalidomide in the treatment regimen may help to overcome this negative effect, providing an alternative consideration in treatment planning of MM patients with del(8)(p21)

Allogeneic transplantation in multiple myeloma - Does it still have a place?

Novel drugs have improved survival for patients with multiple myeloma in recent years. However, the disease is still fatal. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (Allo) has proven to cure some patients with the disease, but its role is controversial due to relatively high transplant-related toxicity and mortality (nonrelapse mortality, NRM). Using nonmyeloablative reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), both toxicity and NRM can be reduced, and RICAllo is, therefore, an option for subgroups of patients. Upfront tandem autologous/RICAllo (Auto/RICAllo) was shown to be superior to single Auto or tandem Auto/Auto in both progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in two prospective studies with long-term follow-up, while three similarly designed studies did not detect a difference. A recent update of pooled patient data from four of these studies showed significantly superior PFS and OS with Auto/RICAllo. Importantly, none of these studies showed inferior results with Auto/RICAllo in patients less than 70 years of age. Auto/RICAllo appears to overcome some poor risk cytogenetic markers. Encouraging results have also been seen in treatment of relapsed patients. Combining Allo with new proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs may further improve results. Other encouraging new cell therapies such as with CAR T-cells, NK- and CAR NK-cells may well have a place in combination with RICAllo. Such studies are warranted

Reduced-intensity conditioning for myeloma: lower nonrelapse mortality but higher relapse rates compared with myeloablative conditioning

: Despite the widespread adoption of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) for myeloma, there are few data comparing outcomes with RIC with myeloablative conditioning (MAC). We report the outcomes of patients undergoing allogeneic transplantations for myeloma and reported to the EBMT. A minimum data set was available on 320 RIC and 196 MAC allografts performed between 1998 and 2002. The RIC patients were older (51 vs 45 years) with more progressive disease (28% vs 21%) and more had received a prior transplant (76% vs 11%). In addition, there was a longer time to transplantation and an increased use of peripheral blood and T-cell depletion. For RIC and MAC, respectively, the nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 2 years was 24% and 37% (P = .002); overall survival, 38.1% and 50.8% (not significant [ns]); and progression-free survival (PFS), 18.9% and 34.5% (P = .001). On multivariate analysis, RIC was associated with a reduction in NRM (HR, 0.5), but this was offset by an increase in relapse risk (HR, 2.0), and the conditioning intensity did not impact on overall survival or retain significance for PFS. These data suggest that there is a continuing need to investigate dose intensity in the conditioning for myeloma allografts

Infectious complications and NK cell depletion following daratumumab treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

Treatment with Daratumumab (Dara), a monoclonal anti-CD38 antibody of IgG1 subtype, is effective in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, Dara also impairs the cellular immunity, which in turn may lead to higher susceptibility to infections. The exact link between immune impairment and infectious complications is unclear. In this study, we report that nine out of 23 patients (39%) with progressive MM had infectious complications after Dara treatment. Five of these patients had viral infections, two developed with bacterial infections and two with both bacterial and viral infections. Two of the viral infections were exogenous, i.e. acute respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human metapneumovirus (hMPV), while five consisted of reactivations, i.e. one herpes simplex (HSV), 1 varicella-zoster (VZV) and three cytomegalovirus (CMV). Infections were solely seen in patients with partial response or worse. Assessment of circulating lymphocytes indicated a selective depletion of NK cells and viral reactivation after Dara treatment, however this finding does not exclude the multiple components of viral immune-surveillance that may get disabled during this monoclonal treatment in this patient cohort. These results suggest that the use of antiviral and antibacterial prophylaxis and screening of the patients should be considered