Prognostic Value of Hepatocyte Growth Factor, Syndecan-1, and Osteopontin in Multiple Myeloma and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance

Our aim was to compare serum levels of selected biological parameters in different phases of multiple myeloma (MM) and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) to determine their diagnostic and prognostic potential. A cohort of 234 individuals was assessed for serum levels of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), syndecan-1/CD138 (SYN), and osteopontin (OPN). The patients with MM (N = 156) were divided into 3 groups: at the time of diagnosis (N = 45), in relapse/progression (N = 56), and in remission (N = 50). The analysis revealed significant differences of all three parameters in comparison of active and remission phase MM. Moreover, the parameters in active myeloma were significantly higher than in MGUS. Within the comparison of active disease (newly diagnosed and relapsing), there was no significant difference. Similar results were in remission phase MM and MGUS. There was no relationship of pretreatment levels of the parameters to therapeutic response. We conclude that serum levels of HGF, OPN, and SYN correspond to the activity of MM and might become useful in differentiation of MGUS, asymptomatic MM, and overt/symptomatic form of MM. The levels of all three parameters behave accordingly with MM activity. Pretreatment measurement without the assessment of their kinetics, however, has no relationship to therapeutic response

Personalised progression prediction in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma (PANGEA): a retrospective, multicohort study

BACKGROUND: Patients with precursors to multiple myeloma are dichotomised as having monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma on the basis of monoclonal protein concentrations or bone marrow plasma cell percentage. Current risk stratifications use laboratory measurements at diagnosis and do not incorporate time-varying biomarkers. Our goal was to develop a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smouldering multiple myeloma stratification algorithm that utilised accessible, time-varying biomarkers to model risk of progression to multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicohort study, we included patients who were 18 years or older with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma. We evaluated several modelling approaches for predicting disease progression to multiple myeloma using a training cohort (with patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; annotated from Nov, 13, 2019, to April, 13, 2022). We created the PANGEA models, which used data on biomarkers (monoclonal protein concentration, free light chain ratio, age, creatinine concentration, and bone marrow plasma cell percentage) and haemoglobin trajectories from medical records to predict progression from precursor disease to multiple myeloma. The models were validated in two independent validation cohorts from National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Athens, Greece; from Jan 26, 2020, to Feb 7, 2022; validation cohort 1), University College London (London, UK; from June 9, 2020, to April 10, 2022; validation cohort 1), and Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (Czech Republic, Czech Republic; Jan 5, 2004, to March 10, 2022; validation cohort 2). We compared the PANGEA models (with bone marrow [BM] data and without bone marrow [no BM] data) to current criteria (International Myeloma Working Group [IMWG] monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 20/2/20 smouldering multiple myeloma risk criteria). FINDINGS: We included 6441 patients, 4931 (77%) with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and 1510 (23%) with smouldering multiple myeloma. 3430 (53%) of 6441 participants were female. The PANGEA model (BM) improved prediction of progression from smouldering multiple myeloma to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model, with a C-statistic increase from 0·533 (0·480-0·709) to 0·756 (0·629-0·785) at patient visit 1 to the clinic, 0·613 (0·504-0·704) to 0·720 (0·592-0·775) at visit 2, and 0·637 (0·386-0·841) to 0·756 (0·547-0·830) at visit three in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA model (no BM) improved prediction of smouldering multiple myeloma progression to multiple myeloma compared with the 20/2/20 model with a C-statistic increase from 0·534 (0·501-0·672) to 0·692 (0·614-0·736) at visit 1, 0·573 (0·518-0·647) to 0·693 (0·605-0·734) at visit 2, and 0·560 (0·497-0·645) to 0·692 (0·570-0·708) at visit 3 in validation cohort 1. The PANGEA models improved prediction of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance progression to multiple myeloma compared with the IMWG rolling model at visit 1 in validation cohort 2, with C-statistics increases from 0·640 (0·518-0·718) to 0·729 (0·643-0·941) for the PANGEA model (BM) and 0·670 (0·523-0·729) to 0·879 (0·586-0·938) for the PANGEA model (no BM). INTERPRETATION: Use of the PANGEA models in clinical practice will allow patients with precursor disease to receive more accurate measures of their risk of progression to multiple myeloma, thus prompting for more appropriate treatment strategies. FUNDING: SU2C Dream Team and Cancer Research UK

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0–2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60–72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61–72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2–5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4–22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1–23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1–25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0–25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1–31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8–23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85–1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). Interpretation Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Oncopeptides ABPeer reviewe

Clinical implication of centrosome amplification and expression of centrosomal functional genes in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a low proliferative tumor of postgerminal center plasma cell (PC). Centrosome amplification (CA) is supposed to be one of the mechanisms leading to chromosomal instability. Also, CA is associated with deregulation of cell cycle, mitosis, DNA repair and proliferation. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic significance and possible role of CA in pathogenesis and analysis of mitotic genes as mitotic disruption markers. DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 173 patients were evaluated for this study. CD138+ cells were separated by MACS. Immunofluorescent labeling of centrin was used for evaluation of centrosome amplification in PCs. Interphase FISH with cytoplasmic immunoglobulin light chain staining (cIg FISH) and qRT-PCR were performed on PCs. RESULTS: Based on the immunofluorescent staining results, all patients were divided into two groups: CA positive (38.2%) and CA negative (61.8%). Among the newly diagnosed patients, worse overall survival was indicated in the CA negative group (44/74) in comparison to the CA positive group (30/74) (P = 0.019). Gene expression was significantly down-regulated in the CA positive group in comparison to CA negative in the following genes: AURKB, PLK4, TUBG1 (P < 0.05). Gene expression was significantly down-regulated in newly diagnosed in comparison to relapsed patients in the following genes: AURKA, AURKB, CCNB1, CCNB2, CETN2, HMMR, PLK4, PCNT, and TACC3 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate better prognosis for CA positive newly diagnosed patients. Considering revealed clinical and gene expression heterogeneity between CA negative and CA positive patients, there is a possibility to characterize centrosome amplification as a notable event in multiple myeloma pathogenesis

Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study

Abstract Background In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established. Methods This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs. Results The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings. Conclusions The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391. Registered 2 March 2010

Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study

Background: In ASPIRE, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Per protocol, patients received KRd for a maximum of 18 cycles followed by Rd to progression, so the benefit/risk profile of KRd to progression was not established. Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of KRd versus Rd at 18 months from randomization. Cumulative rates of complete response (CR) or better over time and PFS hazard ratio (HR) at 18 months were evaluated for KRd versus Rd. PFS HRs were also assessed according to cytogenetic risk, prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib treatment. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate PFS HRs. Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS at 18 months was 0.58 versus 0.69 for the overall ASPIRE study. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics, ≥ 1 prior lines of therapy, and prior bortezomib exposure benefited from KRd up to 18 months versus Rd. The HRs for PFS at 18 months in the pre-defined subgroups were lower than those in the overall study. The difference in the proportion of KRd and Rd patients achieving at least a complete response (CR) increased dramatically over the first 18 months and then remained relatively constant. The safety profile at 18 months was consistent with previous findings. Conclusions: The improved PFS HR at 18 months and the continued increase in CR rates for KRd through 18 cycles suggest that there may be a benefit of continued carfilzomib treatment. Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov NCT01080391. Registered 2 March 2010. © 2018 The Author(s)