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

Un "vergilianus" nell’Aldilà (per il "Somnium" di Albertino Mussato)

The article deals with a short, almost unknown Latin poem by Albertino Mussato entitled Somnium, which relates the author’s oniric journey into the afterlife. As has already been noted by critics, it is a scholarly exercise in controversy with Dante and linked to classical sources, especially Virgil. The present article defines the position of the text in the tradition of medieval visions of the afterlife: it classifies the descriptive and narrative motifs used by the author, compares them with medieval texts previous or contemporary to Mussato and underlines the hybrid and original solutions provided by the author to this tradition. Although the innovation of the canon of visions of the afterlife does not appear to be Mussato’s priority, it nevertheless provides a curious example of the contamination of the genres and forms of medieval literature.L’articolo si occupa del breve, e pressoché sconosciuto, carme latino di Albertino Mussato intitolato Somnium, il quale racconta il viaggio onirico dell’autore nell’Aldilà. Come è stato già rilevato dalla critica, si tratta di un esercizio erudito in polemica con Dante e legato alle fonti classiche, soprattutto a Virgilio. Il presente articolo intende piuttosto definire la posizione del testo nella tradizione delle visioni medievali dell’Aldilà, ovvero classificare i motivi descrittivi e narrativi usati dall’autore, confrontarli con testi medievali precedenti o contemporanei a Mussato e sottolineare le soluzioni ibride e originali che l’autore apporta alla tradizione. Anche se l’innovazione del canone delle visioni dell’Aldilà non appare come una priorità per Mussato, il carme fornisce comunque un curioso esempio di contaminazione dei generi e delle forme della letteratura medievale

Single and Combined Deletions of the NTAL/LAB and LAT Adaptors Minimally Affect B-Cell Development and Function

NTAL (non-T-cell activation linker, also called LAB) and LAT (linker for activation of T cells) are evolutionarily related transmembrane adaptor proteins that are phosphorylated upon immunoreceptor engagement. Using quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, both NTAL and LAT were found to be expressed in B cells. However, LAT expression was limited to early B cells, whereas NTAL expression typified mature B cells. To delineate their roles in B-cell development and function, Ntal-deficient mice were generated and crossed with Lat-deficient mice. B cells developed in Lat(−/−) Ntal(−/−) double-deficient mice and in mice lacking either of the two adaptors with the same efficiency as in wild-type mice. Upon B-cell antigen receptor cross-linking, Ntal(−/−) B cells exhibited slightly increased Ca(2+) mobilization and proliferation. In addition, Ntal-deficient mice had increased levels of natural antibodies and slightly increased humoral response to a T-dependent antigen. Normal titers of serum-specific immunoglobulins were produced in response to a T-cell-independent antigen. Although NTAL is also expressed in plasma cells, its absence did not affect the hypergammaglobulinemia E and G1 that developed in mice with a mutation in tyrosine 136 of LAT. Therefore, NTAL does not play a role in B cells symmetric to the role played by LAT in T cells

Subcutaneous bortezomib in multiple myeloma patients induces similar therapeutic response rates as intravenous application but it does not reduce the incidence of peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE:Subcutaneous (SC) application of bortezomib has been recently introduced as a new application route in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We performed an analysis to compare the outcomes of bortezomib-based therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated using either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS:During January 2012 through December 2013, we performed a retrospective analysis of 446 patients with MM treated with bortezomib-based regimens (either once weekly - 63% or twice weekly - 27%) in both, the first line setting, and in relapse, with separate analysis of patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. We assessed the response rates and toxicity profiles in both, IV and SC route of bortezomib administration. RESULTS:The response rates in both IV and SC arm were similar with overall response rate 71.7% vs 70.7%, complete remissions in 13.9% vs 8.6%, very good partial remissions in 30.8% vs 34.5% and partial remissions in 27% vs 27.6%. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no significant differences between IV and SC group. There were no significant differences in the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN of any grade was present in 48% in the IV arm and in 41% in the SC arm. PN grade ≥ 2 was present in 20% vs 18% and PN grade ≥ 3 was present in 6% vs 4%. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that subcutaneous application of bortezomib has similar therapeutic outcomes and toxicity profile as intravenous route of application. In our cohort there was no difference in the incidence of PN, suggesting that PN is dose dependent and might be reduced by lower intensity schemes rather than by the route of administration