Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) By Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Is Highly Predictive of Progression Free Survival in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial

Abstract Evaluation of MRD in multiple myeloma (MM) is becoming an important trial endpoint, especially in young patients. With current intensive approaches, the complete remission (CR) rates are up to 70%, making conventional evaluations of response quite useless. More sensitive tools are mandatory. Two techniques may help investigators to reach this goal, flow cytometry (FCM) and NGS. We applied both techniques to the IFM part of the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Briefly, this trial enrolled 700 patients under 66 years of age who were randomized to receive either 8 cycles of VRD (Velcade®-Revlimid®-Dexamethasone) (arm A), or 3 VRD cycles, high-dose melphalan, followed by two consolidation VRD cycles (arm B). All patients received a lenalidomide maintenance for 12 months. A bone marrow MRD evaluation was planned before and after maintenance for all patients achieving at least very good partial response (VGPR). A one-mL bone marrow aspirate was sent overnight to one of the central labs. The primary purpose was to assess MRD by FCM. When extra cells were available, they were frozen as a dry pellet for NGS analyses, using the LymphoSight® platform (Sequenta/Adaptive Inc.). A total of 246 patients have been evaluated by NGS before maintenance and 178 after maintenance. Patients were classified in 3 categories: negative (< 10-6), low-positive (between 10-4 and 10-6), and positive (> 10-4). At pre-maintenance, 87 patients were negative, 80 were low-positive, and 79 were positive. At post-maintenance, these numbers were respectively 86, 52, and 40. Using a cutoff at 10-6, patients below 10-6 at pre-maintenance presented a 3-year PFS at 83%, vs 53% for patients > 10-6. At post-maintenance, these % were 90% and 59% respectively. When restricted to patients in CR, the 3-year PFS was 87% and 63% at pre-maintenance, and 92% and 64% at post-maintenance (Figure). Finally, we compared the two MRD techniques. Using a 7-color FCM strategy, the sensitivity level was 10-4. Amongst the 163 patients negative with the FCM approach, 84 (51 %) patients were positive using NGS and among 72 patients positive with FCM, 67 (93%) were also positive using NGS. In the subgroup of patients with negative MRD using FCM, the 3 year PFS was 86% for NGS negative patients vs 66 % for NGS positive at pre-maintenance and 91% vs 65% at post maintenance. Looking at high-risk patients, 26 patients with t(4;14), and 16 with del(17p) were evaluated. Half of the t(4;14) patients achieved MRD negativity, versus only 1/16 patients with del(17p). Interestingly, 9/13 patients with t(4;14) who achieved MRD negativity, and 0/1 patients with del(17p) did not relapse, showing the importance of achieving deep response in these high-risk patients. In conclusion, this study clearly demonstrates that a sensitive technique like NGS is able to predict PFS in patients treated with modern approaches. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Avet-Loiseau: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hulin:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arnulf:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Karlin:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. MACRO:millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Faham:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Facon:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Takeda: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard. Attal:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

ABVD Versus Escalated Beacopp in Advanced Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results from a Retrospective, Multicenter European Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128198 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1565-1565 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Patrizia Mondello ◽

Irene Dogliotti ◽

Jan-Paul Bohn ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Simone Ferrero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with >90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= <0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS <3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Revised-MALT-IPI: A New Predictive Model That Identifies High-Risk Patients with Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma (EMZL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-125008 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4010-4010

Author(s):

Juan Pablo Alderuccio ◽

Isildinha M Reis ◽

Thomas M. Habermann ◽

Brian K. Link ◽

Catherine Thieblemont ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Family Member ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Risk Score ◽

Research Funding ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Disease Characteristics ◽

Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION: EMZL is a heterogeneous disease with variable risk for relapse and progression. Based on age ≥70 years, stage III-IV and elevated LDH, Thieblemont et al (Blood. 2017) developed the MALT-IPI to identify high-risk patients. In this index, disease characteristics (stage and LDH) account for 66% while a disease nonspecific characteristic (age) for 33% of the index score. We reported (Am J Hematol. 2019) that EMZL with multiple mucosal sites (MMS) at diagnosis is characterized by shorter survival and increased incidence of higher grade transformation. To better recognize disease-attributable high-risk patients, we developed a new EMZL prognosis score chiefly based on patient's disease characteristics. METHODS: The revised (R)-MALT-IPI was developed using a retrospective data set of 405 EMZL patients treated at the University of Miami (UM) from 1995 to 2017. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the potential prognostic variables on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and to develop the new index R-MALTI-IPI based on PFS. Model validation was performed in two independent cohorts of EMZL patients from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) database (n=297) and the IELSG-19 study (n=400) used for the development of MALT-IPI. Performance of various prognostic indices was compared using AIC statistics, and concordance c-statistics by Harrell (CH) and by Gonen and Heller (CGH). RESULTS: Among the candidate variables tested in univariable analysis, the following were statistically significant predictors of shorter PFS: age >60, age ≥70, anemia (Hb<12g/dL), stage III-IV, ECOG PS ≥2, elevated serum LDH, number of extranodal sites >1, number of nodal sites >4, and presence of MMS at diagnosis, defined as EMZL with ≥2 different extranodal sites excluding spleen and bone marrow. A stepwise Cox regression analysis yielded a multivariable model with four independent predictors of shorter PFS: age >60 (HR=1.53, p=0.010), elevated LDH (HR=1.73, p=0.004), stage III-IV (HR=2.03, p=0.0003) and presence of MMS (HR=2.78, p<0.0001). Based on this, a new index R-MALT-IPI was developed with scores ranging from 0 to 5, calculated as a sum of 1 point for age >60, elevated LDH, stage III-IV, and 2 points for MMS. The R-MALT-IPI defined 4 risk groups: low-risk (score 0 (35%), reference group), low-medium risk (score 1 (39%), HR=1.91, p=0.005), medium-high risk (score 2 (13%), HR=3.77, p<0.0001), and high-risk (score 3+ (13%), HR=8.54, p<0.0001). When compared with MALT-IPI, R-MALT-IPI better stratifies and separates high risk patients (26%) into medium-high risk and high-risk patients with a median PFS of 5.8 years (2.9-9.1) and 1.8 years (1.3-2.6) respectively, compared to 2.6 years (1.8-4.7) in the high-risk MALT-IPI patients (16.8%). The R-MALT-IPI index also distinguished patients with different OS. For validation, we analyzed R-MALT-IPI index performance in independent Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER and IELSG-19 cohorts. Both R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI were useful in distinguishing PFS and OS in all the cohorts. In the UM training cohort, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were similar: for PFS, CH=0.6893 and CGH=0.6611 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.6551 and CGH=0.6367 for MALT-IPI; for OS, CH=0.7017 and CGH=0.6813 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.7029 and CGH=0.67715 for MALT-IPI. In the validation cohorts, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were also similar, but slightly lower than in the UM cohort for PFS. When comparing medium-high to high-risk R-MALT-IPI groups, there was a reduction of 4 years in median PFS in the UM cohort, and reduction in median EFS of 5.6 years in the MER cohort, an important difference between these risk groups identified by the R-MALT-IPI index. CONCLUSIONS: R-MALT-IPI is a new index for EMZL centered principally on disease characteristics. Overall, there is a similar prediction of PFS (EFS) by R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI indexes; however, R-MALT-IPI better recognizes a high-risk group accounting for 13% of EMZL patients with short median PFS and thus obviates the waiting period needed to recognize patients with shorter EFS24. Collaborative studies addressing best treatment approach for these high-risk EMZL patients are eagerly needed. Disclosures Alderuccio: Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member; OncLive: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member. Thieblemont:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Zucca:Kite, A Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant, Research Funding; AstraZenaca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celltrion Helathcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: Travel Grant. Lossos:NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Heavy and Light Chain Monitoring in High Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Patients Included in the GEM-CESAR Trial: Comparison with Conventional and Minimal Residual Disease IMWG Response Assessment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128655 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1852-1852

Author(s):

Noemi Puig ◽

Teresa Contreras ◽

Bruno Paiva ◽

María Teresa Cedena ◽

José J Pérez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Bone Marrow ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Response Assessment ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Minimal Residual

Introduction: The GEM-CESAR trial is a potentially curative strategy for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (HRsMM) patients (pts) in which the primary endpoint is the achievement of bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. However, other methods of disease evaluation in serum such as heavy+light chain (HLC) assessment, with a potential complementary value to the IMWG response criteria, have also been tested. Aim: To evaluate the performance of HLC assay in HRsMM pts at diagnosis and after consolidation, comparing the results with standard serological methods and Next Generation Flow (NGF) for the assessment of bone marrow MRD. Patients and Methods: Ninety HRsMM pts included in the GEM-CESAR trial received six 4-weeks cycles of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by high dose melphalan and 2 further cycles of consolidation with the same regimen. All pts received maintenance treatment with lenalidomide for up to 2 years. SPEP and IFE were performed using standard procedures. Serum IgGk, IgGl, IgAk and IgAl HLC concentrations were measured using Hevylite (The Binding Site Group Ltd, Birmingham, UK) on a SPA PLUS turbidimeter. HLC concentrations and ratios were considered abnormal if they were outside the 95% reference ranges provided by the manufacturer. MRD was analyzed by flow cytometry following EuroFlow recommendations (sensitivity, 2x10-6). Standard response assignment was carried out as per the IMWG guidelines. Hevylite responses were assigned and HLC-pair suppression was defined as in Michalet et al (Leukemia 2018). Results: Out of 90 HRsMM pts, 75 had monoclonal intact immunoglobulin and samples available at diagnosis (50 IgG and 25 IgA). HLC ratio was abnormal in 98% of IgG pts and in 100% of IgA pts. Response assessment by Hevylite and standard IMWG criteria were available in 62 pts post-consolidation (Table 1). A good agreement was found between the two methods (kappa quadratic weighting = 0,6327 (0,4016 - 0,8638)). Among 46 pts with assigned CR as per the IMWG response criteria, there were 3 and 8 pts in PR and VGPR according to the Hevylite method, respectively. In 62 cases, paired Hevylite and MRD assessment data were available. Concordant results were found in 72.5% of cases (45/62; HLC+/NGF+ in 15 and HLC-/NGF- in 30 cases) while in the remaining 27.4% of cases results were discordant (17/62; HLC-/NGF+ in 6 and HLC+/NGF- in 11 cases). Post-consolidation, 24, 25.8 and 42.3% of the 62 samples were positive by SPEP, NGF and Hevylite, respectively. HLC-pair suppression was identified in 13/62 pts; 10 had severe HLC-pair suppression at the end of consolidation. After a median follow-up of 32 months (8-128), 93% of pts remain alive and progression-free. Three patients that have already progressed had their responses assessed post-consolidation. The first pt was assigned VGPR by the standard IMWG criteria and PR by Hevylite and was MRD positive by NGF; the second pt was assigned CR by IMWG criteria and Hevylite but had severe HLC-pair immunosuppression and was MRD positive by NGF; the third pt was in CR by IMWG and HLC criteria and was MRD positive by MFC. Conclusions: Moderate agreement was found between response assessment by Hevylite and the standard IMWG methods as well as between Hevylite and MRD assessment by NGF. Most discordances were a result of Hevylite detecting disease in samples negative by the standard methods, but longer follow-up is needed to ascertain its clinical value. HLC assessment could have anticipated the progression noted in 2 (out of 3) patients. Disclosures Puig: Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; The Binding Site: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda: Consultancy. Rodriguez Otero:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Oriol:Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Jansse: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. De Arriba:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Ocio:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Irctures: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Tumor Mirna Profiling Predicts Molecular Relapse in Mantle Cell Lymphoma Patients Prospectively Followed for Minimal Residual Disease. Results from the Nordic MCL2-3 Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.2994.2994 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 2994-2994

Author(s):

Simon Husby ◽

Lone Bredo Pedersen ◽

Ulrik Ralfkiær ◽

Christian Garde ◽

Sara Ek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mantle Cell ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Minimal Residual

Abstract Background Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a subtype of non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma (NHL) with a variable but often aggressive clinical course. The majority of MCL patients ≤65 years will experience clinical relapse during a 10-year period (Geisler et al. Br J Haematol 2012). Risk-stratification is therefore of great importance in order to identify patients who are eligible for novel or alternative treatment regimens. Minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring can predict clinical progression in MCL and guide pre-emptive treatment with rituximab as single agent. It has thus far not been possible to predict post-treatment molecular relapse (MRD-positivity). Although some recent studies have shown that aberrant miRNA expression delineate pathogenic molecular pathways and predict survival in MCL patients, miRNA profiling has not been performed in the context of MRD and molecular relapse. Aims We assessed MCL miRNA expression, in a large, prospective, uniformly treated patient cohort followed with molecular markers for MRD to determine if miRNAs could predict molecular relapse. Methods Diagnostic MCL tumor samples from 114 patients in the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 clinical trials were retrieved. All patients had confirmed CyclinD1 overexpression and 96 patients had Ki-67 expression measurement for use in the MIPI-B predictive score. All patients received almost identical induction treatment with six alternating cycles of maxi-CHOP and high-dose Ara-C in combination with rituximab. Patients in remission were consolidated with high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. All patients had a molecular marker (PCR detectable t(11;14) or clonal IgH rearrangement) for MRD. The median follow-up was 6.4 years for the MCL2 cohort and 3.7 years for the MCL3 cohort. 19 miRNAs, previously found to have prognostic significance in MCL (Husby et al EHA 2014), were measured by qRT-PCR and analyzed in concordance with MRD-data. The main endpoint was first event of molecular relapse (MRD-positive sample). Results Of the 114 patients in the study, 71 (62%) patients became MRD-positive in the follow-up period. Of the 19 examined miRNAs, 10 miRNAs showed unique qPCR melting curves and were analyzed with respect to MRD. Four miRNAs (miR-92a, miR-3687, miR-486-5p and miR-185-5p) were significantly up-regulated in patients who had molecular relapse (t-test; respectively p = 0.010, p = 0.019, p = 0.048, p = 0.043). However miR-18b, previously identified as prognostic marker regarding survival, was not significantly overexpressed. We hereafter investigated if a newly derived prognostic score, the MIPI-B-miR, which incorporates miR-18b with the MIPI-B, could predict molecular relapse. The MIPI-B-miR high-risk patients had significantly shorter time to first molecular relapse than MIPI-B high-risk patients (Figure 1). Functional studies of these aberrantly expressed miRs are ongoing. Conclusion Patients with molecular relapse had significantly increased levels of miR-92a, miR-3687, miR-486-5p and miR-185-5p, and MIPI-B-miR improved MRD prediction compared to MIPI-B. Aberrant miRNA profiles may be able to predict molecular relapse, and may already at diagnosis identify patients eligible to anti-CD20 antibody maintenance or alternative regimens. However validation in other cohorts is needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kolstad: Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Räty:GlaxoSmithKline Ltd: Honoraria; Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Cytogenetic Stratifications in Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-120225 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1763-1763

Author(s):

Lucia Masarova ◽

Prithviraj Bose ◽

Naveen Pemmaraju ◽

Zeev E. Estrov ◽

Lingsha Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chromosome 1 ◽

Trisomy 8 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Single Deletion ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Very High

Abstract Introduction: The revised cytogenetic risk stratification of patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) divided patients into 3 prognostic categories, with additional new category of very high risk patients (VHR). This score should enhance traditional classification incorporated in the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System-Plus (DIPPS-Plus). Objective: To evaluate the prognostic utility of cytogenetic stratifications (DIPSS-Plus and the revised cytogenetic model) in patients with PMF referred to our institution between 1984 and 2016. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 883 patients with PMF with available cytogenetic analysis at the time of referral to our institution (> 10 metaphases). Cytogenetic was reported according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Patients were classified into cytogenetic risks based on DIPSS-Plus (Gangat, JCO, 2011), and the revised cytogenetic model (Tefferi, Leukemia, 2017). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared by the log rank test. Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on OS was also evaluated by comparing them against patients with diploid karyotype using stepwise Cox regression. Results: Median age was 66 years (range, 27-88), and 64% of patients were male. The distribution of DIPSS scores was as follows: 8% low, 48% intermediate 1, 44% intermediate 2 and 14% high. OS in each DIPSS category was 53, 46, 26, 15 months (p<0.001). The JAK2, MPL and CALR mutation was present in 55% (n=486), 6% (n=50), and 7% (n=64). Overall, 563 (64%) patients had diploid karyotype. The most frequent abnormal karyotypes were single 20q- (n=68, 8%), single 13q- (n=40, 4.5%), and ≥3 abnormalities (Abn; complex karyotype, CK, n=52, 6%). Among patients with CK, 27 (52%) pts had VHR Abn. After a median follow-up of 22.4 months (range, 0.5-251); 708 (80%) of patients died. Eighty five patients (10%) developed acute leukemia, 39% of these patients had CK. According to DIPSS-plus, patients were stratified into favorable (FAV, n=758, 86%) and unfavorable (UNF, n=126, 14%) category with distinct median OS of 35 months (range, 31-39), and 17 months (range, 11.6-22), p < 0.001 (HR 1.37, [95% CI 1.11-1.7]). Three year OS was 49% and 32%, respectively (Figure 1a). The revised cytogenetic stratification classified patients into favorable (n=687, 78%), unfavorable (n=151, 17%), and VHR (n=47, 5%) with respective OS of 35, 32 and 10 months (overall p<0.001, FAV vs UNF p= 0.8; Figure 1b); similar between patients in favorable and unfavorable groups. Three year OS for each group was 49%, 46% and 12%, respectively. OS of patients with individual cytogenetics (as used in the revised classification) is depicted in Table. Patients with single deletion 13q have significantly inferior OS than the remaining patients in FAV group. Patients with sole abnormality of chromosome 1 and trisomy 9 had the longest OS within the FAV group, but without reaching a statistical significance. Similarly, patients with sole trisomy 8, sole deletion 7q/5q, and other sole Abn not included elsewhere, had inferior OS when compared to the remaining patients in UNF group (Table 1). After re-grouping patients with different OS from FAV and UNF groups, we have noticed an intermediate group of patients containing the above mentioned Abn with distinctly different OS from FAV and UNF group of 24 months (range, 14.5-33; Figure 1c). Conclusions: Results from our cohort of 883 PMF patients did not confirm better discriminatory power of revised cytogenetic stratification model when compared to the DIPSS-Plus, as it failed to differentiate different OS between favorable and unfavorable groups. In our cohort, patients with single deletion 13q, single trisomy 8, and abnormalities of 5q/7q have superior OS to very high risk patients, but inferior to all remaining patients. Because the revised cytogenetic stratification has been already incorporated into newer complex molecular prognostic models of patients with PMF (MIPSSversion2.0, GIPSS), its further validation is warranted. Table Abbr.: Chr, chromosome, del, deletion, DUP, duplication, transl, translocation, excl, excluding; ¥OTHER solo: INV(9) in [3], Abn chr. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 (mostly deletion of p/q arms, or addition) [7]; VHR = very high risk (-7; inv(3)/3q21; i(17q); 12p-/12p11.2; 11q-/11q23; autosomal trisomies excl. +8/+9). Disclosures Bose: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:plexxikon: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Novartis: 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; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Melphalan/Prednisone/Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients <65 Years: Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3069.3069 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3069-3069 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Izhar Hardan ◽

Barbara Lupo ◽

Valter Redoglia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Patients ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 3069FN2 Background: High-dose chemotherapy with haemopoietic stem-cell improves outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in MM patients. Aims: In this prospective randomized study, we compared conventional melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) in newly diagnosed MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods: All patients (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1, 8, 15, 22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) consisting of six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 MEL200 (N=200) with stem-cell support. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (stages 1 and 2 vs. stage 3) and age (<60 vs. ≥60 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results: Response rates were similar: at least very good partial response (≥VGPR) rate was 60% with MPR vs. 58% with MEL200 (p=.24); the complete response (CR) rate was 20% with MPR vs. 25% with MEL200 (p=.49). After a median follow-up of 26 months, the 2-year PFS was 54% in MPR and 73% in MEL200 (HR=0.51, p<.001). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups: 87% with MPR and 90% with MEL200 (HR 0.68, p=.19). In a subgroup analysis, MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS in both standard-risk patients without t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 46% in the MPR group vs. 78% in the MEL200 group, HR=0.57, p=.007) and high-risk patients with t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 27% for MPR vs. 71% for MEL200, HR=0.32, p=.004). In patients who achieved CR, the 2-year PFS was 66% for MPR vs. 87% for MEL200 (HR 0.26; p<.001); in those who achieved a partial response (PR), the 2-year PFS was 56% for MPR vs. 77% for MEL200 (HR 0.45; p<.001). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs. 89% (p<.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs. 17% (p<.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); the incidence of second tumors was 0.5% in MPR patients and 1.5% in MEL200 patients (p=.12). Deep vein thrombosis rate was 2.44% with MPR vs. 1.13% with MEL200 (p=.43). Conclusions: PFS was significantly prolonged in the MEL200 group compared to MPR. This benefit was maintained in the subgroup of patients with standard- or high-risk cytogenetic features. Toxicities were significantly higher in the MEL200 group. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with conventional therapies including novel agents. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:celgene: Honoraria. Ria:celgene: Consultancy. Caravita Di Toritto:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Deletion of TP53 (17p13) Is Associated with Poor Outcome for Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.2982.2982 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 2982-2982

Author(s):

Erming Tian ◽

Joshua Epstein ◽

Pingping Qu ◽

Christoph Heuck ◽

Frits van Rhee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chromosome 17 ◽

University Of Arkansas ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Medical Sciences ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Introduction In multiple myeloma (MM), deletion of chromosome 17 p13 (del17p) is a poor prognostic feature. The percentage of cells carrying an abnormality has been reported to be important with thresholds of 20% being taken generally but thresholds as high as 60% being suggested more recently. We have reported previously in the Total Therapy (TT)-2 trial (NCT00083551) for newly diagnosed (ND) MM that del17p is an adverse prognostic factor (Blood 112: 4235). The TT3 trial (NCT00081939) incorporated Brtezomib into tandem Melphalan-based autotransplants with DT-PACE for induction/consolidation and Thalidomide and Dexamethasone for maintenance to treat patients with newly diagnosed MM. In more recent iterations of these trials following the introduction of novel agents in induction and during maintenance the impact of carrying del17p has not been studied. In particular we have stratified patients into low- or high-risk molecular subgroups based on the GEP-70 (TT4 protocol [NCT00734877] or TT5 protocol [NCT00869232], respectively). We have used interphase FISH (iFISH) to detect the presence of del17p in baseline bone marrow samples. Method The iFISH slides were prepared with bone marrow aspirates after removing erythrocytes. A specific TP53 probe at chromosome 17 arm p13 combined with a control probe for the ERBB3 locus (HER2, 17q12), in different colors, were hybridized to bone marrow cells. Myeloma PCs were identified by restricted Kappa or Lambda immunoglobulin light-chain staining. We investigated role of 20% cutoffs per ≥100 tumor cells for significant deletion of the TP53 probe. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the distributions of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) during the follow-ups. OS was calculated from registration until the date of decease. PFS was similarly calculated, but also incorporated progressive disease as an event. Results We examined 709 baseline samples from TT3, 4, and 5 trials with the two probes at chromosome 17. Overall, 66 of 709 patients (9.3%) had deletion of TP53 locus, including 44 of the 591 (7.5%) of low-risk patients and 20 of the 118 (17.0%) high-risk patients (Table). The range of TP53-deleted cells among newly diagnosed patients is 20-99% (median=75%) overall; 35-100% (median=62%) in TT3-low-risk; 30-97% (median=80%) in TT3-high-risk; 21-99% (median=76%) in TT4; and 20-97% (median=81%) in TT5. Deletion of TP53 was associated with significant shorter OS and PFS in HR patients treated on TT3. The 3 year estimated OS of patients for TT3-HR with del17p was 33% compared with 56% for TT3-LR with del17p, and PFS of patients for TT3-HR with del17p was 25% compared with 51% for TT3-LR with del17p (Figure). The comparison of TT4 to TT5 continued showing short OS in HR patients treated on TT5. The 3 year estimated OS of patients for HRMM with del17p was 17% compared with 75% for TT5 patients without deletion (p=0.0008). But, del17p was neutral in LR patients treated on TT4 (Figure). Conclusion Since the introduction of novel agents during various stages of the disease and a focus on HRMM and LRMM defined by GEP70 we show that while TP53 deletion is an adverse prognostic factor for patients with HRMM it is no longer prognostically relevant in LRMM. Table 1. Patients with iFISH results GEP-70 riskLow ≤0.66 High >0.66 Deletion TP53 in 20-59% PCs (n/N [%]) Deletion TP53 in ≥60% PCs (n/N, [%]) Total TT3 (N=329) Low=256 9/329, [2.7%] 9/329, [2.7%] 18/329, [5.5%] High=73 3/329, [0.9%] 9/329, [2.7%] 12/329, [3.7%] TT4 (N=313) Low=313 5/313, [1.6%] 21/313, [6.7%] 26/313, [8.3%] High=0 0 0 0 TT5 (N=67) Low=22 2/67, [3.0%] 0 2/67, [3.0%] High=45 0 8/67, [11.9%] 8/67, [11.9%] Sum (N=709) Low=591 (83.4%) 14/709, [2.0%] 30/709, [4.2%] High=118 (16.6%) 3/709, [0.4%] 17/709, [2.4%] 66/709 (9.3%) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Tian: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciecnes: Employment. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Qu:Cancer Research and Biostatistics: Employment. Heuck:Millenium: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. van Rhee:University of Arkansa for Medical Sciences: Employment. Zangari:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Millennium: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Hoering:Cancer Research and Biostatistics: Employment. Sawyer:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Barlogie:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Morgan:Weismann Institute: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Carfilzomib for High-Risk Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Two Phase 1/2 Studies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112075 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3240-3240

Author(s):

Roberto Mina ◽

Alessandra Larocca ◽

Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽

Gianluca Gaidano ◽

Stelvio Ballanti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Induction Phase ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract INTRODUCTION: High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, such as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16), are associated to an unfavorable prognosis. Several trials investigating current approved regimens have shown that high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) patients have shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as compared to standard-risk patients. Carfilzomib, a second generation proteasome inhibitor, demonstrated to be able to improve the survival of high-risk MM patients in the relapse setting. Here we present a pooled analysis of two phase 1/2 studies to investigate the role of carfilzomib in high-risk, newly diagnosed (ND) MM patients. METHODS: Transplant ineligible patients with NDMM enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 and IST-CAR 506 studies were pooled together and analyzed. All patients received 9 28-day induction cycles of carfilzomib, either 70 mg/m2 once weekly (IST-CAR 561) or 36 mg/m2 twice weekly (IST-CAR 506), combined with weekly cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (40 mg) (CCyd). After the induction phase, patients proceeded to maintenance with single-agent carfilzomib until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare response to treatment, PFS, PFS-2 and OS in standard versus high-risk FISH, defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). A 15% cut-off point was used for detection of translocation [t(4;14) and t(14;16)] and 10% for detection of del(17p). RESULTS: 121 NDMM patients were enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 (n=63) and in the IST-CAR 506 (n=58) study. Cytogenetic data were available in 94 patients: 37 (31%) had high-risk chromosomal abnormalities by FISH, including 10% of patients with t(4;14), 3% with t(14;16) and 18% with del(17p), while 57 patients (47%) were classified as standard-risk. After the induction phase, no difference in terms of overall response rate (ORR; 86% vs. 92%; p=0.52) and at least near complete response (39% vs. 41%; p=1) was observed between standard and high-risk patients. After a median follow-up of 39 months, median PFS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 27.8 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.76; p=0.38) (Figure 1); at 3 years, 52% and 43% of patients, respectively, were alive and free from progression. The PFS benefit for the comparison between standard and high-risk patients was more pronounced in patients who received once weekly carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2, (median: NR vs. 39.6 months; HR: 0.78, p=0.63) as compared to those treated with twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 (median: NR vs. 24.2 months; HR: 0.52, p=0.12). Median PFS-2 from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.66; p=0.26), without significant differences in the once weekly (median, NR vs. 39.6; p=0.27) and the twice weekly group (median; NR vs. 44.1; p=0.63). Median OS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 47.5 months in high-risk ones (HR:0.71; p=0.36) (Figure 1). In patients who received once weekly carfilzomib, median OS was NR and 47.5 months (HR:0.66, p=0.48) in standard and high-risk patients, respectively, while median OS in the twice weekly group was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months (HR:0.73; p=0.55) in high-risk ones. CONCLUSION: In transplant ineligible patients with NDMM, carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone as initial treatment mitigated the poor prognosis of high-risk FISH in terms of PFS, PFS-2 and OS. The median PFS of high-risk patients treated with CCyd compares favorably with those reported with current standard of care. As compared to twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2, once weekly carfilzomib, at the dose of 70 mg/m2, confirmed to be effective in high-risk patients. These data support the use of carfilzomib for the treatment of high-risk NDMM patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Larocca: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Petrucci:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita di Toritto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel and Accomodation EMN; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation EHA; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation ASH, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board. Montefusco:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

New Score Prognostic System for Patients with MDS and Intermediate IPSS-R: Novel Algorithm to Distinguish Between Low and High Risk in This Subset of Patients. Results from the Spanish Group of MDS (GESMD). Gesmdi Score

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4323.4323 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4323-4323

Author(s):

Alba Redondo ◽

Mercedes Sánchez Barba ◽

Guillermo Sanz ◽

Teresa Bernal ◽

Montserrat Arnan Sangerman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multivariate Analysis ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Risk ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Intermediate Group ◽

Risk Patients ◽

R Value

Abstract INTRODUCTION MDS are a heterogeneous group, and it is necessary an adequate prognostic stratification in order to the best management. The new revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) has improved prognostic ability for survival and AML evolution comparing with the previous prognostic indexes. But, it is not clear the prognosis of patients included in the intermediate group, 20% of MDS, patients with a median OS of 3 years according to Greenberg et al, are they in the high or in the low risk category? The aims of the present study were to describe characteristics of patients included in this intermediate group of the IPSS-R in the Spanish MDS cohort and to identify which factors could have an impact on survival. A new score prognostic system (GESMDi score) in order to a better stratification should be proposed in this subset of patients that will be useful for determine the best therapeutic approach for them. METHODS: All patients were included in the GESMD, diagnosed of Primary MSD and Intermediate IPSS-R. The Statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS version 21, Cox models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to demonstrate clinical outcomes. Regarding the new score proposed, GESMDi score, modeling of prognostic risk was based on multivariate analysis of survival time. Cox model for survival was built to derive the relative weights within the score. RESULTS: Data from 957 patients of 69 centers of GESMD were evaluated. Their median age was 73.9 years (p25/p75 66-80), 61.6% males (N=590), and median follow-up 21,4 months (p25-p75 de 11-41). Regarding WHO 2001 classification: 31% were RAEB-1, 21% CMML, 18% RCMD, 14% RAEB-2, 3% RCMD-RS, 3.1% RARS, 2.5% RA, 2% 5q-syndrome, 2% AML, 1% unclassified. Median hemoglobin at diagnosis was 9.8 g/dL (p25/p75:8.3-11.6), median bone marrow (BM) blasts 6% (p25/p75:3-8) and median platelet count 99x109/L (p25/p75:66-180). According to IPSS, 5% of patients were classified as low risk, 78% as intermediate-1, 16% as intermediate-2 and 1% as high risk. Cytogenetic were very good in 2% of patients, good in 76%, intermediate in 17%, poor in 5% and in 1% very poor. IPSS-R score classified patients in 3 different groups, with a punctuation of≤ 3.5 (35.6%), >3.5 and ≤ 4 (35.8%) and> 4 and ≤ 4.5 (28.5%). Median OS was 30.1 months, the estimated 1-year and 2-y OS were 79.2% and 57.8%, respectively. In the univariate analysis for OS older age (>74y, p<0.001), lower Hb level (≤9.5 g/dL, p<0.001), WHO 2001 with excess of blasts classification (p=0.035), lower platelets level (≤30 x 109/L, p=0.01), PB blasts (yes, p=0.001), ferritine level (>500 ng/ml, p=0.002), and higher IPSS-R score (>3.5 and ≤ 4 and >4 and ≤ 4.5, p=0.023 and p=0.004, figure 1) had a deleterious impact on survival. In the multivariate analysis, only age, Hb level, PB blast, ferritine level and IPSS-R value retained statistical significant impact on OS (table 1a). In the multivariate analysis, Hazard ratio, a new score system (GESMDi score) was established for all patients. Patients with adverse features were added points in order to stratify the risk of death: age<74y and/or PB blasts (2 points) and Hb level ≤9.5 g/dL and/or ferritine level >500 ng/ml and/or IPSS-R of >3.5 (1 point), table 1a. The GESMDi score was performed in 685 patients with all data available and 7 groups of patients were defined with different median OS (p<0.0001, table 1b). Two final categories were established according to the definition of risk from the Spanish MDS group, low risk patients (estimated OS >30 months) and high risk patients (<30 months). Patients with scores between 0-3 (70.6% patients, me OS 41.1, 95CI 34.4-47.7) were in the low risk definition while patients with scores between 4-6 (29.3% patients, me OS 17.5 mo, 95CI 13.4-21.5) were classified as high risk patients (p< 0.0001, Figure 2). CONCLUSIONS: GESMDi score, a proposed prognostic score system from patients with intermediate IPSS-R, allow us to establish a better prognosis stratification in this heterogeneous MDS population. Treatment and management should be better established for those patients nowadays according to this novel stratification. Table 1 a) Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS among patients with Intermediate IPSS-R b) OS according to the GESMDi score proposed Table 1. a) Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS among patients with Intermediate IPSS-R b) OS according to the GESMDi score proposed Figure 1 OS according to IPSS-R value in the intermediate group (≤3.5, ≤4 and ≤4.5) Figure 1. OS according to IPSS-R value in the intermediate group (≤3.5, ≤4 and ≤4.5) Figure 2 OS according the GESMDi score proposed in the intermediate IPSS-R group: low and high risk patients (n=685) Figure 2. OS according the GESMDi score proposed in the intermediate IPSS-R group: low and high risk patients (n=685) Disclosures Del Cañizo: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Díez Campelo:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

The Prognostic Power of Gene Expression Profiling with Cytogentics and Routinely Acquired Serum Markers: SKY92 Combined with Revised ISS

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139987 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 24-25

Author(s):

Rowan Kuiper ◽

Mark van Duin ◽

Martin H Van Vliet ◽

Erik H Van Beers ◽

Berna Berna Beverloo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Risk ◽

Ensembl Gene ◽

Private Company ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Standard Risk

Background Updating prognostic models for multiple myeloma is important in the context of changing treatment options. Previously we have described the value of the prognostic marker SKY92, which identifies high-risk multiple myeloma patients, as well as the value of the combined SKY92-ISS marker. With the introduction of revised ISS, it is of interest to evaluate the value of the updated combination of SKY92 with R-ISS. Within the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial, stratification into 3 groups was described: high-risk: 11% SKY92 high-risk (HR) + R-ISS II-III, low-risk: 15% SKY92 standard risk (SR) + R-ISS I and intermediate risk (74%, other). The 3-year PFS rates were 54% (95%CI: 38-77%), 27% (95%CI: 21-37%) and 7% (95%CI: 1-46%) for SKY-RISS I, II and III, respectively (p < 0.001). The 3-yr OS rates for SKY-RISS I to III were 88%, 66% and 26% (p=6×10-7). Here we describe the validation of SKY92-RISS in the CoMMpass dataset. Methods SKY92 was determined using RNA-seq data available from the CoMMpass dataset. Briefly, the SKY92 score was obtained as a weighted summation of the expression given by the available Ensembl gene IDs, corresponding to the probe sets of the SKY92 classifier. Renormalization of the original SKY92 discovery data (HOVON65/GMMG-HD4) allowing a direct remodeling between the Affymetrix probe-set expressions (i.e. SKY92) and RNAseq Ensembl gene IDs. Only Ensembl gene IDs with an average log2 expression >8 were used. Revised ISS status was determined as described. For optimal comparison to the discovery cohort of the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial, the analysis was limited to 93 patients older than 65 years in the CoMMpass data set, that did not receive transplant, and for whom RNA-Seq at diagnosis, R-ISS and follow-up data were available. Results The median follow-up is 41 months. SKY92 identified 24 high-risk patients (24/93: 26%). The 3-yr PFS and OS rates of standard-risk patients were 49% and 80% respectively, compared to 23% and 44% for high-risk, resulting in a significant log rank test (p < 0.005). The R-ISS classified patients into the low-risk R-ISS I (24% of patients), intermediate-risk R-ISS II (63%) and high-risk R-ISS III (13%). The 3-yr PFS rates were 76% (RISS I), 33% (RISS II) and 33% (RISS III); for OS: 100% (RISS I), 68% (RISS II) and 33% (RISS III; PFS, p = 0.07; OS, p < 0.001). SKY92 and R-ISS were independent prognostic factors in terms of OS and PFS. The SKY-RISS classification resulted in 20% low-, 61% intermediate- and 18% high-risk patients (Figure 1). The 3-yr PFS rates were 81% (95%CI: 64-100%), 42% (95%CI: 30-59%) and 12% (95%CI: 3-44%; p < 0.001) and 3-yr OS rates were 100% (95%CI: 100-100%), 77% (95%CI: 66-89%) and 32% (95%CI: 16-61%; p <0.001). Out of 69 patients classed as standard risk using the SKY92 classifier (80% 3-yr OS rate), 17 and 52 were classified as SKY-RISS I and II, respectively, resulting in a 3-yr survival rate of 100% and 74%, respectively. In contrast, out of 24 SKY92 HR patients (44% 3 yr OS rate), 5 were classified as SKY-RISS II (100% alive at 3 years) with the remainder true high-risk patients (32% alive at 3 years). Out of 12 RISS III patients (3-yr OS, 33%), 5 were classified as SKY-RISS II (3-yr OS: 60%) and 7 as SKY-RISS III (3-yr OS: 14%). Conclusion This study demonstrates the value of gene expression profiling - SKY92 - alongside revised ISS. They form a solid combination, improving on either marker separately. Both models combined clearly identified more high-risk patients correctly, whilst also placing low risk patients into a more appropriate risk category. This was shown in the discovery set and was subsequently applied to an independent set, confirming the validity and usability of the SKY-RISS. Disclosures Kuiper: SkylineDx: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Van Vliet:SkylineDx: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Van Beers:SkylineDx: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Broijl:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text