scholarly journals What Is New in the Treatment of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 421
Author(s):  
Niccolo’ Bolli ◽  
Nicola Sgherza ◽  
Paola Curci ◽  
Rita Rizzi ◽  
Vanda Strafella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Plasma Cell Neoplasm ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Critical Issues

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic plasma cell neoplasm, is currently diagnosed according to the updated IMWG criteria, which reflect an intermediate tumor mass between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and active MM. However, SMM is a heterogeneous entity and individual case may go from an “MGUS-like” behavior to “early MM” with rapid transformation into symptomatic disease. This wide range of clinical outcomes poses challenges for prognostication and management of individual patients. However, initial studies showed a benefit in terms of progression or even survival for early treatment of high-risk SMM patients. While outside of clinical trials the conventional approach to SMM generally remains that of close observation, these studies raised the question of whether early treatment should be offered in high-risk patients, prompting evaluation of several different therapeutic approaches with different goals. While delay of progression to MM with a non-toxic treatment is clearly achievable by early treatment, a convincing survival benefit still needs to be proven by independent studies. Furthermore, if SMM is to be considered less biologically complex than MM, early treatment may offer the chance of cure that is currently not within reach of any active MM treatment. In this paper, we present updated results of completed or ongoing clinical trials in SMM treatment, highlighting areas of uncertainty and critical issues that will need to be addressed in the near future before the “watch and wait” paradigm in SMM is abandoned in favor of early treatment.

Meta-Analysis of Pharmacotherapy Vs. Observation for Management of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4771-4771
Author(s):  
Jayanthi Vijayakumar ◽  
Jeffrey Jackson ◽  
Kwang W Ahn ◽  
Parameswaran N. Hari
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Antineoplastic Agents ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antineoplastic Agent ◽  
Early Therapy ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction: Asymptomatic or smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is usually 10-15% of all patients with multiple myeloma. Currently, national guidelines do not recommend early treatment of SMM though the majority of patients progress to active disease over time. Multiple trials have been conducted to evaluate implications of early therapy for SMM. Some of these trials, most notably, Mateos et al. (N Engl J Med 2013; 369:438-447) have shown benefit for treating SMM. However, there is lack of consensus as to whether early treatment of SMM prior to symptomatic disease progression is superior to observation alone. Hence we conducted a meta- analysis to determine if observation or treatment is superior in the management of SMM. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane database and hand-search of articles to identify 12 clinical trials which allocated SMM patients to treatment. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of Bias tool. Our main outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Sub-analysis examined the difference in treatment with antineoplastic agent (C), bisphosphonates (B), or their combination (CB). Data were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis using STATA (College Station Texas, V13.2). Results: Among the 12 trials, 4 trials were excluded due lack of survival curves for OS, PFS, TTP. Characteristics of the 8 included clinical trials are given in Table 1. Participants treated for early SMM had reduced mortality (HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.4-1.0) and better PFS (HR=0.83, 95% CI, 0.64-1.07) compared to the observation group. In subgroup analysis, patients treated with either antineoplastic agents or the combination of antineoplastic agents and bisphosphonate had a better OS and PFS, whereas therapy with only bisphosphonate did not impact OS or PFS (Figures 1, 2). Conclusion: We conclude that antineoplastic treatment or a combination of antineoplastic agents and bisphosphonates is better than observation in improving overall survival in SMM patients. A similar trend is seen with PFS. This conclusion merits caution given the limited data available and the differences in the agents used for therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Len/dex) Vs Therapeutic Abstention in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma at High Risk of Progression to Symptomatic MM: Results of the First Interim Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 614-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Lucía López-Corral ◽  
Miguel T Hernández ◽  
Javier de la Rubia ◽  
Juan José Lahuerta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gi Bleeding ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 614 Smoldering MM (sMM) is a plasma cell (PC) disorder defined by the presence of ≥10% of PC and/or a serum M-component (MC) ≥3g/dl without end-organ damage. Recent studies have identified a subgroup of sMM at high risk of progression to active MM (>50% at 2 y): patients with both PC ≥10% & MC ≥3g/dl (Kyle R. NEJM 2007) or ≥95% aberrant PC (aPC) by immunophenotyping (Pérez E. Blood 2007) or abnormal FLCs (Dispenzieri A. Blood 2008). Standard of care for sMM is monitoring without treatment until disease progression. Several small studies have explored the value of early treatment with either conventional agents (melphalan/prednisone) or novel drugs (thalidomide, interleukin-1b), with no clear benefit. It should be noted that these trials didn't focus on high-risk sMM. In this phase III trial we investigated whether early treatment prolongs the time to progression (TTP) in sMM patients at high risk of progression to active MM. Patients were randomized to receive Len-dex versus no treatment. The high risk population was defined by the presence of both PC ≥10% and MC ≥3g/dl or if only one criterion was present, patients must have a proportion of aPC within the total PCBM compartment by immunophenotyping of ≥95% plus immunoparesis. 120 patients are planned to be recruited. The 60 patients randomized to the Len-dex arm receive nine four-weeks cycles of lenalidomide at dose of 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone at dose of 20 mg daily on days 1-4 and 12-15 (total dose: 160mg) (induction phase); subsequently maintenance with Lenalidomide at dose of 10 mg on days 1-21 every two months administered until disease progression. Between October 2006 and June 2008, 80 patients were randomized. In this interim analysis, we present the first 40 patients recruited. According to baseline characteristics, both groups were well balanced. In an ITT analysis (n=40), based on IMWG criteria, the overall response rate was 90%, including 53% PR, 21% VGPR, 11% CR and 5% sCR. If we select the group of 16 patients who completed the nine cycles, the ORR was 100%, including 27% VGPR, 13% CR and 7% sCR. After a median follow-up of 16 months (range:12-20), no disease progression was observed in the Len-dex arm, while 8 patients progressed to active MM in the therapeutic abstention arm with a median TTP from inclusion in the trial of 17.5 months (p<0.002). It should be noted that 6 of these 8 patients developed bone lesions as a symptom of active MM. As far as toxicity is concerned, no G4 adverse events (AEs) were reported with Len-dex; 1 pt developed G3 anemia, 2 patients G3 asthenia, 1 pt G3 diarrhea and 3 patients G3 DVT. Serious AEs occurred in 5 patients, 3 of these were dexamethasone-related (GI bleeding, delirium and glaucoma) and 2 were lenalidomide-related (two infections). Two SAEs lead to early discontinuation of the treatment (infection and delirium), and another 2 additional patients discontinued at pt's request. Four patients needed to reduce lenalidomide from 25 to 15 mg due to non-hematological AEs (asthenia (2), diarrhea (1) and GI bleeding (1). In conclusion, these preliminary results show that in sMM patients at high-risk for progression to active MM, delayed treatment is associated with early progression (median time 17.5 months) with bone disease, while so far Len-dex has been able not only to prolong the TTP (without any progression so far) but also to induce CRs with a manageable and acceptable toxicity profile. Disclosures: Mateos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for the treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma patients. de la Rubia:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. García-Laraña:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de Arriba:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Quintana:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Garcia:Celgene Corporation: Employment. San-Miguel:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) at High-Risk of Progression to Symptomatic Disease: A Phase III, Randomized, Multicenter Trial Based On Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Len-Dex) as Induction Therapy Followed by Maintenance Therapy with Len Alone Vs No Treatment

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1935-1935 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Lucía López-Corral ◽  
Miguel Hernández ◽  
Pilar Giraldo ◽  
Javier De La Rubia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Risk Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 1935 Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic proliferative disorder of plasma cells (PCs) defined by a serum monoclonal component (MC) of 30 g/L or higher and/or 10% or more plasma cells in the bone marrow (BM), but no evidence of end-organ damage. There are several risk factors predicting high-risk of progression to symptomatic disease (>50% at 2 years): >10% of PCs in BM, serum MC >30g/L, >95% aberrant PCs by immunophenotyping, or abnormal free-light chains. Standard of care of SMM is close follow-up without treatment until progression disease. Several trials have evaluated the role of early treatment with convencional agents (melphalan), bisphosphonates and novel agents (thalidomide, anti-IL1a), with no clear benefit, but they didn't focus on high-risk patients. In this phase III trial, SMM patients at high-risk of progression were randomized to receive Len-dex as induction followed by Len alone as maintenance vs no treatment in order to evaluate whether the early treatment prolongs the time to progresión (TTP) to symptomatic disease. The high risk population was defined by the presence of both >PC 10% and MC >30g/L or if only one criterion was present, patients must have a proportion of aberrants PCs within the total PCsBM compartment by immunophenotyping of 95% plus immunoparesis. Len-dex arm received an induction treatment consisting on nine four-weeks cycles of lenalidomide at dose of 25 mg daily on days 1–21 plus dexamethasone at dose of 20 mg daily on days 1–4 and 12–15 (total dose: 160mg), followed by maintenance until progression disease with Lenalidomide at dose of 10 mg on days 1–21 every two months (ammended in May 2010 into monthly). The 124 planned patients were recruited between October 2006 and June 2010, and 118 were evaluables (three in Len-dex and three in therapeutic abstention arm didn't meet inclusion criteria). This second interim analysis was planned when all patients were recruited. According to baseline characteristics, both groups were well balanced. On an ITT analysis (n=57), based on IMWG criteria, the overall response rate during induction therapy was 75%, including 51% PR, 12% VGPR, 5% CR and 7% sCR. If we select the group of 33 patients who completed the nine induction cycles, the ORR was 91%, including 15% VGPR, 9% CR and 9% sCR. After a median of 8 cycles of maintenance therapy (1-15), the sCR increased to 16%. After a median follow-up of 16 months (range:1-33), four patients progressed to symptomatic disease in the Len-dex arm: two of them during maintenance therapy after 24 and 28 months from inclusion and the other two progressed 3 and 8 months after early discontinuation of the trial due to personal reasons. In addition, nine patients have developed biological progression during maintenance, but in all but one of these, Len has been able to control the disease without CRAB symptoms (median of 9·5 months (1-18)). In the therapeutic abstention arm, 21 out of 61 patients progressed to active MM. The estimated hazard ratio was 6·7 (95%CI= 2·3-19·9), corresponding to a median TTP from inclusion of 25 months for the not treatment arm vs median not reached in the treatment arm (p<0.0001). It should be noted that 10 out of these 21 patients developed bone lesions as a symptom of active MM. Deaths in the Len-dex and no treatment arms were 1 and 2, respectively (p=0·6). As far as toxicity is concerned, during induction therapy, no G4 adverse events (AEs) were reported with Len-dex; 1 pt developed G3 anemia, 4 patients G3 asthenia 2 patients G3 diarrhea and 1 patient G3 skin rash; 3 patients developped G2 DVT. During maintenance, no G4 AEs were reported and only 1 patient developed G3 infection. In conclusion, this second interim analysis shows that in high-risk SMM patients, delayed treatment resulted in early progression to symptomatic disease (median 25 months), while Len-dex as induction followed by Len as maintenance significantly prolonged the TTP (HR: 6·7), with excelent tolerability; moreover, biological progressions occurring under maintenance have remained controlled over a prolonged period of time. Disclosures: Mateos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for the treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma. De La Rubia:Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Celgene: Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia-Laraña:Celgene: Honoraria. Hernández:Celgene: Honoraria. Leal-da-Costa:Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Celgene: Honoraria. Quintana:Celgene: Employment. Baquero:Celgene: Employment. García:Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Celgene: Honoraria.

scholarly journals The Role of Early Intervention in High-Risk Smoldering Myeloma

2020 ◽  
pp. 355-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisha S. Joseph ◽  
Madhav V. Dhodapkar ◽  
Sagar Lonial
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Symptomatic Disease ◽  
Disease Biology

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor disease state that precedes the development of symptomatic myeloma. As we have learned more about the disease biology of SMM and risk factors for progression, updated risk stratification models, such as the Mayo 2018 model, or 20/2/20, have been developed. More accurate risk stratification and the development of effective and well-tolerated therapeutic agents have led to the investigation of early treatment of select patients with high-risk SMM with the aim of delaying time to progression to multiple myeloma. Ongoing debate surrounds which subset of patients with SMM to target, as well as the best treatment approach: preventative versus curative. Phase III data from the Spanish Myeloma Group/PETHEMA as well as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) E3A06 trial have shown the efficacy of lenalidomide with and without dexamethasone in high-risk SMM in delaying progression to symptomatic disease. Conversely, there exists an alternate strategy attempting to cure the disease prior to progression utilizing more intensive regimens similar to what is used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. However, our understanding of the disease biology of SMM and the role of immune regulation in preventing malignant transformation provides a strong rationale for an interventional strategy. Here, we review the definition of SMM, the current models for risk stratification, and the current data available supporting the early treatment of patients with high-risk SMM.

How I Treat High-risk Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Zamagni ◽  
Simona Barbato ◽  
Michele Cavo
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Tumor Biology ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Specific Drug ◽  
Improve Quality

Survival of multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly improved over the last decade; however, a composed group of patients (15-20%), named high-risk (HR) MM, still experience reduced survival. Both tumor biology and suboptimal/absent responses to therapy may underlie HR definition and a clear uniform identification of risk factors is crucial for a proper management of these patients. In biologic-HRMM, MRD negativity attainment and sustain, inside and outside BM, should be the primary goal and therapy should be adapted in patients with frailty to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life. MM treatment has traditionally been tailored on age and more recently frailty or comorbidities, but very rarely on the biology of the disease, mainly because of the lack of a clear benefit derived from a specific drug/combination, inhomogeneity in HR definition and lack of data coming from prospective, properly designed clinical trials. Some attempts have been successfully made recently in this direction. In this review, we are discussing the current different definitions of HR and the need for a consensus, the results of available trials in HR patients and the way through risk-adapted treatment strategies. For this purpose, we are proposing several clinical cases of difficult-to-treat patients throughout different treatment phases.

scholarly journals Daratumumab monotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma: a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study (CENTAURUS)

Leukemia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1840-1852 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ola Landgren ◽  
Ajai Chari ◽  
Yael C. Cohen ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Peter Voorhees ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Active Monitoring ◽  
Death Rates ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Current guidelines for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) recommend active monitoring until the onset of multiple myeloma (MM) before initiating treatment or enrollment in a clinical trial. Earlier intervention may delay progression to MM. In CENTAURUS, 123 patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk SMM were randomly assigned to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on extended intense (intense), extended intermediate (intermediate), or short dosing schedules. At the prespecified primary analysis (15.8-month median follow-up), the complete response (CR) rates (co-primary endpoint) were 2.4%, 4.9%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively; the co-primary endpoint of CR rate >15% was not met. Progressive disease (PD)/death rates (number of patients who progressed or died divided by total duration of progression-free survival [PFS] in patient-years; co-primary endpoint) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.055 (80% confidence interval [CI], 0.014–0.096), 0.102 (80% CI, 0.044–0.160), and 0.206 (80% CI, 0.118–0.295), respectively, translating to a median PFS ≥24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001, <0.0001, and =0.0213, respectively). With longer follow-up (median follow-up, 25.9 months), CR rates were 4.9%, 9.8%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. PD/death rates for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.059 (80% CI, 0.025–0.092), 0.107 (80% CI, 0.058–0.155), and 0.150 (80% CI, 0.089–0.211), respectively, again translating to a median PFS ≥ 24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001 for all arms). Twenty-four–month PFS rates were 89.9% (90% CI, 78.5–95.4%), 82.0% (90% CI, 69.0–89.9%), and 75.3% (90% CI, 61.1–85.0%) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated that intense dosing maintained target-saturating trough concentrations in most patients throughout weekly, every-2-week, and every-4-week dosing periods. No new safety signals were observed. These data provide the basis for an ongoing phase 3 study of daratumumab in SMM.

Analysis of treatment efficacy in the GEM-CESAR trial for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma patients: Comparison between the standard and IMWG MRD criteria and QIP-MS including FLC (QIP-FLC-MS).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8512-8512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noemí Puíg ◽  
Teresa Contreras ◽  
Bruno Paiva ◽  
M Teresa Cedena ◽  
Joaquin Martinez-Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Polyclonal Antibodies ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Λ Light Chain ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

8512 Background: 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 sustained minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in the bone marrow (BM) by next generation flow (NGF). The value of BM MRD assessment in MM is proven, but alternative, non-invasive methods, accurately reflecting disease burden are needed. Methods: Pts received six 4-week cycles of KRd as induction (K:36mg/m2 twice weekly, R: lenalidomide 25mg po od days 1-21 and d:dexamethasone 40mg po weekly) followed by melphalan 200mg/m2, two further cycles of KRd as consolidation and up to 2 years of Rd (R:10mg/d, d:20mg/week). Efficacy was analyzed in parallel in BM samples by NGF and in serum by SPEP/IFE and QIP-MS/QIP-FLC-MS in 52 out of the 90 pts enrolled in the trial. Standard and MRD responses were carried out as per the IMWG guidelines. For QIP-MS serum immunoglobulins were purified using polyclonal antibodies (anti-IgG, -IgA, -IgM, -total κ and -total λ light chain, -free κ and -free λ light chain). Mass spectra were generated on a MALDI-TOF-MS system. Results: Overall response rate (ORR) was 98% post-induction, 98% post-ASCT, and 100% post-consolidation; 38.4%, 61.5% and 68.6% of pts reached ≥ complete response at each time-point and, among them, 23%, 44% and 55% achieved flow MRD-negativity. Using the combination of QIP-MS/QIP-FLC-MS, the percentage of pts without detectable disease at each timepoint lowered to 12%, 27% and 38% reflecting the higher sensitivity of the method. Against NGF, QIP-MS/QIP-FLC-MS provided negative predictive values of 67%, 92% and 89% (p = 0,0206; p < 0,001; p = 0,003) and identified disease in 95%, 97% and 92% of pts that were positive by NGF-MRD at each respective timepoint. Three pts from this cohort have progressed so far: two were NGF+/MS+ at the three timepoints whilst 1 remained NGF- but QIP-MS/FLC-MS+ throughout. Conclusions: The GEM-CESAR treatment strategy induces a high ORR in HRsMM pts, and the % of cases achieving flow-MRD negativity post-ASCT meets the primary endpoint of the trial. The combined use of QIP-MS and FLC-MS offers higher sensitivity relative to standard methods and may provide relevant information about the right timing for performing a BM aspirate/biopsy. Clinical trial information: NCT02415413 .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document