1 / 40

Case 1: Patient with high-risk smoldering myeloma – watch and wait or treat immediately?

Case 1: Patient with high-risk smoldering myeloma – watch and wait or treat immediately?. Raymond L. Comenzo, MD Professor of Medicine and Pathology Tufts University School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts. Disclosures. Research support: Takeda/Millennium, Prothena, Teva

nevan
Télécharger la présentation

Case 1: Patient with high-risk smoldering myeloma – watch and wait or treat immediately?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case 1: Patient with high-risk smoldering myeloma – watch and wait or treat immediately? Raymond L. Comenzo, MD Professor of Medicine and Pathology Tufts University School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts

  2. Disclosures • Research support: Takeda/Millennium, Prothena, Teva • Consultant: Takeda/Millennium, Prothena

  3. Smoldering Myeloma Kyle NEJM 1980 (6 cases): We believe that a patient whose illness fulfills the criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma should be observed off therapy if there is no anemia, bone lesions, hypercalcemia, or renal insufficiency . . . Therapy may lead to leukopenia . . . [And] unnecessary chemotherapy causes unnecessary expense, and it is a source of concern to the patient. NEJM 1980;302:1347

  4. Monthly Wholesale Acquisition Cost

  5. Asymptomatic Myeloma Alexanian Blood 1980 (20 cases): Since asymptomatic patients with higher tumor mass grades . . . are even less common . . . chemotherapy should not be withheld in those rare asymptomatic patients with intermediate or high tumor mass. Also, the presence of an IgA myeloma protein or the excretion of more than 200 mg/day of Bence Jones protein favored the need for early chemotherapy. . . Serial assessments of myeloma protein level provided a useful index of changing tumor load and the need for chemotherapy. Blood 1980;56:521

  6. Progression of Asymptomatic Myeloma Blood 2000;96:2037

  7. Two Patterns of Changes in M-Ig Level During Progression to MM Blood 2009;113:5418

  8. Traditional Elements • Traditional variables • Monoclonal protein status • Bone marrow plasmacytosis • Symptoms • Time • Traditional clinical philosophies • Minimalists vs Intensivists • Palliation • Prolong survival

  9. Modern Elements • Translational science • Serum free light chains • New platforms for clonal genetics • New metrics of organ damage • Modern clinical philosophy • Incurable but treatable • Safety of high-dose melphalan • Effective le$$ toxic new drug$ • Patient involvement and advocacy • Changing view of risk

  10. Would you consider treatment for High Risk Smoldering multiple myeloma? PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:23 pm by DanaH I would welcome the community's thoughts on early treatment of High Risk Smoldering multiple myeloma (high risk for progression to active disease) in the clinical trial setting. I am aware of early clinical trial intervention studies with [lenalidomide] w/ Dex (Spanish study group as well as some centers in the US, I believe Dr. Lonial @ Emory ) and carfilzomib, [lenalidomide] w/ Dex (NIH w/ Dr. Landgren). Have any smolderers considered this and actually participate(d) in these trials? Or would anyone currently under treatment for active multiple myeloma have or had considered this option prior to commencing treatment once their multiple myeloma became active, had you known you were at high risk for progression ? All opinions will be very much appreciated.

  11. Re: Would you consider treatment for High Risk Smoldering mu PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:19 pm by mrsv118 Dana H, I am in the NIH trial. I went to the NIH and had all the testing done planning to enter the natural history study. My testing showed that i was a high risk smolderer according to the both the italian and spanish study protocol. Dr Landgren felt that I had a 75% chance of converting to active myeloma in the next two years. They had introduced the CRD for smolderers at a previous visit so I was already considering it and those odds were not for me. I didn't want to wait to be symptomatic before starting to fight it. They are having great results thus far! You need to meet them and have an evaluation before you think too much about this. Nothing wrong with standard therapy. Lots involved in making a decision like this besides the labs. Can you get there easily, (its an eight month treatment, almost weekly). You may or may not be able to work depending on your response to the meds and what kind of job you have. Expenses are not totally covered. Your comfort level with the docs. Good luck with your eval and your decision.

  12. Symptomatic Nature of the Clone Organs at risk

  13. Signs and Syndromes Anemia Renal insufficiency Hypercalcemia Bone lesions Infections with hypogammaglobulinemia Painful extramedullary disease Paraprotein-related neuropathy

  14. Conditional ModelsTime to EventRisk of EventPredictive Tests

  15. Progression From a pre-symptomatic state Increased cell mass Proliferation M protein Genetic events? Primary Secondary Risk of organ damage

  16. Mayo Clinic Risk Factors for Progression BM PC >10% M-protein > 3 g/dL Skewed sFLC ratio <0.125 or >8.0 Leukemia 2010;24:1121 Seminars Hematol 2011;48:4

  17. PETHEMA Risk Factors for Progression aBMPC > 95% Immunoparesis Blood 2007;110:2586 Seminars Hematol 2011;48:4

  18. Criteria for Diagnosis MGUS <3 g M-protein <10% PC Smoldering MM 3 g M-protein or 10% PC • Symptomatic MM • M-protein • 10% PC No related organ or tissue impairment (no end-organ damage including bone lesions) or no symptoms Related organ or tissue impairment (end-organ damage, including bone lesions) “CRAB” BJH 2003;121:749 Leukemia 2010;24:1121

  19. Waiting for the

  20. QuiReDex Induction phase 28d cycles x 9 cycles Maintenance Lenalidomide 25 mg/d D1-21 Dexamethasone 20 mg/d D1-4, 12-15 Lenalidomide 10 mg/d D1-21 every 2 mos High risk SMM* Observation *High risk SMM Both BMPC≥10% AND M-protein≥ 3 gm/dL OR one of the above plus aPC >95% and immunoparesis MateosASH2011

  21. QuiReDex • SMM within the past 5 years • Stratified • Combined Mayo/PETHEMA high risk • But no serum FLC • Asymptomatic • Skeletal survey at screening • Repeated only with symptoms • No MRI

  22. QuiReDex NEJM 2013;369:5 BMJ 1999;307:1492 • Absolute risk reductions at 3 years • Progression 82% • Death 69% • Overall survival at 3 years • 94% with LenDex • 80% with observation • Number needed to treat • Two to prevent 1 progression • Seven to prevent 1 death

  23. IMWG Guidelines for SMM Preventive clinical trials need to be considered for patients with high risk smoldering myeloma. Patients with smoldering myeloma with FLC ratio <0.125 or > 8 plus > 10% plasma cells in the marrow are at high risk of progression in the first 2 years following recognition. These patients should be considered candidates for chemoprevention trials. However, off-study, observation is still the standard even in this group. Leukemia 2010;24:1121

  24. Numerous SMM Trials

  25. Monthly Wholesale Acquisition Cost

  26. New Patient • 52 year-old woman, asymptomatic • Elevated total protein • IgGλ M-protein 3.6g/dL • FLC λ 123mg/L, Ratio 0.08 • 190mg BJP • 30% PCs, standard risk cyto/FISH • Hemoglobin 11.8g/dL • SS and spinal MRI negative • GFR and creatinine normal • NTX:Creat 102 units

  27. Wb-MRI in SMM “End organ damage currently is the most important factor for the classification and the decision to treat systemically in monoclonal plasma cell disease. Therefore, serum calcium, renal damage, anemia, and bone destruction (ie, osteoporosis or focal lytic bone lesions) are the most important parameters (ie, CRAB criteria).” JCO 2010;28:1606

  28. NTX:Creatinine Ratio Leukemia 2010;24:1700

  29. Tests for Response and Progression • Trends • M-protein, free light chains • Biomarkers • NT-proBNP, troponin • Albuminuria • Cytogenetics/FISH/GEP? • Imaging studies? • MRI • PET/CT

  30. QuiReDex Haematologica 2012;97:1439 • CD138-FISH abnormal in 91/123 (74%) • 41% gain 1q • 42% del 13q • 9% del 17p • 17% t(11;14) • 12% t(4;14), 6% t(14;16) • 8% 14q32 with unknown partner • No group or grouping predicted POD • 11 before and at progression • Suggestive GEP

  31. E3A06 NEJM 2007;356:25 Blood 2008; 111:785 Groups 1 and 2 if the FLC ratio is <0.125 or >8.0 Within 12 months of diagnosis SS negative Serum FLC monthly GEP MRI spine and pelvis

  32. CRd at NIH for High-risk SMM http://static9.light-kr.com/documents/IMW2013/Landgren%20-%20CRd%20Smoldering%20Myeloma.pdf Pilot study 8 cycles of CRd then 12 cycles lenalidomide extended dosing Stem cell harvest after > 4 cycles Primary objective is response rate Correlative studies: GEP, proteasome activity, MRD by flow, FDG PET-CT

  33. CRd at NIH for High-risk SMM During screening for the trial many SMM patients had bone lesions detectable by CT or PET-CT; these patients were ineligible for the trial (due to multiple myeloma) Among SMM without bone lesions, about 30% had increased PET uptake in the bone marrow Depending on the extent of imaging, SMM for E3A06 but MM for CRd?

  34. Who and When to Treat • Newly diagnosed patients with no evidence of evolving organ damage • Vaccinate • Observe at 3 month intervals • Offer E3A06 • Follow clonal proliferation based on increasing M-protein or FLC • Follow for trends in organ damage • Marrow, kidneys, skeletal system

  35. Should all high risk SMM patients be treated immediately? • Not as standard of care • Determine what the patient wants • Offer E3A06 or NIH CRd trial • Use best metrics for clone and organ damage • Follow trends • Image appropriately • MRI, PET/CT

  36. Changing Landscape • Updated IMWG guidelines needed • for SMM clinical trials • How rational are our definitions? • How radically should they be changed? • Should we • redefine myeloma needing treatment? • regroup plasma cell diseases? • risk from clone and organ damage • We cannot overlook the urgency of relapsed/refractory status as a major driver

More Related