Faculty Bibliography

The increased number of effective therapies and the wider use of combinations that give deeper remissions have resulted in a reassessment of the goals of myeloma therapy. With the advent of new therapeutic strategies and diagnostic tools, achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status has become increasingly important, with some even considering it as the primary endpoint for therapy. The level of MRD that is aimed for is a continuous, rather than an absolute variable, with studies in both transplant-eligible and -noneligible patients showing that the level of MRD achieved is predictive of progression-free survival and overall survival, with an improvement in survival of approximately 1 year for each log-depletion in MRD level. The most widely used methods to assess MRD status include flow cytometry and clonality detection, using next-generation sequencing technologies with sensitivity limits of 1:10^-3 to 1:10^-6 The timing of when to assess MRD depends on the treatment used, as well as the molecular and cytogenetic subgroup of the myeloma itself. It is also becoming clear that the level of MRD negativity, as well as microenvironmental factors, are important prognostically, including the regeneration of normal plasma cells, and the normalization of the immune repertoire. With advances in antibody-based therapy and immunotherapy, the achievement of stable MRD states is now possible for a significant proportion of patients, and is a prerequisite for myeloma cure.

Using a data set of 1217 patients with multiple myeloma enrolled in Total Therapies, we have examined the impact of novel therapies on molecular and risk subgroups and the clinical value of molecular classification. Bortezomib significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the MMSET (MS) subgroup. Thalidomide and bortezomib positively impacted the PFS of low-risk (LoR) cases defined by the GEP70 signature, whereas high-risk (HiR) cases showed no significant changes in outcome. We show that molecular classification is important if response rates are to be used to predict outcomes. The t(11;14)-containing CD-1 and CD-2 subgroups showed clear differences in time to response and cumulative response rates but similar PFS and OS. Furthermore, complete remission was not significantly associated with the outcome of the MAF/MAFB (MF) subgroup or HiR cases. HiR cases were enriched in the MF, MS and proliferation subgroups, but the poor outcome of these groups was not linked to subgroup-specific characteristics such as MAF overexpression per se. It is especially important to define risk status if HiR cases are to be managed appropriately because of their aggressive clinical course, high rates of early relapse and the need to maintain therapeutic pressure on the clone.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Pomalidomide, a derivative of thalidomide and member of the immunomodulatory drugs is licenced for use in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in Europe, USA, Canada and Japan. AREAS COVERED/METHODS:This review details all published trials in which pomalidomide has been used in the treatment of myeloma including phase I, II and III studies via PubMed searches for randomised control trials, observational cohort, case reports, meta-analysis and reviews. In addition abstract searches from the 2015 IMW and ASH conferences have been included. Drug safety has been a main focus with additional detail outlining the current clinical experience and treatment efficacy. Drug related toxicities and management of such events are covered in detail. EXPERT OPINION/CONCLUSIONS:Pomalidomide is well tolerated and has been demonstrated to prolong progression free survival and overall survival in RRMM patients in comparison to other agents commonly used later in the disease. Treatment related toxicities are usually easily managed using treatment interruption, dose modification, prophylactic therapies and blood/platelet transfusions. There is scope for the drug to be used in combination with newer agents at disease presentation, relapse and as a long-term maintenance option. At present trials assessing its use in early disease and maintenance are lacking.

We have carried out the largest randomised trial to date of newly diagnosed myeloma patients, in which lenalidomide has been used as an induction and maintenance treatment option and here report its impact on second primary malignancy (SPM) incidence and pathology. After review, 104 SPMs were confirmed in 96 of 2732 trial patients. The cumulative incidence of SPM was 0.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-1.0%), 2.3% (95% CI 1.6-2.7%) and 3.8% (95% CI 2.9-4.6%) at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively. Patients receiving maintenance lenalidomide had a significantly higher SPM incidence overall (P=0.011). Age is a risk factor with the highest SPM incidence observed in transplant non-eligible patients aged >74 years receiving lenalidomide maintenance. The 3-year cumulative incidence in this group was 17.3% (95% CI 8.2-26.4%), compared with 6.5% (95% CI 0.2-12.9%) in observation only patients (P=0.049). There was a low overall incidence of haematological SPM (0.5%). The higher SPM incidence in patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance therapy, especially in advanced age, warrants ongoing monitoring although the benefit on survival is likely to outweigh risk.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy with a significant heritable basis. Genome-wide association studies have transformed our understanding of MM predisposition, but individual studies have had limited power to discover risk loci. Here we perform a meta-analysis of these GWAS, add a new GWAS and perform replication analyses resulting in 9,866 cases and 239,188 controls. We confirm all nine known risk loci and discover eight new loci at 6p22.3 (rs34229995, P=1.31 × 10(-8)), 6q21 (rs9372120, P=9.09 × 10(-15)), 7q36.1 (rs7781265, P=9.71 × 10(-9)), 8q24.21 (rs1948915, P=4.20 × 10(-11)), 9p21.3 (rs2811710, P=1.72 × 10(-13)), 10p12.1 (rs2790457, P=1.77 × 10(-8)), 16q23.1 (rs7193541, P=5.00 × 10(-12)) and 20q13.13 (rs6066835, P=1.36 × 10(-13)), which localize in or near to JARID2, ATG5, SMARCD3, CCAT1, CDKN2A, WAC, RFWD3 and PREX1. These findings provide additional support for a polygenic model of MM and insight into the biological basis of tumour development.