Faculty Bibliography

Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has the potential to capture spatial genetic heterogeneity in myeloma (MM) patients. We assessed whether cfDNA levels vary according to risk status defined by the 70 gene expression profile (GEP70). cfDNA levels in 77 patients were significantly higher in the GEP70 high-risk (HR) group compared to the low-risk (LR) group and correlated weakly with clinical markers including lactate dehydrogenase, β₂ -microglobulin, and ISS. Patients with high cfDNA levels were associated with a worse PFS (hazard ratio 6.4; 95% CI of ratio 1.9-22) and OS (hazard ratio 4.4; 95% CI of ratio 1.2-15.7). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was elevated in the HR group and ctDNA correlated strongly with GEP70 risk score (Spearman r = .69, P = .0027). cfDNA concentrations were significantly elevated between days 3-5 after chemotherapy before falling back to baseline levels. ctDNA in two patients showed a similar spike in levels between days 3 and 5 after chemotherapy with a concomitant increase in allele fraction of KRAS mutations. We assessed cfDNA levels in 25 patients with smoldering myeloma with serial samples and showed increased allele fraction of mutated KRAS at progression in cfDNA. Our study shows that cfDNA is a dynamic tool to capture genetic events in myeloma.

Smoldering myeloma (SMM) is associated with a high-risk of progression to myeloma (MM). We report the results of a study of 82 patients with both targeted sequencing that included a capture of the immunoglobulin and MYC regions. By comparing these results to newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) we show fewer NRAS and FAM46C mutations together with fewer adverse translocations, del(1p), del(14q), del(16q), and del(17p) in SMM consistent with their role as drivers of the transition to MM. KRAS mutations are associated with a shorter time to progression (HR 3.5 (1.5-8.1), p = 0.001). In an analysis of change in clonal structure over time we studied 53 samples from nine patients at multiple time points. Branching evolutionary patterns, novel mutations, biallelic hits in crucial tumour suppressor genes, and segmental copy number changes are key mechanisms underlying the transition to MM, which can precede progression and be used to guide early intervention strategies.

The development of next generation sequencing technology has dramatically improved our understanding of the genetic landscape of multiple myeloma. Several new drivers and recurrent events have been reported and linked to a potential driver role. This complex landscape is enhanced by intra-clonal mutational heterogeneity and variability introduced through the dimensions of time and space. The evolutionary history of multiple myeloma is driven by both the accumulation of different genomic drivers and by the activity of different mutational processes active overtime. In this review, we describe how these new findings and sequencing technologies have been progressively allowed to understand and re-shape our knowledge of the complexity of multiple myeloma at each of its developmental stages: premalignant, at diagnosis and in relapsed/refractory states. We discuss how these evolutionary concepts can be utilized in the clinic to alter evolutionary trajectories providing a framework for therapeutic intervention at early disease stages.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Two promising epigenetic therapeutic targets have emerged for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, BET and CBP/EP300 proteins. Several studies have shown that targeting these individual classes of proteins has anti-tumor activity in multiple myeloma (MM), as well as other cancers. Here, we present the first data exploring the anti-tumor activity of two novel dual inhibitors, NEO2734 and NEO1132, of both BET and CBP/EP300 proteins in MM. METHODS:Sixteen MM cell lines (MMCLs) were treated with the dual inhibitors NEO2734 and NEO1132, the single BET inhibitors JQ1, OTX015, IBET-762, and IBET-151, and a single CBP/EP300 inhibitor CPI-637. RESULTS:The dual inhibitor NEO2734 showed strong anti-tumor activity and was consistently highly active against all MMCLs, being as potent as JQ1 and more so than other single inhibitors. NEO2734 and NEO11132 induced a significant G1 cell cycle arrest and decreased c-MYC and IRF4 protein levels in MMCLs compared to the other single inhibitors. Sensitivity to the dual inhibitors was not dependent on a specific MM molecular subgroup but correlated with c-MYC protein expression levels. CONCLUSIONS:The dual inhibition of BET and CBP/EP300 has potential therapeutic benefits for patients with MM.

BACKGROUND:Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS/RESULTS:The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. CONCLUSIONS:The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852.

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) has dramatically changed over the last three decades, moving from no US Food and Drug Administration approvals and two active drug classes to over 19 drug approvals and at least eight different active classes. The advances seen in MM therapy have relied on both a structured approach to obtaining new labels and cautious off-label drug use. Although there are country and regional differences in drug approval processes, many of the basic principles behind off-label drug use in MM can be summarized into four main categories: 1) use of a therapy prior to the current approval regulations; 2) widespread use of a therapy following the release of promising clinical trial results but prior to drug approval; 3) use of a cheap therapy supported by clinical safety and efficacy data but without commercial backing; and 4) niche therapies for small well-defined patient populations where large clinical trials with sufficient power may be difficult to perform. This review takes a historical approach to discuss how off-label drug use has helped to shape the current treatment approach for MM.