All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.
Bookmark this article
In the following weeks, the Multiple Myeloma Hub will be reviewing the current clinical landscape of high-risk multiple myeloma (MM). Crucial advances have been made, which help to better identify and treat patients with a poor prognosis. However, despite the available new therapies and combinations, this subset of patients still presents with poor survival outcomes.
In this article, you will find about what has already been covered on the hub and what topics we will focus on during this new Editorial Theme. Stay tuned!
The term “high-risk MM” is broadly used to define a group of adverse biological and clinical features that define a disease with earlier progression and death. There have been several attempts to identify patients with high-risk MM, but one staging system alone cannot fit all cases, and moreover, the aggressiveness and prognosis can significantly change in later stages of the disease.1
The consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) is to stratify patients by risk following the Revised-International Score System (R-ISS) (Table 1).2 This system incorporates some clinical aspects evaluated at diagnosis, but mainly relies on the presence of determined cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs), i.e. del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16). According to the R-ISS, 10% of newly diagnosed patients can be classified as high-risk MM (R-ISS-III).1
Since the R-ISS was defined, there has been an open discussion about additional mutations that may be necessary for risk assessment, and the re-evaluation of other mutations that might not have the impact that was once thought, such as t(14;16). Soon after the publication of the 2015 consensus, the IMWG reviewed their definition of high-risk cytogenetics, and included t(14;20) and any nonhyperdiploid karyotype. Additionally, patients carrying more than three cited CAs are now automatically classified in the ultra-high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, with less than 1–2 years of median overall survival.3
One of the topics that we will cover during this Editorial Theme is the urgent need to update the IMWG criteria again to include important CAs, like del(1p32) and amp(1q) in routine testing (see the cytogenetic prognostic index survival developed by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome). Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of using next-generation sequencing, instead of fluorescence in situ hybridization, for a more comprehensive approach to identifying patients with a higher risk of aggressive disease.4
Table 1. R-ISS and associated survival outcomes in newly diagnosed MM2
iFISH, interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; R-ISS, revised-International Staging System; ULN, upper limit of normal |
|||
Risk group |
5-year PFS rates, % |
5-year OS rates, % |
|
---|---|---|---|
R-ISS-I |
ISS-1 (serum β2-microglobulin level < 3.5 mg/L and serum albumin level ≥ 3.5 g/dL) No high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities by iFISH [such as del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16)] Normal LDH levels < ULN |
55 |
82 |
R-ISS-II |
Not ISS-1 or ISS-3 |
36 |
62 |
R-ISS-III |
ISS-3 (serum β2-microglobulin level ≥ 5.5 mg/L) and either: - high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities by iFISH - and/or LDH levels > ULN |
24 |
40 |
As shown in Table 1, patients with high-risk cytogenetics have shorter progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes.1 So far, no treatment strategy has been able to successfully overcome this poor prognosis, despite patients achieving complete hematological responses. However, crucial advances have been made in measurable residual disease (MRD), with several studies having shown that achieving MRD-negativity has a greater impact on patients with high-risk cytogenetics and significantly improves their risk of progression and/or death.5
The clinical significance of MRD for high-risk multiple myeloma
In the following weeks, we will review the impact of achieving deep responses in high-risk MM, and why MRD negativity (assessed by next-generation sequencing and/or next-generation flow cytometry) should be the goal of treatment when evaluating new therapies for this difficult-to-treat subset of patients.
After establishing MRD-negativity as a clear endpoint of treating patients with high-risk cytogenetics, the suitable treatment strategy should prioritize the therapies demonstrating higher rates of negative MRD at the maximum sensitivity available (logarithmic range of 105–106). The treatment selection will vary in transplant-eligible or ineligible patients, and newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory patients. Recent large randomized trials have reported positive results in high-risk cytogenetics when combining a proteasome inhibitor with an immunomodulator and a monoclonal antibody, followed by maintenance treatment. However, most trials in MM are underpowered to evaluate new agents’ efficacy in this subgroup of patients.4
Below, you will find a summary by Pieter Sonneveld, outlining the current clinical recommendations for high-risk patients discussed at the 25th European Hematology Association (EHA) Annual Meeting. As a part of this Editorial Theme, we will publish more detailed analyses on transplantation, triplet, and quadruplet combinations in MM with high-risk cytogenetics.
How to diagnose and treat high-risk multiple myeloma after EHA 2020
The majority of clinical trials studying the efficacy of new regimens for high-risk patients, only analyze the results according to the R-ISS stratification. Nevertheless, there are other biological and clinical characteristics that confer a higher risk of progression and/or death to patients with MM. The subgroups of patients listed below are usually underrepresented in current clinical trials, and there is a substantial medical need to investigate new treatment strategies for them further 1:
Although we have already covered some of these data in previous articles, we will also review the latest results and recommendations in some of these subgroups.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox