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.
Join our
Treating classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Spotlight on targeted therapies
with Gilles Salles, Paul Bröckelmann, and Ann S. LaCasce
Saturday, November 2, 2024
8:50-9:50 CET
This independent educational activity is sponsored by Takeda. All content is developed independently by the faculty. Funders are allowed no direct influence on the content of this activity.
The 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.
Although emerging novel agents have improved patient survival outcomes significantly, early relapse (ER) remains an area of unmet clinical need in the multiple myeloma (MM) setting. There have been a number of attempts to better characterize patients who relapse: at the 25th European Hematology Association (EHA) Annual Congress, three posters outlined the latest advancements achieved by GIMEMA and the European Myeloma Network in Italy, in predicting ER and survival outcomes for patients with MM. The Multiple Myeloma Hub is pleased to provide a summary.
Gian Maria Zaccaria and colleagues aimed to design a predictive model and scoring system to define patients who will likely relapse within 18 months of diagnosis (ER18). The team hoped to correlate the simplified early relapse in multiple myeloma (S-ERMM) score with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival until the second relapse (PFS2).
Below you will find a summary of how the authors created and validated this model, but you can calculate the S-ERMM score here: sermm.emnitaly.org/.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients eligible for ER18 analysis vs reference population (late relapse or death without progression after 18 months)1
B2M, beta 2 microglobulin; CA, chromosomal abnormality; ER18, early relapse (within 18 months of diagnosis); FLC, free light chain; IgA, immunoglobulin A; IQR, interquartile range; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PCbm, plasma-cells bone marrow; R-ISS, Revised International Staging System; ULN, upper limit of normal |
||||||
Features |
Training cohort (n = 844) |
Validation cohort (n = 374) |
||||
|
ER18 (n = 312) |
Reference (n = 532) |
p |
ER18 (n = 61) |
Reference (n = 313) |
p |
Median age, years (IQR) |
68 (58–75) |
65 (57–73) |
0.03 |
56 (48—62) |
58 (52–62) |
0.17 |
Median albumin, g/dL (IQR) |
3.7 (3.2–4.1) |
3.9 (3.5–4.2) |
< 0.01 |
3.7 (3.4–4.1) |
3.9 (3.5–4.3) |
0.05 |
LDH > ULN, % |
14 |
7 |
< 0.01 |
28 |
12 |
0.02 |
Presence of CAs, % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Del(17p) |
19 |
12 |
< 0.01 |
18 |
13 |
0.38 |
t(4;14) |
20 |
10 |
< 0.01 |
28 |
13 |
0.04 |
t(11;14) |
16 |
20 |
0.19 |
23 |
13 |
1 |
t(14;16) |
5 |
3 |
0.17 |
6.6 |
5 |
0.77 |
R-ISS II/III, % |
82 |
67 |
< 0.01 |
87 |
63 |
< 0.01 |
PCbm > 60%, % |
36 |
25 |
< 0.01 |
44 |
36 |
0.26 |
FLC λ, % |
39 |
34 |
0.1 |
30 |
40 |
0.17 |
Plasmacytoma, % |
9 |
10 |
0.74 |
16 |
12 |
0.53 |
Table 2. Clinical features significantly and positively correlated with an increased risk of ER181
FLC, free light chain; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PCbm, plasma-cells bone marrow; ULN, upper limit of normal |
||
Variable |
Coefficient, β proportionality |
Score |
LDH > ULN |
2.4 |
5 |
Presence of t(4;14) |
2.6 |
5 |
Presence of del(17p) |
1.7 |
3 |
Abnormal albumin |
1.5 |
3 |
PCbm > 60% |
1.7 |
3 |
FLC λ |
1.0 |
2 |
Table 3. S-ERMM risk groups1
S-ERMM, simplified early relapse in multiple myeloma score |
|
Risk |
Score |
S-ERMM Low |
≤ 5 |
S-ERMM Intermediate |
6–10 |
S-ERMM High |
≥ 11 |
As demonstrated in Table 4, median OS, PFS2, and 4-year probability rates were significantly lower in patients classified as
Table 4. Patient OS and PFS2 rates with regard to S-ERMM characterization1
CI, confidence interval; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS2, progression-free survival until second relapse |
||||||
|
OS |
PFS2 |
||||
S-ERMM characterization |
Low (n = 574) |
Intermediate (n = 214) |
High (n = 56) |
Low (n = 574) |
Intermediate (n = 214) |
High (n = 56) |
Events |
204 |
117 |
40 |
302 |
150 |
47 |
Median, months |
NR |
59.5 |
31.5 |
62.3 |
40.0 |
19.8 |
95% CI |
83–NR |
50.5–74.2 |
23–53.5 |
54.6–69.7 |
33.7–46.5 |
16.6–30.7 |
4-year probability |
0.75 |
0.59 |
0.35 |
0.60 |
0.40 |
0.22 |
95% CI |
0.72–0.79 |
0.52–0.66 |
0.24–0.51 |
0.55–0.64 |
0.33–0.47 |
0.13–0.36 |
Poor patient survival outcomes have been associated with elevated levels of circulating plasma cells (CPCs). Luca Bertamini and colleagues aimed to determine the relationship between CPC levels at the time of MM diagnosis and sustained measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity (≥ 12 months; MRDsus12), and to identify clinical features that could couple with both variables in patients enrolled on the FORTE/UNITO-MM1 trial (NCT02203643).
Table 5. Clinical features associated with CPC levels at the time of MM diagnosis in patients from cohort 22
CPC, circulating plasma cells; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; ISS, International Staging System; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PCbm, plasma-cells bone marrow; R-ISS, Revised ISS; ULN, upper limit of normal |
|||
Feature, % |
Low CPC (n = 220) |
High CPC (n = 108) |
p |
ISS |
|
|
|
I |
62 |
30 |
< 0.001 |
II |
27 |
41 |
|
III |
10 |
30 |
|
FISH |
|
|
|
Standard risk |
74 |
51 |
< 0.001 |
High risk |
26 |
49 |
|
del(17p) |
11 |
24 |
0.006 |
del(13) |
44 |
67 |
< 0.001 |
t(14;16) |
2 |
12 |
0.001 |
amp(1q) |
42 |
59 |
0.006 |
LDH > ULN |
9 |
24 |
< 0.001 |
R-ISS |
|
|
|
I |
40 |
12 |
< 0.001 |
II |
56 |
71 |
|
III |
4 |
17 |
|
PCbm (> 60%) |
26 |
50 |
< 0.001 |
Figure 1. MRDsus12 rates2
A MRDsus12 rates including all eligible patients (cohort 2), and B MRDsus12 rates considering patients with MRD negativity only; analyzed according to high vs low CPC at time of MM diagnosis2
ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CPC, circulating plasma cells; KCd, carfilzomib + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone; KRd, carfilzomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone; KRd12, 12 cycles of KRd; MRD, measurable residual disease, MRDsus12, sustained MRD negativity for ≥ 12 months
A team led by Francesca Gay aimed to establish and strengthen the S-ERMM score as well as identify additional features that are associated with MRD negativity achievement and may predict ER18.
Table 6. Clinical factors, other than therapy, that significantly impact MRD negativity rates and patient risk of ER183
CPC, circulating plasma cells; ER18, early relapse (within 18 months of diagnosis); ISS, International Staging System; MRD, measurable residual disease; PCbm, plasma cells in bone marrow; S-ERMM, simplified early relapse in multiple myeloma |
||
|
Odds ratio (95% CI) |
p |
Decreased MRD negativity |
|
|
ISS III vs ISS II |
0.50 (0.29–0.85) |
0.01 |
PCbm > 60% vs ≤ 60% |
0.65 (0.44–0.97) |
0.03 |
del(17p) present vs not present |
0.40 (0.22–0.72) |
< 0.001 |
Increased risk of ER18 |
|
|
S-ERMM |
|
|
Intermediate vs low |
1.93 (0.99–3.74) |
0.049 |
High vs low |
4.45 (1.68–11.72) |
< 0.001 |
CPC, > 0.13 vs ≤ 0.13 |
2.68 (1.38–5.20) |
< 0.001 |
Decreased risk of ER18 |
|
|
MRD negative vs MRD positive |
0.26 (0.14–0.48) |
< 0.001 |
Data from these studies provide a clearer understanding of the factors contributing towards ER in patients with MM. The combination of the S-ERMM system with other ER contributors may pave the way towards risk-adaptive treatment regimens.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox