Eliminating the Need for Sequential Confirmation of Response in Multiple Myeloma

Background

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological cancer characterized by the proliferation of plasma cells (PC). Progressive disease (PD) criteria are primarily characterized by an increase in (1) serum M-protein (SPEP), (2) urinary M-protein (UPEP), (3) serum free light chains (sFLC), or (4) PC percentage in the bone marrow. An essential aspect of the PD criteria is the requirement for confirmatory results from blood or urine analyses. However, in many cases, patients may be taken off treatment in favor of a new therapy after only one assessment. This can introduce clinical trial endpoint inaccuracies when confirmatory values are missing, resulting in increased censoring and underestimation of the progression rate (if the second assessment is not done). Moreover, in subjects with high tumor burden and rapidly progressing disease, it is often urgent to confirm PD before starting a subsequent line of treatment. This study assessed the necessity of repeating biomarkers to confirm PD if two biomarkers meet the progression criteria.

Methods

In this retrospective study, between 2002 and 2020, we assessed all consecutive patients with relapsed MM enrolled in any therapeutic clinical trial at Mayo Clinic. We included patients with measurable disease if SPEP and sFLC were available at the time of assessment. Patients required at least two consecutive assessments (by the same method) to be included in our study. PD was based on the IMWG criteria. Relapse characterized by the development of new bone lesions or extramedullary relapse without meeting biochemical progression criteria was an exclusion criterion. Patients starting a new line of treatment after non-confirmed PD were also excluded. Furthermore, patients who did not meet simultaneous progression criteria and had unconfirmed PD (did not meet IMWG criteria at the second assessment) were excluded from the analysis (n=15). The probability of meeting the progression threshold with 1 and 2 consecutive assessments was calculated. We then examined the proportions of patients meeting PD by 2 biomarkers simultaneously at the first assessment.

Results

We evaluated episodes of treatment among 434 patients enrolled in clinical trials, including 601 episodes: 593 episodes of biochemical confirmed PD and 8 episodes when patients did not progress but who met simultaneous progression criteria at the same time with two different biomarkers. Per measurable disease criteria, MM isotypes were 71.0% IgG, 16.8% IgA, 0.9% IgM, 1.2% IgD, 0.3% biclonal, and 9.8% light chain. According to the standard IMWG response criteria (sequential criteria), 78% and 9% of episodes reached the progression threshold with serum and urine M-components, respectively, with two consecutive assessments. For the FLC, 21% of episodes met the progression criteria. No patients had a second bone marrow examination for confirmation of PD.

At the first available assessment, 82%, 19%, and 2% of episodes met progression threshold, respectively, with serum M-protein, urine M-protein, and both (serum + urine M-protein). Additionally, 58%, and 19%, episodes met the progression threshold at the first assessment with FLC and bone marrow examination, respectively. Moreover, 67% of patients with IgA myeloma meet the progression threshold with the total quantitative IgA.

With the simultaneous criteria at time of first assessment, 403 episodes meet progression threshold: 45% with SPEP+sFLC (n=269/593), 4% with SPEP+UPEP (n=21/593), 9% with sFLC+UPEP (n=55/593), 11% with BME only (n=66/593), and 0.3% with qIgA +dFLC/UPEP (n=2/593). Thus, among these 413 episodes, which meet progression criteria by 2 simultaneous values at the time of the first assessment, 98% (n=413/(413+8)) of these patients (positive predictive value of the new criteria) subsequently had confirmed progression by sequential value.

Conclusions

In summary, we showed that the simultaneous criteria allow to identify patients with true progressive disease without overestimating the progression rate of myeloma. Therefore, confirmatory results of progression for relapsed MM patients having two biomarkers meeting criteria of progression at the same time is useless for determining disease progression.

Dispenzieri:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; HaemaloiX: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mustang Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos: Research Funding; Loxo Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Angitia Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CVS Caremark: Consultancy; Keosys: Consultancy. Dingli:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; K36 Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sorrento: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; Prothena: Other: personal fees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Other: personal fees; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria; Alnylym: Honoraria; Sanofi: Other: personal fees; Janssen: Other: personal fees; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board . Hwa:Janssen: Honoraria; Shield Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pfizer: Other: Consulting fee located to Mayo Research fund; MultiMedia Medical, LLC: Consultancy; GSK: Honoraria. Kourelis:Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Leung:AbbVie: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Checkpoint Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Caribou: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Legend: Consultancy. Kumar:MedImmune/AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Independent review committee participation; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.