Expert Panel Consensus Statement for Proper Evaluation of First Relapse in Multiple Myeloma
- 252 Downloads
Purpose of Review
A working group of six expert physicians convened to assess the spectrum of multiple myeloma relapse presentations, discussed the features that can define the disease as aggressive and not aggressive, and established whether this information could help in selecting treatment together with the characteristics of disease and of patients and type of prior therapy.
The working group agreed that relapse should be distinguished between biochemical and clinical according to IMWG. Moreover, the expert panel defined “aggressive disease” as a clinical condition that requires therapy able to induce a rapid and as deep as possible response to release symptoms and to avoid impending danger of new events. According to this definition, relapse was considered aggressive if it presents with at least one of the following features: doubling of M protein rate over 2 months, renal insufficiency, hypercalcemia, extramedullary disease, elevated LDH, high plasma cell proliferative index, presence of plasma cells in peripheral blood, or skeletal-related complications. Moreover, the panel agreed that this classification can be useful to choose therapy in first relapse together with other patient, disease, and prior therapy characteristics. So, this item was included in a new therapeutic algorithm.
The treatment choice in MM at relapse is wider than in the past with the availability of many new therapeutic regimens leading to increased diversity of approaches and relevant risk of inappropriate treatment decisions. A practical classification of relapses into aggressive or non-aggressive, included in a decisional algorithm on MM management at first relapse, could help to make the appropriate treatment decisions.
KeywordsMultiple myeloma Refractory plasma cell malignancy Aggressive myeloma Management of relapsed myeloma
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
M. Boccadoro, M. Cavo, F. Di Raimondo, M. Offidani, M.T. Petrucci, and P. Tosi declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.RWKR M, Kuehl WM, Grogan TM, Harris NL, Coupland RW. Plasma cell neoplasms. In: Swerdlow SHCE, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, Thiele J, Vardiman JW, editors. WHO classification of tumors of hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2008. p. 200–13.Google Scholar
- 3.Ludwig H, Fritz E, Friedl HP. Epidemiologic and age-dependent data on multiple myeloma in Austria. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;68:729–33.Google Scholar
- 11.Alegre A, Granda A, Martínez-Chamorro C, Díaz-Mediavilla J, Martínez R, García-Laraña J, et al. Spanish Registry of Transplants in Multiple Myelomas; Spanish Group of Hemopoietic Transplant (GETH); PETHEMA. Different patterns of relapse after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: clinical results of 280 cases from the Spanish Registry. Haematologica. 2002;87:609–14.Google Scholar
- 12.Lenhoff S, Hjorth M, Turesson I, Westin J, Gimsing P, Wislöff F, et al. Intensive therapy for multiple myeloma in patients younger than 60 years. Long-term results focusing on the effect of the degree of response on survival and relapse pattern after transplantation. Haematologica. 2006;91:1228–33.Google Scholar
- 15.Lopez A, Mateos MV, Oriol A, Valero M, Martínez J, Lorenzo JI, et al. Patterns of relapse and outcome of elderly multiple myeloma patients treated as front-line therapy with novel agents combinations. Leuk Res Rep. 2015;4:64–9.Google Scholar
- 21.Dingli D, Ailawadhi S, Bergsagel PL, Buadi FK, Dispenzieri A, Fonseca R, et al. Therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma: guidelines from the Mayo stratification for myeloma and risk-adapted therapy. Mayo Clin Pr Sonneveld P, Schmidt IGH, van er Holt B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2946–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet. 2010;376:2075–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:519–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.• Benboubker L, Dimopoulos MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:906–17 Based on the results of this phase III clinical trial, the combination lenalidomide and dexamethasone became a new standard therapy for patients not eligible to autologous transplant. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Caillon H, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H, Touzeau C, Moreau, Dejoie T. Free light chain escape in multiple myeloma: an exceptional phenomenon. Blood. 2016;128:4428.Google Scholar
- 43.•• Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report for international myeloma working group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–9 This study provided the new prognostic stratification of MM patients and was obtained combining the International Staging System (ISS) with chromosomal abnormalities (CA) and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Rodriguez-Otero P, Mateos MV, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Early myeloma-related death in elderly patients: development of a clinical prognostic score and evaluation of response sustainability role. Leukemia. 2018;32:2427–34.Google Scholar
- 52.Sidiqi MH, Aljama MA, Jevremovic D, Morice WG, Timm M, et al. Plasma cell proliferative index post-transplant is a powerful predictor of prognosis in myeloma patients failing to achieve a complete response. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54:442–47.Google Scholar
- 65.Avet-Loiseau H, Soulier J, Fermand JP, Yakoub-Agha I, Attal M, Hulin C, et al. Impact of high-risk cytogenetics and prior therapy on outcomes in patients with advanced relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexaméthasone. Leukemia. 2010;24:623–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Offidani M, Corvatta L, Polloni C, Centurioni R, Visani G, et al. Assessment of vulnerability measures and their effect on survival in a real-life population of multiple myeloma patients registered at Marche Region multiple myeloma registry. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2012;12:423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.• Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos MV, Larocca A, Facon T, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood. 2015;125:2068–74 The IMWG frailty score, combining age, functional status, and comorbidities, represents a useful tool to choose the most appropriate treatment in newly diagnosed MM patients. CrossRefGoogle Scholar