powerpoint presentation...multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by...
TRANSCRIPT
1/22/2020
1
Measuring Outcomes Post-Transplant in Multiple Myeloma
Luciano J Costa, MD, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Conflicts of Interest
• Research Support: Janssen, Amgen
• Honorarium: Celgene, BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, AbbVie
• Speaker bureau: Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi
• Off label uses of pharmaceuticals will be discussed in this presentation
2
Learning Objectives
• Describe the different parameters utilized to measure and describe outcomes
after autologous transplantation (aHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM)
• List traditional response criteria in MM and understand its limitations
• Review novel methods to identify and measure disease burden in MM
• Discuss how aHCT and therapeutic innovations in MM have affected outcomes
1/22/2020
2
Why to Measure Outcomes in MM?
• Compare Therapies
• Prognostication
• Modify treatment
—Progression or lack of response triggers change in therapy
—Uncommonly done in other circumstances (e.g lack of CR)
—No studies prospectively
CR= Complete Response4
Ideal Outcome
• Easy to Measure
• Measurable in all patients
• Reproducible
• Assessable early on treatment
• Correlates well with clinically meaningful outcomes
—Overall survival
—Quality of life (QOL)
5
IMWG Response Assessment in MM
IMWG= International Myeloma Working Group6
Kumar S et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: e328–46
1/22/2020
3
ARS 1
What test is not part of traditional IMWG response assessment in MM?
a) Serum Protein Electrophoresis
b) Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy
c) Functional Imaging (PET/CT)
d) 24h Urine Protein electrophoresis
e) Serum Immunofixaton
7
Does Traditional Response Criteria Check all the Boxes?
• Easy to Measure?
—Cheap, but not easy
—Multiple tests, requires marrow assessment.
• Measurable in all patients?
—Almost- challenge of non-secretory or oligo secretory MM
• Reproducible?
—Not well studied
• Assessable early on treatment?
—Not well studied
• Correlates well with clinically meaningful outcomes ?
—Overall survival – Yes, with caveats
—Quality of life – No data
8
Response and Survival in MM
OS= Overall Survival; PFS= Progression-free Survival; nCR: near complete remission
VGPR: very good partial response; PR: partial response; SD: stable disease; PD: progressive disease9
Martinez-Lopez J et al. Blood 2011; 118:529
1/22/2020
4
ARS 2
What is not a limitation of current traditional response assessment in MM?
a) Response categories correlate poorly with OS
b) It requires invasive bone marrow aspiration and biopsy
c) Criteria were not anchored in hard data
d) Requires multiple tests
e) Protein electrophoresis is expensive
10
Earlier Trials: aHCT Improves OS in MM
11
Attal M et al. N Engl J Med 1996;335:91
Child A et al. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1875
Modern Trials :Transplant Improves Short and Long Term Outcomes
12
GROUP No INDUCTION COMPARISON > VGPR PFS OS
GIMEMA 402 RD x4 MPR x 6aHCT x 2
6359
22 mo median
43 mo*65% 4 yrs
81%*MultiCenter 389 RD x4 CDR x 6
aHCT x25054
29 mo
43 mo*68% 4 yrs
77%*EMN02 1192 VCD x3-4 VMP x 4
aHCT 1 or 27485*
57% @ 3 yrs65%
HR 0.73*
NS(short fu)
IFM 2009 700 VRD x3 VRD x 5aHCT + VRD x 2
7788*
36 mo
50 mo*82% 4 yrs81%
Palumbo A et al. N Engl J Med 2014, 371:895.
Gay et al. Blood 2015, 126:389.
Cavo et al. Blood 2017, 130:397.
Attal M et al. N Engl J Med 2017, 376:1311
There has been NO MODERN transplant vs. No transplant trialNo: number of patients; RD: lenalidomide/ dexamethasone; MPR: melphalan/ prednisone/ lenalidomide; mo: months; CDR:
cyclophosphamide/ dexamethasone/ lenalidomide; VCD: bortezomib/ cyclophosphamide/ dexamethasone; VMP: bortezomib/
melphalan/prednisone; HR: hazard ratio; fu: follow-up; VRD: bortezomib/ lenalidomide/ dexamethasone
*Statistically significant difference
1/22/2020
5
CR only a good thing because of MRD (-) CR
13Lahuerta et al. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:2900
Measurable Residual Disease (MRD)
• Quantification of burden of disease beyond traditional protein-based tests and
assessment of response
• Irrelevant when CRs were rare (2000)
• Crucial when CR is the norm (2020)
• Open questions
—What is the best method?
—How feasible?
—Can it predict OS?
—Can it be used as surrogate endpoint in clinical trials?
14
Flow Cytometry- Technical Principles
15
Analytical Software
1/22/2020
6
NGS – Technical Principles
16
Malignant cell
CTGAACTG
CTGAACTG
CTGAACTGCTGAACTGCTGTTCAG
CACTTCAG
CACGACAC
TGCGACACTACCTCAC
TGGTAtCAC
CTGAACTGIdentification of
Clonogenic sequence(s)
Treatment
Search for and quantification of clonogenic
sequence(s)
Calculate burden of MRD
NGS: Next Generation Sequencing
Different Methods to Assess MRD
17
MFC (First Generation)
EuroFlow™ – Next Generation
Flow (NGF)
ClonoSEQ®- Next
Generation Sequencing
(NGS)
Applicability >95% of cases >95% of cases >92% cases
Requires initial sample No No Yes
Availability Can be performed locally Can be performed locally, few
centers have implemented
Sample shipped to central
laboratory from any site
Required sample ??? 2 x 107 nucleated cells Up to 20 µg of DNA (~3 x
106 nucleated cells)
Can be performed in
stored samples
No No Yes
Limit of detection ???? 2 x 10-6 (20 events) 6.8 x 10-7
Limit of quantification ??? 5 x 10-6 (50 events) 1.8 x 10-6
FDA cleared No No Yes
Bal S et al. Br J Haematol.2019;186:807-819
MFC=Multiparameter Flow Cytometry
µg= microgram
ARS 3
In contrast with Next Generation Flow an important property of Next Generation Sequencing is:
a) It does not require a pre-treatment sample with high MM content
b) Can not be run on stored samples
c) Is informative in <70% of cases
d) It can detect multiple mutations important for MM pathogenesis
e) Has a limit of detection < 10-6
18
1/22/2020
7
MRD Strongly predicts Outcomes in CR patients (MFC 10-4)
19Munshi et al. Jama Oncology 2017;3:28
Depth of Response Matters (NGS)
20Perrot A et al. Blood. 2018;132:2456
< 10-6
< 10-6, 10-5
< 10-5, 10-4
> 10-4
MRD Partially Abrogates Cytogenetic Risk
21
Perrot A et al. Blood. 2018 132:2456
1/22/2020
8
Can MRD be Used as Surrogate Endpoint in MM trials?
22
Validating a prognostic marker Validating a surrogate endpoint
• Correlations of MRD status PFS on individual patients• Does not involve treatment comparisons• Multiple studies provide assessment of consistence and
robustness
Data points generated by:
Individual patient
Each trial
• Correlations of Odds Ratio on MRD endpoint Hazard Ratio on PFS
• Multiple studies provide the “building blocks” – treatment comparisons from each trial
Munshi et al. Jama Oncology 2017;3:28
Shi Q et al. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:552
Courtesy of Dr. Q. Shi
Limitations of MRD Assessment
• Pre-Analytical Issues—Quality of marrow aspirate
—Invasive test (limited retesting)
—Heterogeneous marrow infiltration
—Extra-medullary disease
• Analytical Issues—Analytical validation
—Clinical validation
—Limited cross-validation
—Test availability
—Cost
23
Functional Imaging Adds to MRD
24Rasche A et al. Leukemia 2019, 33:1713
1/22/2020
9
IMWG-defined MRD Response
• Sustained MRD- negative - MRD negativity in the marrow (NGF or NGS, or both) and by imaging as defined below, confirmed minimum of 1 year apart.
• Flow MRD- negative - Absence of phenotypically aberrant clonal plasma cells by NGF on bone marrow aspirates using the EuroFlow standard operation procedure with a minimum sensitivity of 1 in 10⁵.
• Sequencing MRD- negative - Absence of clonal plasma cells by NGS on bone marrow aspirate using the LymphoSIGHT platform (or validated equivalent method) with a minimum sensitivity of 1 in 10⁵.
• Imaging plus MRD-negative - MRD negativity as defined by NGF or NGS + disappearance of every area of increased tracer uptake found at baseline PET/CT or decrease to less mediastinal blood pool SUV or less than that of surrounding normal tissue.
25Kumar S et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: e328–46
Traditional and MRD Response in aHCT Trials in MM
26
Patient Characteristics Post Induction Best On Study
Regimen/Trial N ISS-3 High-risk ≥ VGPR MRD<10-5
≥ VGPR ≥ CR MRD <10-5
MRD <10-6
IFM2009RVD-aHCT-RVD
350 17% 18% 47% 88% 59% 30% (NGS)
FORTEKRD-aHCT-KRD
158 15% 33% 73% 89% 60% 58% (NGF)
CASSIOPEIADaraVTD-aHCT-DaraVTD
543 15% 15% 65% 35% (NGF)
85% 54% 64% (NGF)
39% (NGS)
GRIFFINDaraRVD-aHCT-DaraRVD
104 14% 16% 72% 96% 80% 69 % (NGS)
Attal M et al. N Engl J Med 2017 376:1311
Gay F et all ASCO 2019; Moreau P et al. Lancet 2019,394:29
Voorhes P et al. ASH 2019, abstract 691
KRD: carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone
DaraVTD: daratumumab/bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone
DaraRVD: daratumumab/lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone
ARS 4
What is not true about contemporary MM trials incorporating aHCT?
a) MRD is a validated surrogate of OS
b) High rates of MRD (-) CR are seen with quadruple therapy
c) MRD (-) at least partially abrogate other prognostic factors
d) aHCT leads to higher rates of MRD (-) CR than conventional therapy
e) Few studies report MRD with threshold of 10-6
27
1/22/2020
10
Opportunities With MRD Assessment
• MRD-based eligibility
• MRD as primary endpoint
• MRD Response-adapted therapy trials
—Intensification
—De-intensification/ treatment discontinuation
• Measure effect of each phase of therapy despite patient being in CR
—Bal et al TCT 2020 abstract 27
• Development and cross-validation of minimally invasive “MRD equivalents”
—Cell free DNA
—Mass Spectrometry
28
MRD response-adapted therapy
29Costa et al. ASH Annual Meeting 2019, abstract 860
MRD response-adapted therapy
30Costa et al. ASH Annual Meeting 2019, abstract 860
1/22/2020
11
Conclusions
• OS and QOL are clinically significant outcomes in MM
• Traditional response assessment correlates poorly with OS, inadequate for highly
effective therapies
• MRD assessment post initial therapy by NGF or NGS is one of the strongest
predictors of outcomes in MM
• Functional imaging partially overcomes limitations of MRD assessment
• Multiple opportunities for MRD to improve MM care
—Surrogate for clinical trials
—MRD-based treatment intensification and de-identification31
References
• Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C et al. Role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):e206-e217
• Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):e328-e346
• Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC et al. Association of Minimal Residual Disease With Superior Survival Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jan 1;3(1):28-35
• Bal S, Weaver A, Cornell RF, Costa LJ. Challenges and opportunities in the assessment of measurable residual disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2019 Sep;186(6):807-819
32