New IMWG Response Criteria

Similar documents
Is autologous stem cell transplant the best consolidation after initial therapy?

Terapia del mieloma. La terapia di prima linea nel paziente giovane. Elena Zamagni

Consolidation after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantion

Consolidation and maintenance therapy for transplant eligible myeloma patients

Is Transplant a Necessity or a Choice: Focus on the necessity for CR and MRD

Initial Therapy For Transplant-Eligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma. Michele Cavo, MD University of Bologna Bologna, Italy

Approach to the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma. S. Vincent Rajkumar Professor of Medicine Mayo Clinic

Novel Combination Therapies for Untreated Multiple Myeloma

Role of consolidation therapy in Multiple Myeloma. Pieter Sonneveld. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam The Netherlands

Framework for Defining Evidentiary Standards for Biomarker Qualification: Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) in Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Debate: Is transplant a necessity or a choice? Focus on the necessity for CR and MRD. Answer: NO

How I Treat Transplant Eligible Myeloma Patients

COMy Congress A New Era of Advances in Myeloma. S. Vincent Rajkumar Professor of Medicine Mayo Clinic

Consolidation and Maintenance therapy

Curing Myeloma So Close and Yet So Far! Luciano J. Costa, MD, PhD Associate Professor of Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham

Multiple myeloma, 25 (45) years of progress. The IFM experience in patients treated with frontline ASCT. Philippe Moreau, Nantes

MULTIPLE MYELOMA. The clonoseq Assay can predict progressionfree survival in myeloma patients

Induction Therapy in Transplant Eligible MM 2 December Tontanai Numbenjapon, M.D.

VI. Autologous stem cell transplantation and maintenance therapy

Management of Multiple Myeloma: The Changing Paradigm

Management of Multiple Myeloma: The Changing Paradigm

Module 3: Multiple Myeloma Induction and Transplant Strategies Treatment Planning

MULTIPLE MYELOMA. The clonoseq Assay can predict progressionfree survival in myeloma patients

COMy Congress The case for IMids. Xavier Leleu. Hôpital la Milétrie, PRC, CHU, Poitiers, France

Minimal residual disease. Bruno Paiva University of Navarra, Spain

Novel Therapies for the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Antibodies are a standard part of first relapse management in multiple myeloma (MM): Yes

Management of Multiple Myeloma

Disclosures for Palumbo Antonio, MD

Timing of Transplant for Multiple Myeloma

Upfront Therapy for Myeloma Tailoring Therapy across the Disease Spectrum

CME Information LEARNING OBJECTIVES

UK MRA Myeloma XII Relapsed Intensive Study CI: Prof Gordon Cook

Induction Therapy: Have a Plan. Sagar Lonial, MD Professor, Winship Cancer Institute Director of Translational Research, B-cell Malignancy Program

Update on Multiple Myeloma Treatment

Post Transplant Maintenance- for everyone? Disclosures

Criteria for Disease Assessment Joan Bladé

Treatment Advances in Multiple Myeloma: Expert Perspectives on Translating Clinical Data to Practice

Review of the recent publications from the French group of myeloma on urine vs serum FLC analysis in MM

Getting Clear Answers to Complex Treatment Challenges in Multiple Myeloma: Case Discussions

Unmet Medical Needs and Latest Multiple Myeloma Treatment

Multiple Myeloma in 2016 Progress and Challenges DONNA E. REECE, M.D. PRINCESS MARGARET CANCER CENTRE 01 APRIL 2016

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma Optimal Frontline Therapy and Maintenance Therapy

Highlights in multiple myeloma

Serum Free Light Chains should be the target of response evaluation in light chain myeloma rather than urines: results from the IFM 2009 trial

Myeloma: Are We on the Brink of a Cure? Jeffrey Wolf, MD Director, Myeloma Program University of California, San Francisco

TREATMENT FOR NON-TRANSPLANT ELIGIBLE MULTIPLE MYELOMA

Highlights from EHA Mieloma Multiplo

Best of ASH 2017 DR. BRIAN DURIE. Brian GM Durie, MD Thursday, January 11, 2018

Standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not eligible for a transplant

Smoldering Myeloma: Leave them alone!

Is Myeloma Curable in 2012?

Current management of multiple myeloma. Jorge J. Castillo, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School

Importancia del laboratorio en el seguimiento clínico de pacientes con mieloma múltiple

Importance of Achieving a Complete Response in Multiple Myeloma, and the Impact of Novel Agents Asher A. Chanan-Khan and Sergio Giralt

LONDON CANCER NEWS DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW

Clinical Case Study Discussion: Maintenance in MM

Multiple Myeloma: Induction, Consolidation and Maintenance Therapy

Managing Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Choosing upfront and salvage therapy for myeloma in the ASEAN context

Progress in Multiple Myeloma

Disclosures. Consultancy, Research Funding and Speakers Bureau: Celgene Corporation, Millennium, Onyx, Cephalon

Il trattamento del Mieloma su stratificazione di rischio: è oggi possibile?

To Maintain or Not to Maintain? Immunomodulators vs PIs Yes: Proteasome Inhibitors

Updates in Multiple Myeloma: 12 months in 10 minutes

Myeloma Closer to a Cure than Ever Before

Long-term ixazomib maintenance is tolerable and improves depth of response following ixazomiblenalidomide-dexamethasone

MYELOMA MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICES:

Multiple Myeloma: Diagnosis and Primary Treatment

Living Well with Myeloma Teleconference Series Thursday, March 24 th :00 PM Pacific/5:00 PM Mountain 6:00 PM Central/7:00 PM Eastern

Multiple Myeloma Updates 2007

MULTIDISCIPLINARY MULTIPLE MYELOMA CARE

Guideline on the use of minimal residual disease as a clinical endpoint in multiple myeloma studies

Myeloma update ASH 2014

Multiple Myeloma: ASH 2008

Overview of requirements for surrogate endpoint adoption by CHMP: a regulatory perspective. Dr Beatriz Flores CDDF- October 2017

Novel treatment strategies for multiple myeloma: a focus on oral proteasome inhibitors

Multiple Myeloma What is New? Can we talk cure? Rafat Abonour, M.D.

Treatment of elderly multiple myeloma patients

Autologous Stem Cell Transplanation as First line Treatment? (Against) Joan Bladé Berlin, September 9 th, 2011

To Maintain or Not to Maintain? Lymphoma and Myeloma 2015 Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York

Multiple Myeloma New Trials and New Drugs. Rafat Abonour, M.D.

Stem Cell Transplant for Myeloma: The New Landscape

Relapsed Myeloma Sequencing Treatments

Pomalidomide (CC4047) Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone as Therapy for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma. Lacy MQ et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(30):

Optimal maintenance and consolidation therapy for multiple myeloma in actual clinical practice

Kalyan Nadiminti, MBBS 4/13/18

Michel Delforge Belgium. New treatment options for multiple myeloma

Tracking Disease Status for Multiple Myeloma

Role of Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: The Changing Landscape

Disclosures. Membership of Advisory Committees: Research Support/ PI: Celgene Corporation Millennium Pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson

New Treatment Paradigms in Transplant-Eligible Myeloma Patients

Where to go from Here and Future Trials?

Treatment of Relapsed Myeloma Mayo Consensus

MULTIPLE MYELOMA. TREATMENT in 2017 MC. VEKEMANS

ASCO Analyst & Investor Webcast. June 1, 2018

Dr Shankara Paneesha. ASH Highlights Department of Haematology & Stem cell Transplantation

Should some patients with Smoldering Myeloma receive treatment? Yes-High Risk SMM should S. Vincent Rajkumar Professor of Medicine Mayo Clinic

MAINTENANCE AND CONTINUOUS THERAPY OF MYELOMA. Myeloma Day 11/18/2017 Aric Hall, MD Assistant Professor UW School of Medicine & Public Health

Continuous Therapy as a Standard of Care CON. JL Harousseau Institut de Cancérologie de l Ouest Nantes Saint Herblain France

Transcription:

New IMWG Response Criteria Shaji Kumar, M.D. Professor of Medicine Division of Hematology Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Arizona Rochester, Minnesota Jacksonville, Florida Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center

Limitations of current criteria

Response depth and outcome Diagnosis Depth of response MR PR VGPR ncr CR scr Cure? Time to disease progression CR, complete response; MR, minor response; MRD, minimal residual disease; ncr, near complete response; PR, partial response; scr, stringent complete response; VGPR, very good partial response

Therapy and depth of response 100 80 ORR VGPR CR/nCR 120 100 97 KRd Percentage 60 40 20 Percentage Proportion 80 60 40 20 72 55 39 0 VAD TD RD PAD VTD CVD RVD CVRD Induction regimen CR, complete response; CVD, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; CVRD, bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide and lenalidomide; KRd, carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; ncr, near complete response; ORR, overall response rate; PAD, bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone; PR, partial response; RD, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; RVD, lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone; scr, stringent complete response; TD, thalidomide and dexamethasone; VAD, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone; VGPR, very good partial response; VTD, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone Stewart KA, et al. Blood 2009;114:5436 43; Jakubowiak AJ, et al. Blood 2012;120:1801 9. 0 PR VGPR CR scr

Transitioning from conventional CR Complete Response (CR) Negative serum and urine immunofixation <5% PCs in marrow Stringent Complete Response (scr) Normal FLC ratio No clonal plasma cells in marrow MRD negative Flow negative MRD Sequencing negative MRD Imaging negative MRD

How do we define MRD negativity? The tools: Flow cytometry NextGen sequencing Imaging

Depth of response and outcome PFS OS Time to progression (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Median: 80 Median: 45 Median: 27 0 50 100 Time (months) 0.003 0.002 <0.001 150 Survival (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 Median: NR Median: NR Median: 55 100 Time (months) 0.3 0.02 0.002 150 MRD <10-5 (n=30) MRD+ 10-3 10-5 (n=37) MRD+ >10-3 (n=43) Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Blood 2014;123:3073 9. NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival

Deeper response better outcome 100 100 Progression-free survival (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time (years) Rawstron AC, et al. Blood 2015;125:1932 5. Overall survival (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 <0.01% (N=247) 0.01 <0.1% (N=49) 0.1 <1% (N=72) 1 10% (N=26) 10% (N=3) Time (years)

MRD after novel combinations VRD induction VRD or HDT consolidation VRD consolidation Len maintenance for 1 year Patients without progression (%) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 MRD at pre-maintenance P-value : p<0.0001 Negative (<10-6 ) Negative (<10-6) Positive Positive 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 P<0.0001 0.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Time since randomization (months) P<0.0001 MRD at post-maintenance Negative (<10-6 ) P-value : p<0.0001 Negative (<10-6) Positive Positive 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Time since randomization (months) Avet-Loiseau et al. Blood 2015;126:191. HDT, high-dose therapy; Len, lenalidomide; VRD, bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone

Role of imaging

Post-induction PET Elena Zamagni et al. Blood 2011;118:5989-5995 2011 by American Society of Hematology

Post ASCT PET Elena Zamagni et al. Blood 2011;118:5989-5995 2011 by American Society of Hematology

PET-CT normalisation Premaintenance: PFS 69% 51.6% p < 0.001

PET-CT normalisation Premaintenance: OS 94.6% 69.9% p = 0.003

PET and Flow negative: PFS 89.6% 54.5% p = 0.02

Durability of response 100 TT2 overall survival by 3-year CR status 80 Percentage 60 40 20 0 P-values: a vs b <0.001 a vs c <0.001 b vs c <0.001 0 2 4 6 Years from 3-year landmark after enrolment Deaths/N 5-year estimate (%) a) sus CR 38/258 82 b) non CR 78/218 59 c) los CR 27/37 24 Log-rank P-value <0.0001 8 Hoering A, et al. Blood 2009;114:1299 305.

Revised IMWG response criteria IMWG MRD negativity criteria Response subcategory (Requires complete response as originally defined) Sustained MRDnegative Flow MRDnegative Sequencing MRDnegative Imaging + MRDnegative Response criteria MRD ve in the marrow (next-generation flow cytometry [NGFC] and/or next-generation sequencing [NGS]) and by imaging as defined below, confirmed one year apart. Subsequent evaluations can be used to further specify the duration of negativity Absence of phenotypically aberrant clonal plasma cells by NGFC on bone marrow aspirates using the EuroFlow standard operation procedure for MRD detection in MM (or validated equivalent method) with a minimum sensitivity of 1 in 10 5 nucleated cells or higher Absence of clonal plasma cells by NGS on bone marrow aspirates in which presence of a clone is defined as less than two identical sequencing reads obtained after DNA sequencing of bone marrow aspirates using the Lymphosight platform (or validated equivalent method) with a minimum sensitivity of 1 in 10 5 nucleated cells or higher MRD negative as defined by NGF or NGS PLUS Disappearance of every area of increased tracer uptake found at baseline or a preceding PET/CT or decrease to < mediastinal blood pool SUV or decrease to less than that of surrounding normal tissue Kumar S, et al. Lancet Oncol; in press. CT, computed tomography; IMWG, International Myeloma Working Group; MM, multiple myeloma; PET, positron emission tomography; SUV, standard uptake value

Endpoints Endpoint TTP PFS EFS DFS DOR Definition Duration from start of treatment to disease progression, with deaths from causes other than progression censored. Duration from start of the treatment to disease progression or death (regardless of cause of death), whichever comes first. The definition for EFS depends on how event is defined. In many studies, the definition of EFS used is the same as PFS. EFS may include additional events that are considered to be of importance besides death and progression, including serious drug toxicity. Duration from the start of MRD negativity to the time of reappearance of MRD. DFS applies only to patients in MRD negative state. Duration from first observation of PR to the time of disease progression, with deaths from causes other than progression censored.* Duration of MRD, CR and PR should each be reported as appropriate.

Questions