Hypercalcemia
Anemia
Lytic Bone Lesions
Renal Failure
Anemia is defined as a Hb value of 2 g/dL or 20g/L below lowest limit of normal for the lab, or less than 10g/DL (100g/L)
Is there something magical however about a Hb of 10.1 versus 9.9?
This is where we recognize that there is some arbitrariness/clinical decision making involved.
In general, very mild anemia such as this case would not qualify as a CRAB criteria, and this would be referred to as smoldering myeloma.
Also, sometimes anemia can be from causes other than myeloma. Especially if the plasma cell burden is low (10-20%), must evaluate for other causes of anemia and alternate explanations. Sometimes you can have smoldering myeloma with iron deficiency anemia, or MGUS with anemia!
55 yr old gentleman with HTN, DM, CKD and a long standing creatinine of ~2-3 mg/DL develops neuropathy.
Workup shows M spike 1.2 g/DL.
K/L ratio is abnormal at 12. Bone marrow biopsy shows 15% plasma cells. PET/CT/MRI neg. Kidney biopsy with diabetic changes.
Diagnosis?
The correct answer here is smoldering myeloma.
Why?
More than 10% plasma cells (less than 10% would be MGUS territory)
And no CRAB/SLiM features that you can attribute to the myeloma.
The elevated creatinine is attributed to diabetes.
This is important to recognize!
Since we are talking creatinine, what is the creatinine value as defined in CRAB?
Renal insufficiency is defined as creatinine clearance <40 mL per minute or serum creatinine >177mol/L (>2mg/dL).
What about hypercalcemia?
While hypercalcemia is rarely isolated manifestation of myeloma, the high calcium level must be >0.25 mmol/L (>1mg/dL) higher than the upper limit of normal or >2.75 mmol/L (>11mg/dL).
Now lets talk about the SLiM features
Often a source of confusion!
57 yr old gentleman on routine labs found to have elevated protein.
CBC Normal, CMP normal other than total protein= 9.3 g/DL.
M spike=2.1 g/DL.
K/L ratio= 12
Bone marrow biopsy= 15% monoclonal plasma cells
Skeletal survey= Negative
Diagnosis?
The correct answer to this question is that further advanced imaging is needed.
A skeletal survey can miss up to 40% of lytic lesions that would otherwise be picked up via advanced imaging such as MRI, low dose whole body CT or PET/CT!
You now proceed with a whole body diffusion weighted MRI (myeloma MRI).
You find no lytic lesions, but you do find two focal bone marrow lesions, one measuring 1.2 cm, and another measuring 0.8 cm.
Diagnosis?
A common source of confusion are focal bone marrow lesions on MRI versus "lytic lesion".
Focal lesions are early, abnormal areas in bone marrow seen on MRI that signal the development of a full-on lytic lesion within the next few years.
Different than an "actual lytic lesion"!
In 2014, the definition of myeloma changed to include these as myeloma defining event:
-more than 1 focal bone marrow lesion of at least 5 mm on MRI
-involved/uninvolved light chain ratio of grt than 20
-bone marrow plasma cell % of grt than 60
These are called SLiM criteria!
So above patient has MM, because of presence of focal bone marrow lesions, even in absence of other CRAB features.
The three aforementioned findings were added because the risk of MM was felt to be 70-80% in the next two years for such patients based on limited data at that time
Now the reality is that as more data has accumulated, the actual risk of progression of these patients has found to be much lower.
More in the ballpark of 30% in next two years, as opposed to 80%!
Hence today, there is some controversy with treating those with SLiM criteria alone (no CRAB features) too!
This thread is getting long and should come to an end, so we must summarize key findings!
⭐️The degree of anemia matters. Not all mild anemia in setting of plasma cell clonality is myeloma!
⭐️Degree of renal dysfunction matters too. Not all renal dysfunction is related
⭐️ A focal bone marrow lesion on MRI is different than a "lytic" lesion. Both can diagnose MM though
Thanks for reading. Cannot capture all nuances but hopefully helpful for trainees and other specialties!
As opposed to V, K is an "irreversible" PI- and is much more active against myeloma cell lines compared to V
(note=pre-clinical efficacy is NOT clinical efficacy- melflufen was 50x more potent than melphalan 🧐!)
For a me-too drug to be useful it must offer at least one of the following features:
1) It works when original drug stops working 2) It has more "clinical" efficacy (not just againt cell lines) than original drug 3) It is safer/has different adverse events than the original drug
Firstly, I commend the team for choosing a trainee (@anniencowan ) as a first author. So inspirational. I saw that for the PROMISE study too, @HabibElKhoury was first author).
This is the way 👏
I also admit I am not a statistician, and this was a very technical read. The results and methods are not an easy read for a clinician. I will focus my comments on the clinical aspect of things, because some of the stats in this manuscript are simply over my head.
Diarrhea is amongst the worst of side effects that patients experience during auto-SCT. The majority of patients experience Grade 2 or higher diarrhea, defined as at least 4-6 bowel movements above baseline that may impair IADLs.
It profoundly impacts quality of life.
Although a minority of patients may have infections, the vast majority of the time diarrhea is due to the toxic effects of chemotherapy on intestinal epithelium.
Currently, we use anti-motility drugs to treat diarrhea, as well as maintaining fluid balance, checking for infxn.
This was not necessarily aimed for us to figure out what the best option is for patients with 2-4 prior lines of therapy, but to fulfill regulatory requirements for approval (given prior approval was based on single arm study).
What was the patient population enrolled in this study?
Had to have 2-4 prior lines of therapy.
84% had prior auto
65% triple refractory
6% penta-refractory.
No clear single best standard of care in this population-important to highlight.
My approach to transplant for myeloma (some nuance lost):
Young stnrd-risk who prioritizes PFS: Upfront auto
Young stnrd-risk who doesn't prioritize PFS: Defer
Young high-risk: Upfront auto
Older high-risk: Transplant only if mel200 can be given
Older standard risk: No auto #mmsm
3 trials and supporting evidence in brief thread:
1)DETERMINATION: PFS benefit, but no OS at 7-8 years of follow-up, despite low cross-over in control arm nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
2)IFM-2009: PFS benefit, but no OS benefit at 7-8 years, although high-cross over to transplant in control arm