RAS/RAFlandscape in monoclonal plasma cell conditions.

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is characterized by a huge heterogeneity at the molecular level. The RAS/RAF pathway is the most frequently mutated, in about 50% of the patients. However, these mutations are frequently subclonal, suggesting a secondary event. Since these genes are part of our routine next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, we analyzed >10,000 patients with different plasma cell disorders in order to describe the RAS/RAF landscape. In this large cohort of patients, almost 61% of the patients presented a RAS/RAF mutation at diagnosis or relapse, but much lower frequencies in pre-symptomatic cases. Of note, the mutations were different from that observed in solid tumors (higher proportions of Q61 mutations). In 29 patients with two different mutations, we were able to perform single cell sequencing, showing that in most cases, mutations occurred in different subclones, suggesting an ongoing mutational process. These findings suggest that RAS/RAF pathway is not an attractive target, both on therapeutic and residual disease assessment points of vue.

Biallelic deletion of 1p32 defines ultra-high-risk myeloma, but monoallelic del(1p32) remains a strong prognostic factor.

Cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are known to be the preponderant prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Our team has recently developed a prognostic score based on 6 CAs, with which del(1p32) appears to be the second worst abnormality after del(17p). This study aimed to confirm the adverse effect of 1p32 deletion in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Among 2551 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 11% were harboring del(1p32). Their overall survival (OS) was significantly inferior compared with patients without del(1p32) (median OS: 49 months vs 124 months). Likewise, progression-free survival was significantly shorter. More importantly, biallelic del(1p32) conferred a dramatically poorer prognosis than a monoallelic del(1p32) (median OS: 25 months vs 60 months). As expected, the OS of patients with del(1p32) significantly decreased when this abnormality was associated with other high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), or gain(1q)]. In the multivariate analysis, del(1p32) appeared as a negative prognostic factor; after adjustment for age and treatment, the risk of progression was 1.3 times higher among patients harboring del(1p32), and the risk of death was 1.9 times higher. At the dawn of risk-adapted treatment strategies, we have confirmed the adverse effect of del(1p32) in multiple myeloma and the relevance of its assessment at diagnosis.

In Multiple Myeloma, High-Risk Secondary Genetic Events Observed at Relapse Are Present From Diagnosis in Tiny, Undetectable Subclonal Populations.

PURPOSE: Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by copy number abnormalities (CNAs), some of which influence patient outcomes and are sometimes observed only at relapse(s), suggesting their acquisition during tumor evolution. However, the presence of micro-subclones may be missed in bulk analyses. Here, we use single-cell genomics to determine how often these high-risk events are missed at diagnosis and selected at relapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 81 patients with plasma cell dyscrasias using single-cell CNA sequencing. Sixty-six patients were selected at diagnosis, nine at first relapse, and six in presymptomatic stages. A total of 956 newly diagnosed patients with MM and patients with first relapse MM have been identified retrospectively with required cytogenetic data to evaluate enrichment of CNA risk events and survival impact. RESULTS: A total of 52,176 MM cells were analyzed. Seventy-four patients (91%) had 2-16 subclones. Among these patients, 28.7% had a subclone with high-risk features (del(17p), del(1p32), and 1q gain) at diagnosis. In a patient with a subclonal 1q gain at diagnosis, we analyzed the diagnosis, postinduction, and first relapse samples, which showed a rise of the high-risk 1q gain subclone (16%, 70%, and 92%, respectively). In our clinical database, we found that the 1q gain frequency increased from 30.2% at diagnosis to 43.6% at relapse (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.00). We subsequently performed survival analyses, which showed that the progression-free and overall survival curves were superimposable between patients who had the 1q gain from diagnosis and those who seemingly acquired it at relapse. This strongly suggests that many patients had 1q gains at diagnosis in microclones that were missed by bulk analyses. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that identifying these scarce aggressive cells may necessitate more aggressive treatment as early as diagnosis to prevent them from becoming the dominant clone.

Heterogeneity in long-term outcomes for patients with Revised International Staging System stage II, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

In the era of personalized treatment in multiple myeloma, high-risk patients must be accurately identified. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends using the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) to pick out high-risk patients. The main purpose of our work was to explore the heterogeneity of outcome among R-ISS stage II patients assessing the impact of International Staging System (ISS) stage, chromosomal abnormalities and lactate dehydrogenase level in this subgroup. Data were collected from 1,343 patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed myeloma, enrolled in three clinical trials implemented by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. All patients were eligible for intensive treatment. Patients in R-ISS stage II but ISS stage I had 1.6 times higher risk of death than patients in R-ISS stage I (adjusted hazard ratio=1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.2; P=0.01) and patients in R-ISS stage II but with ISS stage III had a better overall survival than patients in R-ISS stage III (adjusted hazard ratio=0.7; 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.9, P=0.02). However, among patients classified in R-ISS II, ISS stage and chromosomal abnormalities (del[17p] and t[4;14]) were still relevant prognostic factors for death. Dividing R-ISS stage II into three subgroups: ISS I with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities, ISS II or III with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities and patients with high-risk chromosomal abnormalities, median overall survival times were, respectively, not reached, 112 months and 71 months (P<0.001). In conclusion, stratification of patients in the R-ISS stage II group can be improved by taking into account chromosomal abnormalities and ISS. However, this does not improve predictive performance of survival models.

[Nouveaux traitements du myélome multiple]. / New therapies in multiple myeloma.

NEW THERAPIES IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA Multiple myeloma is the second most common hemopathy in Western countries. The development of the therapeutic arsenal has significantly improved patients' prognosis. In the early 2000s, autograft, the addition of immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors have undoubtedly changed the face of the disease. In the last decade, a new chapter has opened, targeted therapies led by anti-CD38 and more recently the introduction of CAR T-cells and bispecific antibodies. Because of the survival improvement, quality of life is now a major concern as well as personalized treatment (adapted to cytogenetic risk or treatment response [minimal residual disease]) to overcome prognosis heterogeneity.

NOUVEAUX TRAITEMENTS DU MYÉLOME MULTIPLE Le myélome multiple est la deuxième hémopathie la plus fréquente dans les pays occidentaux. Le développement de l'arsenal thérapeutique a amélioré significativement le pronostic des patients. Au début des années 2000, l'autogreffe, l'introduction des immunomodulateurs et des inhibiteurs du protéasome ont indubitablement changé le visage de la maladie. Cette dernière décennie s'est ouvert un nouveau chapitre : celui des thérapies ciblées avec, en chef de file, les anti-CD38 et, plus récemment, l'arrivée des CAR-T cells et des anticorps bispécifiques. Du fait de l'amélioration de la survie, la qualité de vie est désormais au coeur des préoccupations, de même que le traitement personnalisé (adapté au risque cytogénétique ou à la réponse au traitement [minimal residual disease]) afin de réduire l'hétérogénéité pronostique.

Primary plasma cell leukemias displaying t(11;14) have specific genomic, transcriptional, and clinical features.

Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is an aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM) that has not benefited from recent therapeutic advances in the field. Because it is very rare and heterogeneous, it remains poorly understood at the molecular level. To address this issue, we performed DNA and RNA sequencing of sorted plasma cells from a large cohort of 90 newly diagnosed pPCL and compared with MM. We observed that pPCL presents a specific genomic landscape with a high prevalence of t(11;14) (about half) and high-risk genomic features such as del(17p), gain 1q, and del(1p32). In addition, pPCL displays a specific transcriptome when compared with MM. We then wanted to characterize specifically pPCL with t(11;14). We observed that this subentity displayed significantly fewer adverse cytogenetic abnormalities. This translated into better overall survival when compared with pPCL without t(11;14) (39.2 months vs 17.9 months, P = .002). Finally, pPCL with t(11;14) displayed a specific transcriptome, including differential expression of BCL2 family members. This study is the largest series of patients with pPCL reported so far.

Multiple Myeloma: Heterogeneous in Every Way.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy characterized by the accumulation of tumor plasma cells (PCs) in the bone marrow (BM). Despite considerable advances in terms of treatment, patients' prognosis is still very heterogeneous. Cytogenetics and minimal residual disease both have a major impact on prognosis. However, they do not explain all the heterogeneity seen in the outcomes. Their limitations are the result of the emergence of minor subclones missed at diagnosis, detected by sensible methods such as single-cell analysis, but also the non-exploration in the routine practice of the spatial heterogeneity between different clones according to the focal lesions. Moreover, biochemical parameters and cytogenetics do not reflect the whole complexity of MM. Gene expression is influenced by a tight collaboration between cytogenetic events and epigenetic regulation. The microenvironment also has an important impact on the development and the progression of the disease. Some of these determinants have been described as independent prognostic factors and could be used to more accurately predict patient prognosis and response to treatment.

Risk and Response-Adapted Treatment in Multiple Myeloma.

Myeloma therapeutic strategies have been adapted to patients' age and comorbidities for a long time. However, although cytogenetics and clinical presentations (plasmablastic cytology; extramedullary disease) are major prognostic factors, until recently, all patients received the same treatment whatever their initial risk. No strong evidence allows us to use a personalized treatment according to one cytogenetic abnormality in newly diagnosed myeloma. Retrospective studies showed a benefit of a double autologous transplant in high-risk cytogenetics according to the International Myeloma Working Group definition (t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p)). Moreover, this definition has to be updated since other independent abnormalities, namely gain 1q, del(1p32), and trisomies 5 or 21, as well as TP53 mutations, are also prognostic. Another very strong predictive tool is the response to treatment assessed by the evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD). We are convinced that the time has come to use it to adapt the strategy to a dynamic risk. Many trials are ongoing to answer many questions: when and how should we adapt the therapy, its intensity and duration. Nevertheless, we also have to take into account the clinical outcome for one patient, especially adverse events affecting his or her quality of life and his or her preferences for continuous/fixed duration treatment.

[Assessment for antihypertensive drug intake in France in 2019 and adherence]. / Dosage des médicaments antihypertenseurs en France en 2019 et observance.

Non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment is one of the critical contributors to sub-optimal blood pressure control. The French Society of Hypertension remembered that urine and serum biochemical detection of antihypertensive drugs could be useful in a patient with resistant hypertension. Talking to a patient with biochemically confirmed non-adherence to blood pressure-lowering therapy and repeating them improved adherence to drugs. Despite its usefulness, biochemical detection of antihypertensive drugs is not routinely effective in France as they are not reimbursed by French Medical Care, except in patients attending hospitals. The list of blood pressure-lowering drugs able to be biochemically detected in France and their modalities are recorded here.

[Assessment for antihypertensive drug intake: How, where and when?] / Pourquoi, comment et où dose-t-on les antihypertenseurs en 2019 ?

AIM: Hypertension is a public health problem managed according to therapeutic strategies published in France by the Hauteautoritéde santé (HAS - French Health Authorities). For patients with resistant hypertension, related or not to a non-adherence, prescribers need to be sure the exposure is high enough to achieve the tensional target. Quantitative analysis of antihypertensive drugs in different biological matrices (blood/urine) is one possible solution. However, this involves determining the concentrations observed at standard doses and knowing how to interpret the measured concentrations. It is also necessary to identify medical laboratories that can assay antihypertensive drugs. This was the aim of our work. METHODS: The main antihypertensive drugs recommended by the HAS have been listed. For each of them, we looked for published steady-state plasma/serum concentrations and quantities excreted in the urine at usual dosages. In addition, the elimination half-life and linear pharmacokinetic profile were specified for each antihypertensive agent measured in plasma/serum. Pharmacology-Toxicology laboratories in France likely to carry out assays were identified. The time taken to report the result and the cost of the analysis were also specified. RESULTS: All of the afore-mentioned information has been collected and presented in a table. This can then be used to compare the plasma/serum concentration or the quantity measured in a patient's urine with the values reported in the literature. In cases where the blood sampling times differ between those of the patient and the published data, the patient's measured value is compared to the estimated value based on the published concentrations and pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the plasma/serum/urinary value measured or estimated for an antihypertensive drug is a particularly interesting approach to determine if drug exposure is enough and a possible non-adherence. However, this activity is mostly carried out in hospital centres.