Best Practices

Treating Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the VA

Federal Practitioner and AVAHO convened a panel of experts to discuss challenges and opportunities for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma in the VA health care system.

Moderator
João Ascensão, MD, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine and Immunology at George Washington University School of Medicine and chief hematologist and chairman of the R&D Committee at the Washington DC VA Medical Center, both in Washington, DC. He is also a clinical professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland. In 2015 Dr. Ascensão served as president of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Panelists
Thomas R. Chauncey, MD, PhD, is an associate professor of medicine and oncology at the University of Washington, and an associate member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Dr. Chauncey is director of the Marrow Transplant Unit at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, all in Seattle.

Sean Cosgriff, PharmD, BCOP, is the hematology/oncology clinical specialist at the VA Portland Health Care System and affiliate faculty at Oregon State and Pacific University, both in Portland, Oregon. In 2014 Dr. Cosgriff served as AVAHO president.

Paulette Mehta, MD, MPH, is a professor of hematology/oncology at the University of Arkansas and a physician at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, both in Little Rock. In 2010, Dr. Mehta served as AVAHO president.

G. David Roodman, MD, PhD, is the Kenneth Wiseman professor of medicine and director of the hematology/oncology department at Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Roodman is also a staff physician at the Roudebush VA Hospital Healthcare System in Indianapolis.

Nikhil C. Munshi, MD, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Munshi is also a staff physician at the VA Boston Healthcare System at the Jamaica Plain Campus.


 

References

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a portion of a teleconference discussion on treating patients with multiple myeloma in the VHA. The conclusion will be published in the August special issue. For more information and to listen to the conversation, visit FedPrac.com/AVAHOupdates.

Biology of Multiple Myeloma

Dr. Munshi. There are many new advances in understanding of basic molecular and genomic changes in multiple myeloma (MM) that involve signaling pathways that drive MM. We have many drugs that target signaling pathways and the number of newer mutational changes that are identified could have therapeutic as well as prognostic significance.

One of the important findings is the lack of specific myeloma-related mutations. Unlike Waldenström macroglobulinemia, which has about 90% patients with Myd88 mutation, in myeloma we do not see that. The mutation frequency, at the maximum, is in the range of 20% for any one gene, and the 3 to 4 most common genes mutated are KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and P53.

Importantly, if we look at RAS and RAF combined, they target the MEK pathway. So, almost 45% patients have a mutation affecting the MEK pathway, and potentially we can use drugs in the future to see if MEK inhibitors will provide some benefit. And there are anecdotal reports and 1 medium-sized study that has used either a pure MEK inhibitor or a BRAF inhibitor with responses in MM patients. This is a very exciting new area of development.

The second important biological feature in myeloma is clonal shifts. You see multiple clones even at the time of diagnosis. The clonal complexity increases and different clones shift over time with treatment, various other interventions, and changes in myeloma growth patterns. In the future, we cannot just do genomic or cytogenetic analysis one time and sit on it. Over the course of the disease, we may have to repeat it to see if a new clone has evolved. Low-grade or low-risk disease can become a high-grade disease over time.

What is becoming apparent is that sometimes a clone that has almost disappeared reappears after 3, 4, or 5 years. The patient can become resistant to a drug that he or she previously was responsive to with the emergenceof a resistant clone. Three or 4 years later the old sensitive clone can reappear and again be sensitive to the drug that it was not responsive to. The patient may be able to use the same drug again down the line and/or consider similar pathways for targeting. This is one of the major advances that is happening now and is going to inform how we treat patients and how we evaluate patients.

Dr. Mehta. Dr. Munshi, is this going to become “big data?” Are we going to get a lot of information about the molecular changes and findings in our patients not only over time with the evolution of the disease, but also with treatment with various combinations and single agents? Do you think that we at the VA would be able to contribute to some type of banking of material with reference labs that can help to interpret all of the data that we’re going to be able to generate?

Pages

Recommended Reading

SU2C announces researcher-industry collaboration on immunotherapy
Federal Practitioner
Can Serum Free Light Chains Be Used for the Early Diagnosis of Monoclonal Immunoglobulin-Secreting B-Cell and Plasma-Cell Diseases? (FULL)
Federal Practitioner
Daratumumab Effective in Combo Regimen
Federal Practitioner
Study Points to Risk Factors for Lymphoma
Federal Practitioner
Multiple Myeloma and Stroke: What’s the Risk?
Federal Practitioner
The Long Legacy of Agent Orange
Federal Practitioner
Guidelines tackle long-term screening, management of myeloma
Federal Practitioner
Phase III trial: VZV protects auto-HCT patients
Federal Practitioner
‘Strong evidence’ links obesity to cancers
Federal Practitioner
Consensus Statement Supporting the Recommendation for Single-Fraction Palliative Radiotherapy for Uncomplicated, Painful Bone Metastases
Federal Practitioner