Search

Lenalidomide is an effective maintenance agent for patients with myeloma, prolonging first remission and, in transplant eligible patients, improving overall survival (OS) compared to observation. The 'Myeloma XI' trial, for newly diagnosed patients, aimed to evaluate whether the addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat to the lenalidomide maintenance backbone could improve outcomes further. Patients included in this analysis were randomised to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle), or in combination with vorinostat (300 mg/day on day 1-7 and 15-21 of each 28-day cycle) with treatment continuing until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between those receiving lenalidomide-vorinostat or lenalidomide alone, 34 and 40 months respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.44, p = 0.109). There was also no significant difference in median OS, not estimable and 75 months respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.29, p = 0.929). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no statistically significant heterogeneity in outcomes. Combination lenalidomide-vorinostat appeared to be poorly tolerated with more dose modifications, fewer cycles of maintenance therapy delivered and higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity than lenalidomide alone. The trial did not meet its primary end-point, there was no benefit from the addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance.

Summary:The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

Supplementary Table from Perspectives on the Risk-Stratified Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Supplementary Tables: Supplementary table 1: Demographics of the 463 patients included in the Myeloma XI analysis Supplementary table 2: List of epigenetic modifier genes used to interrogate the list of mutations in the Myeloma XI dataset Supplementary table 3: Demographics of the 156 patients included in the UAMS dataset Supplementary table 4: List of epigenetic modifier genes sequenced in UAMS dataset Supplementary table 5: SIFT analysis of Histone 1 family gene mutations Supplementary table 6: Multivariate cox-regression model for overall survival in Myeloma XI patients Supplementary table 7: Percentage of patients with mutations in genes encoding epigenetic modifiers sequenced in both the MYXI and UAMS datasets (as shown in Supplementary table 4) - Supplementary Figures: Supplementary Figure 1: Epigenetic genes mutated in {greater than or equal to}5/463 patients (>1%) in Myeloma XI dataset - location of mutation with respect to protein functional domains Supplementary Figure 2: Translocation subgroup distribution by presence or absence of epigenetic modifier mutation in the Myeloma XI dataset Supplementary Figure 3: Survival curves for Histone 1 mutations in Myeloma XI dataset Supplementary Figure 4: A comparison of the variant allele frequency between the MyXI and UAMS mutations Supplementary Figure 5: The distribution of mutations in epigenetic modifiers in previously treated patients by GEP70 risk score Supplementary Figure 6: A comparison of the UAMS molecular subgroup distribution by presence of epigenetic modifier mutations in previously treated patients

Purpose: Epigenetic dysregulation is known to be an important contributor to myeloma pathogenesis but, unlike other B-cell malignancies, the full spectrum of somatic mutations in epigenetic modifiers has not been reported previously. We sought to address this using the results from whole-exome sequencing in the context of a large prospective clinical trial of newly diagnosed patients and targeted sequencing in a cohort of previously treated patients for comparison.Experimental Design: Whole-exome sequencing analysis of 463 presenting myeloma cases entered in the UK NCRI Myeloma XI study and targeted sequencing analysis of 156 previously treated cases from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (Little Rock, AR). We correlated the presence of mutations with clinical outcome from diagnosis and compared the mutations found at diagnosis with later stages of disease.Results: In diagnostic myeloma patient samples, we identify significant mutations in genes encoding the histone 1 linker protein, previously identified in other B-cell malignancies. Our data suggest an adverse prognostic impact from the presence of lesions in genes encoding DNA methylation modifiers and the histone demethylase KDM6A/UTX. The frequency of mutations in epigenetic modifiers appears to increase following treatment most notably in genes encoding histone methyltransferases and DNA methylation modifiers.Conclusions: Numerous mutations identified raise the possibility of targeted treatment strategies for patients either at diagnosis or relapse supporting the use of sequencing-based diagnostics in myeloma to help guide therapy as more epigenetic targeted agents become available. Clin Cancer Res; 22(23); 5783–94. ©2016 AACR.

Prediction of individual patient benefit from lenalidomide (Len) maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains challenging. Here, we investigated extended molecular profiling for outcome prediction in patients in the National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI (MyXI) trial. Patients in the MyXI trial randomized to Len maintenance or observation after ASCT were genetically profiled for t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(1p), gain(1q), and del(17p) and co-occurrence of risk markers was computed. Progression-free survival (PFS), subsequent progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) were calculated from maintenance randomization, and groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 556 patients, 17% with double-hit multiple myeloma (MM) (≥2 risk markers), 32% with single-hit (1 risk marker), and 51% without risk markers were analyzed. Single-hit MM derived the highest PFS benefit from Len maintenance, specifically, isolated del(1p), del(17p), and t(4;14), with ∼40-fold, 10-fold, and sevenfold reduced risk of progression or death (PFS), respectively, compared with observation. This benefit translated into improved PFS2 and OS for this group of patients compared with observation; median PFS was 10.9 vs 57.3 months for observation vs Len maintenance. Patients with isolated gain(1q) derived no benefit, and double-hit MM limited benefit (regardless or risk lesions involved) from Len maintenance. Extended genetic profiling identifies patients deriving exceptional benefit from Len maintenance and should be considered for newly diagnosed patients to support management discussions along their treatment pathway. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN49407852 as # ISRCTN49407852.

Summary: The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) show heterogeneous outcomes, and approximately 60% of them are at intermediate-risk according to the Revised International Staging system (R-ISS), the standard-of-care risk stratification model. Moreover, chromosome 1q gain/amplification (1q+) recently proved to be a poor prognostic factor. In this study, we revised the R-ISS by analyzing the additive value of each single risk feature, including 1q+. PATIENTS AND METHODS The European Myeloma Network, within the HARMONY project, collected individual data from 10,843 patients with NDMM enrolled in 16 clinical trials. An additive scoring system on the basis of top features predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was developed and validated. RESULTS In the training set (N = 7,072), at a median follow-up of 75 months, ISS, del(17p), lactate dehydrogenase, t(4;14), and 1q+ had the highest impact on PFS and OS. These variables were all simultaneously present in 2,226 patients. A value was assigned to each risk feature according to their OS impact (ISS-III 1.5, ISS-II 1, del(17p) 1, high lactate dehydrogenase 1, t(4;14) 1, and 1q+ 0.5 points). Patients were stratified into four risk groups according to the total additive score: low (Second Revision of the International Staging System [R2-ISS]-I, 19.2%, 0 points), low-intermediate (II, 30.8%, 0.5-1 points), intermediate-high (III, 41.2%, 1.5-2.5 points), high (IV, 8.8%, 3-5 points). Median OS was not reached versus 109.2 versus 68.5 versus 37.9 months, and median PFS was 68 versus 45.5 versus 30.2 versus 19.9 months, respectively. The score was validated in an independent validation set (N = 3,771, of whom 1,214 were with complete data to calculate R2-ISS) maintaining its prognostic value. CONCLUSION The R2-ISS is a simple prognostic staging system allowing a better stratification of patients with intermediate-risk NDMM. The additive nature of this score fosters its future implementation with new prognostic variables.

PURPOSE Minimal residual disease (MRD) can predict outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma, but limited data are available on the prognostic impact of MRD when assessed at serial time points in the context of maintenance therapy after autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) and the interaction between MRD and molecular risk. METHODS Data from a large phase III trial (Myeloma XI) were examined to determine the relationship between MRD status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in post-ASCT patients randomly assigned to lenalidomide maintenance or no maintenance at 3 months after ASCT. MRD status was assessed by flow cytometry (median sensitivity 0.004%) before maintenance random assignment (ASCT + 3) and 6 months later (ASCT + 9). RESULTS At ASCT + 3, 475 of 750 (63.3%) patients were MRD-negative and 275 (36.7%) were MRD-positive. MRD-negative status was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.58 P < .001) and OS (HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.85; P = .0046). At ASCT + 9, 214 of 326 (65.6%) were MRD-negative and 112 (34.4%) were MRD-positive. MRD-negative status was associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.31; P < .0001) and OS (HR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.75; P = .0077). The findings were very similar when restricted to patients with complete response/near complete response. Sustained MRD negativity from ASCT + 3 to ASCT + 9 or the conversion to MRD negativity by ASCT + 9 was associated with the longest PFS/OS. Patients randomly assigned to lenalidomide maintenance were more likely to convert from being MRD-positive before maintenance random assignment to MRD-negative 6 months later (lenalidomide 30%, observation 17%). High-risk molecular features had an adverse effect on PFS and OS even for those patients achieving MRD-negative status. On multivariable analysis of MRD status, maintenance therapy and molecular risk maintained prognostic impact at both ASCT + 3 and ASCT + 9. CONCLUSION In patients with multiple myeloma, MRD status at both ASCT + 3 and ASCT + 9 is a powerful predictor of PFS and OS.

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n = 2042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before ASCT to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.96; P = 0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15) and ultra high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n = 451) or observation (n = 377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; P < 0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is more common in men than women but the mechanism(s) driving this are not understood. In our previous study (Myeloma IX) we found sex disparities in the cytogenetic lesions present in myeloma cells at the time of diagnosis and that female sex was associated with reduced overall survival in the context of treatment with traditional chemotherapy (CVAMP/MP) and thalidomide combinations. Here, we evaluate sex differences in almost 4000 patients recruited to the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial, in which treatment exposure to lenalidomide predominated. Methods: Myeloma XI recruited newly diagnosed patients of all ages, with pathways for transplant eligible (TE) and ineligible (TNE) patients. An induction randomisation compared the triplet combination of cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone to a similar combination with thalidomide (CRD vs CTD). Eligible patients underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and in both pathways a maintenance randomisation compared lenalidomide (+/-vorinostat) until disease progression versus observation. We compared baseline characteristics of males and females using Fisher's Exact test for categorical characteristics and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for continuous characteristics with p1 lesion present. Results: Of 3894 patients enrolled in the trial 2268 (58%) were male and 1626 (42%) were female, in keeping with the known sex disparity in MM. There was no difference in the median age, WHO performance status, ethnicity and most laboratory values of the two groups. Females were more likely to have the molecular risk lesions t(14;16) and del(17p) and had proportionately more HiR and UHiR disease, Table 1. Despite these differences, PFS and OS from induction randomisation did not significantly differ (PFS: Males 25 months, [95% CI 24, 26], Females 24 months, [95% CI 22, 25] and OS: Males 67 months, [95% CI 62, 70], Females 70 months, [95% CI 64, 74]). Molecular lesions that have been associated with outcome remained prognostic in both sexes, with a stepwise reduction in PFS and OS with cumulative risk lesions. PFS: Males SR 29 months, HiR 23 months, UHiR 16 months (p < 0.0001), Females SR 27 months, HiR 18 months, UHiR 17 months (p = 0.0007); OS: Males SR 77 months, HiR 59 months, UHiR 34 months (p < 0.0001), Females SR 82 months, HiR 54 months, UHiR 41 months (p < 0.0001). There was, however, no significant difference in PFS or OS when we compared males and females with a given cytogenetic lesion or cytogenetic risk. There was a significant difference in the proportion of patients of either sex who continued through the trial and underwent ASCT in the TE pathway (Males 72%, Females 67%; p = 0.031), but no significant difference in those that entered the maintenance randomisation (TE: Males 56%, Females 50%, p = 0.107; TNE Males 45%, Females 42%, p = 0.249). There was no significant PFS or OS difference by sex when analysed within each treatment pathway (TE, TNE), induction regimen (CTD, CRD) and maintenance approach (lenalidomide maintenance, observation). Conclusions: Females had a higher proportion of the adverse molecular risk lesions del(17p) and t(14;16) and were more likely to have HiR and UHiR disease. In the context of Myeloma XI trial treatment this did not correspond to a difference in PFS or OS, either overall or within the induction or maintenance randomisation treatment options (even though males were more likely to undergo ASCT). This suggests that in women the treatment delivered may have been able to overcome some of the adverse effect of the risk lesions present or that other factors affecting outcome were more important. on behalf of the NCRI Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies Group. Disclosures Cairns: Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Davies:Janssen, Celgene: Other: Research Grant, Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Consultant/Advisor. Boyd:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cook:Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Gregory:Abbvie, Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen, Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy. Owen:Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel expenses. Russell:DSI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene Corporation: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene Corporation, Janssen: Research Funding. Jackson:Celgene, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria. Pawlyn:Amgen, Celgene, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: CTD/CRD induction therapy for myeloma, Lenalidomide maintenance 10mg 21/28 days

Background: Substantial improvements in both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been observed in patients with multiple myeloma over recent years. Despite these therapeutic advances, multiple myeloma remains incurable, and most patients eventually progress through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and others. Understanding the effectiveness of current standards of care in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and / or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains an area of unmet need, and there are currently no prospective data reflecting real-world practice in this patient population progressing after PIs, IMiDs and anti-CD38 mAbs. Study design: This prospective multinational efficacy and safety study of real-life current standards of care (real-life SOC) will be conducted in the USA and Europe in approximately 230 adult patients with RRMM who received at least 3 prior lines of therapy or are double refractory to PI & IMiD and have received at least a PI, an IMiD, and CD38 mAbs and with documented progressive disease (PD) since their last line of therapy and have an ECOG score of 0-1. Also, subjects with documented evidence of PD (as above) within the previous 6 months and who are refractory or non-responsive to their most recent line of treatment are eligible. There are no exclusion criteria due to the observational nature of the study. The treatments that these patients receive in real life will be assessed for safety and efficacy over a two-year period. Real-life SOC treatments are defined as the treatment used in local clinical practice by the investigator for adult subjects with RRMM, who meet the eligibility criteria. Subject participation will include a Screening Phase, a Treatment Phase, and a Follow-up Phase up to 24 months from day 1, cycle 1 of the treatment. The Follow-up Phase will continue until study completion, which is defined as 24 months after the last subject receives the first dose of real life SOC treatment. Subjects will be treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reasons. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) of real-life SOC treatments in participants with RRMM patients. The secondary and exploratory objectives of the study are the further evaluation of the clinical benefit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), safety and the potential correlation of rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity with duration of response (DOR), PFS and OS. Methods: Demographic and patient characteristics, clinical response parameters, PRO measures, health care resource utilization, and safety data will be descriptively summarized. Due to the observational nature of the study, there is no direct hypothesis being tested. Therefore, the sample size is based on the clinically acceptable precision of the 95% confidence interval for the primary objective of describing ORR under real-life current SOC treatment. For the primary endpoint exact 95% confidence intervals by the Clopper-Pearson method will be calculated. For therapies available to treat participants with RRMM the reported ORR is 30% or less. When the sample size is 230, using the large sample normal approximation, the width of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the observed proportion will vary from 0.107 to 0.130 for an expected proportion varying from 0.20 to 0.40. Disclosures Moreau: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Weisel:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:ArtTempi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; John Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Accommodations; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria. Kaiser:Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Gay:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scheid:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Broyl:Celgene, amgen, Janssen,Takeda: Honoraria. Van De Donk:AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Potamianou:Janssen-Cilag: Employment. Sakabedoyan:Janssen-Cilag: Employment. Strulev:Jansen Pharmaceutica NV: Employment. Nesheiwat:Legend Biotech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bergmans:Janssen-Cilag: Employment. Rizvi:Legend Biotech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pilatowicz:Janssen-Cilag: Employment. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding.

Recent advances in multiple myeloma (MM) therapy have led to significantly longer median survival rates and some patients being cured. At the same time, our understanding of MM biology and the molecular mechanisms driving the disease is constantly improving. Next-generation sequencing technologies now allow insights into the genetic aberrations in MM at a genome-wide scale and across different developmental stages in the course of an individual tumor. This improved knowledge about MM biology needs to be rapidly translated and transformed into diagnostic and therapeutic applications to finally achieve cure in a larger proportion of patients. As a part of these translational efforts, novel drugs that inhibit oncogenic proteins overexpressed in defined molecular subgroups of the disease, such as FGFR3 and MMSET in t(4;14) MM, are currently being developed. The potential of targeted next-generation diagnostic tests to rapidly identify clinically relevant molecular subgroups is being evaluated. The technical tools to detect and define tumor subclones may potentially become clinically relevant because intraclonal tumor heterogeneity has become apparent in many cancers. The emergence of different MM subclones under the selective pressure of treatment is important in MM, especially in the context of maintenance therapy and treatment for asymptomatic stages of the disease. Finally, novel diagnostic and therapeutic achievements have to be implemented into innovative clinical trial strategies with smaller trials for molecularly defined high-risk patients and large trials with a long follow-up for the patients most profiting from the current treatment protocols. These combined approaches will hopefully transform the current one-for-all care into a more tailored, individual therapeutic strategy for MM patients.