Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis. METHODS: MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; <22 vs ≥22), spleen size (<12 cm vs ≥12 cm), red blood cell or whole blood units transfused in the 8 weeks before randomisation (0 units vs 1-4 units vs ≥5 units), and study site. The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at week 24 (defined as ≥50% reduction in mean MFSAF TSS over the 28 days immediately before the end of week 24 compared with baseline). MOMENTUM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04173494, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6-26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia. FUNDING: Sierra Oncology.

A randomized phase 3 trial of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in symptomatic Waldenström macroglobulinemia: the ASPEN study.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition is an effective treatment approach for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). The phase 3 ASPEN study compared the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor, with zanubrutinib, a novel highly selective BTK inhibitor, in patients with WM. Patients with MYD88L265P disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with ibrutinib or zanubrutinib. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR) or a very good partial response (VGPR) by independent review. Key secondary end points included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease burden, and safety. A total of 201 patients were randomized, and 199 received ≥1 dose of study treatment. No patient achieved a CR. Twenty-nine (28%) zanubrutinib patients and 19 (19%) ibrutinib patients achieved a VGPR, a nonstatistically significant difference (P = .09). MRRs were 77% and 78%, respectively. Median DOR and PFS were not reached; 84% and 85% of ibrutinib and zanubrutinib patients were progression free at 18 months. Atrial fibrillation, contusion, diarrhea, peripheral edema, hemorrhage, muscle spasms, and pneumonia, as well as adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, were less common among zanubrutinib recipients. Incidence of neutropenia was higher with zanubrutinib, although grade ≥3 infection rates were similar in both arms (1.2 and 1.1 events per 100 person-months). These results demonstrate that zanubrutinib and ibrutinib are highly effective in the treatment of WM, but zanubrutinib treatment was associated with a trend toward better response quality and less toxicity, particularly cardiovascular toxicity.

Statistical Considerations on the Use of RWD/RWE for Oncology Drug Approvals: Overview and Lessons Learned.

Despite increasing utilization of real-world data (RWD)/real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory submissions, their application to oncology drug approvals has seen limited success. Real-world data is most commonly summarized as a benchmark control for a single arm study or used to augment the concurrent control in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). While there has been substantial research on usage of RWD/RWE, our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of their use in oncology drug approval submissions to inform future RWD/RWE study design. We will review examples of applications and summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each example identified by regulatory agencies. A few noteworthy case studies will be reviewed in detail. Operational aspects of RWD/RWE study design/analysis will be also discussed.

Patient-reported Outcomes and Quality of Life in Anemic and Symptomatic Patients With Myelofibrosis: Results From the MOMENTUM Study.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm that typically manifests with debilitating symptoms that progressively worsen, negatively impacting patients' quality of life. Fatigue is a multifactorial and burdensome MF-related symptom due to its severity, persistence, and prevalence, with anemia a contributing factor and major unmet need. Clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2/activin A receptor type 1 inhibitor momelotinib have shown consistent anemia benefits, in addition to improvements in MF-related symptoms. The phase 3 MOMENTUM trial in symptomatic and anemic patients met its primary end point, with a greater proportion having a Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) Total Symptom Score (TSS) reduction ≥50% at week 24 with momelotinib versus danazol. To support the positive primary end point result, we conducted longitudinal, responder, and time-to-event analyses of patient-reported outcomes from MOMENTUM, as measured by the MFSAF, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments. These analyses demonstrated rapid and durable response benefits with momelotinib, with achievement of first TSS response by day 29 and continued improvement over time. Improvements favored momelotinib versus danazol for each MFSAF individual item, and greater improvements were observed for disease- and cancer-related fatigue and physical functioning at week 24, with significant results for multiple items/domains across the 3 assessments. These findings are consistent in demonstrating that momelotinib provides substantial symptom benefit.

Design and rationale of FOCUS (PX-171-011): a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of carfilzomib versus best supportive care regimen in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM).

BACKGROUND: Carfilzomib is a next-generation proteasome inhibitor with single-agent activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). In PX-171-003-A1, a single-arm phase 2 study of carfilzomib monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients, the overall response rate was 23.7%, 37% of patients achieved ≥ minimal response and median overall survival (OS) was 15.6 months. Based on this study, carfilzomib was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of R/R MM. Herein we describe the trial design and rationale for a phase 3 randomized study, FOCUS (CarFilzOmib for AdvanCed Refractory MUltiple Myeloma European Study), being conducted to compare OS after treatment with single-agent carfilzomib to best supportive care (BSC) regimen in R/R MM. METHODS: Patients must have received ≥3 prior regimens, must be responsive to at least 1 line of therapy, and be refractory to their most recent therapy. Eligible patients are randomized 1:1 to receive either carfilzomib (28-day cycles at 20 mg/m(2) IV on Days 1-2 of Cycle 1, escalating to 27 mg/m(2) IV on Days 8, 9, 15, and 16 and continuing at 27 mg/m(2) through Cycle 9 and Days 1, 2, 15, and 16 ≥ Cycle 10) or an active BSC regimen (corticosteroid treatment of prednisolone 30 mg, dexamethasone 6 mg, or equivalent every other day with optional cyclophosphamide 50 mg PO once daily). Patients will continue treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or treatment discontinuation and will then enter long-term follow-up for survival. The primary endpoint is OS and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall response rate, and safety. Disease assessments will be determined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria with minimal response per European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 3 trial will provide more rigorous data for carfilzomib, as this is the first carfilzomib study with OS as the primary endpoint and will not be confounded by crossover and will provide more robust secondary response and safety results that will add to the data set from prior phase 2 studies. FOCUS will facilitate regulatory approvals around the world and expand treatment options for patients with R/R MM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2009-016840-38; NCT01302392.

Statistical and Operational Considerations for 2-Stage Adaptive Designs with Simultaneous Evaluation of Overall and Marker-Selected Populations in Oncology Confirmatory Trials.

In biomarker enrichment study designs that start with an all-comer population, simultaneous evaluation of the entire and the marker-selected populations can be more desirable than pre-specifying the testing order, when the degree of marker predictiveness is uncertain. While there has been substantial research on this approach, our goal is to provide a complete overview and guidance in all aspects of this approach, including the interim analysis potentially using different endpoints, combination tests with associated multiplicity control, and the final treatment effect estimation. Regulatory/operational aspects and actual cases demonstrating the potential advantage of this approach are also described.

Minimal Residual Disease Status as a Surrogate Endpoint for Progression-free Survival in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Studies: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances have greatly extended survival times in patients with multiple myeloma, necessitating increasingly lengthy trials when using survival outcomes as primary endpoints. A surrogate endpoint that can more rapidly predict survival could accelerate drug development. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate minimal residual disease (MRD) status as a valid progression-free survival (PFS) surrogate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched abstracts in PubMed, The American Society of Hematology, and the European Hematology Association for "myeloma," "minimal residual disease," and "clinical trial." Because of the need to evaluate the treatment effect on MRD response, only randomized studies for subjects with NDMM were included. Details on the MRD-tested populations were required. The meta-analysis was performed by principles outlined at the 2013 United States Food and Drug Administration workshop on MRD in acute myeloid leukemia.42 For samples that were not measured for MRD and within the subset specified for MRD assessment, their MRD status was imputed from the samples that had known MRD status. Patients that were excluded from planned MRD assessment were considered MRD-positive. RESULTS: Six randomized studies, representing 3283 patients and 2208 MRD samples, met analysis inclusion criteria. MRD negativity rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.70. The treatment effect on the odds ratio for MRD-negative response strongly correlated with the hazard ratio for PFS with a coefficient of determination for the weighted regression line of 0.97. Our meta-analysis suggested that MRD status met both the Prentice criteria for PFS surrogacy. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the claim that MRD status can be used as a surrogate for PFS in NDMM.

Analysis of carfilzomib cardiovascular safety profile across relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma clinical trials.

Carfilzomib is a selective proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). It has significantly improved outcomes, including overall survival (OS), and shown superiority vs standard treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and bortezomib plus dexamethasone. The incidence rate of cardiovascular (CV) events with carfilzomib treatment has varied across trials. This analysis evaluated phase 1-3 trials with >2000 RRMM patients exposed to carfilzomib to describe the incidence of CV adverse events (AEs). In addition, the individual CV safety data of >1000 patients enrolled in the carfilzomib arm of phase 3 studies were compared with the control arms to assess the benefit-risk profile of carfilzomib. Pooling data across carfilzomib trials, the CV AEs (grade ≥3) noted included hypertension (5.9%), dyspnea (4.5%), and cardiac failure (4.4%). Although patients receiving carfilzomib had a numeric increase in the rates of any-grade and grade ≥3 cardiac failure, dyspnea, and hypertension, the frequency of discontinuation or death due to these cardiac events was low and comparable between the carfilzomib and control arms. Serial echocardiography in a blinded cardiac substudy showed no objective evidence of cardiac dysfunction in the carfilzomib and control arms. Moreover, carfilzomib had no significant effect on cardiac repolarization. Our results, including the OS benefit, showed that the benefit of carfilzomib treatment in terms of reducing progression or death outweighed the risk for developing cardiac failure or hypertension in most patients. Appropriate carfilzomib administration and risk factor management are recommended for elderly patients and patients with underlying risk factors.

Association of phosphodiesterase 4D polymorphisms with ischemic stroke in a US population stratified by hypertension status.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D) underlies the STRK1 linkage peak for stroke on chromosome 5q12 identified in Iceland. We tested association of 13 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 1 microsatellite in a nested case-control sample of elderly white women (>65 years of age) from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) in the United States. METHODS: The genotypes of 248 women who experienced an incident ischemic stroke during an average of 5.4 years of follow-up were compared with 560 controls. RESULTS: Marginal associations with stroke (P<0.10) were found for 3 polymorphisms. Stratification of the population by hypertension markedly strengthened the association. SNPs 9 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.91), 42 (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.70), 219 (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.64), and 220 (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.32) showed significant association with stroke (P<0.05) under a dominant model in subjects without hypertension at baseline, and SNP 175 was significantly associated with stroke under an additive model (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98) in subjects with hypertension. Furthermore, the microsatellite AC008818-1 showed association with stroke only in the nonhypertensive subjects. Based on results in Iceland, specific haplotypes were tested in SOF, and stratification by hypertension also affected these association results. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with an association of the PDE4D gene with stroke in a non-Icelandic sample and suggest an effect of hypertension status.

Relationship Between Carfilzomib Dose and Efficacy Outcomes in Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Carfilzomib is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 2 previous treatments. The approval was based on phase II trials that used a starting dose of 20 mg/m(2) escalated to a target dose of 27 mg/m(2) in cycle 2. We examined dose-outcome relationships in MM patients who received these 2 carfilzomib doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data from 4 cohorts of MM patients treated with single-agent carfilzomib in phase II trials were examined post hoc. The relationship between administered doses and overall response rate (ORR) was assessed using logistic regression models. Secondary analyses were performed using Cox regression models to assess the association between administered doses and time to event outcomes and using generalized estimating equations for cycle-specific response status (CSRS). RESULTS: A total of 476 intention to treat patients were enrolled, 461 of whom were evaluable for efficacy. In the primary analysis, adjustment for cohort and baseline covariates yielded an odds ratio for ORR of 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.41; P < .001) for each 1 mg/m(2) increase in the average administered dose of carfilzomib per patient (up to 27 mg/m(2)). Qualitatively similar and statistically significant results were seen for the association between administered dose and CSRS, duration of response, time to progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival when adjusted for cohort and baseline covariates. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis provides evidence for a dose-response relationship between the administered dose of carfilzomib and efficacy.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study evaluating sorafenib in combination with paclitaxel as a first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled screening trial to evaluate the addition of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (antiproliferative/antiangiogenic) to first-line paclitaxel for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomised to paclitaxel (90mg/m(2), weekly, intravenously, 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus sorafenib (400mg, orally, twice daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A sample size of 220 patients was planned with relative risk ≤ 0.82 (1-sided α=0.14) after 120 events supporting a treatment effect. FINDINGS: Patients were randomised in India (n=170), the United States (n=52) and Brazil (n=15). Median PFS was 6.9 months for sorafenib versus 5.6 months for placebo (hazard ratio (HR)=0.788; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.558-1.112; P=0.1715 [1-sided P=0.0857]). The addition of sorafenib increased time to progression (median, 8.1 versus 5.6 months; HR=0.674; 95% CI 0.465-0.975; P=0.0343) and improved overall response (67% versus 54%; P=0.0468). Overall survival did not statistically differ (median, 16.8 versus 17.4 months; HR=1.022; 95% CI 0.715-1.461; P=0.904). Grade 3/4 toxicities (sorafenib versus placebo) included hand-foot skin reaction (31% versus 3%), neutropenia (13% versus 7%) and anaemia (11% versus 6%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred (malaria and liver dysfunction) in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to paclitaxel improved disease control but did not significantly improve PFS to support a phase 3 trial of similar design. Toxicity of the combination was manageable with dose reductions.

Sorafenib or placebo with either gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with HER-2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during or after bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: We assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.

Sorafenib in combination with capecitabine: an oral regimen for patients with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIB trial assessed sorafenib with capecitabine for locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to first- or second-line capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice a day for days 1 to 14 of every 21-day cycle with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In total, 229 patients were enrolled. The addition of sorafenib to capecitabine resulted in a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo (median, 6.4 v 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P = .001) with sorafenib favored across subgroups, including first-line (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82) and second-line (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.04) treatment. There was no significant improvement for overall survival (median, 22.2 v 20.9 months; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.23; P = .42) and overall response (38% v 31%; P = .25). Toxicities (sorafenib v placebo) of any grade included rash (22% v 8%), diarrhea (58% v 30%), mucosal inflammation (33% v 21%), neutropenia (13% v 4%), hypertension (18% v 12%), and hand-foot skin reaction/hand- foot syndrome (HFSR/HFS; 90% v 66%); grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between treatment arms except HFSR/HFS (44% v 14%). Reasons for discontinuation in the sorafenib and placebo arms included disease progression (63% v 82%, respectively), adverse events (20% v 9%, respectively), and death (0% v 1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Addition of sorafenib to capecitabine improved PFS in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The dose of sorafenib used in this trial resulted in unacceptable toxicity for many patients. A phase III confirmatory trial has been initiated with a reduced sorafenib dose.