Daratumumab-Based Treatment for Immunoglobulin Light-Chain Amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P<0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.).

Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

Exploring participant perceptions of a virtually supported home exercise program for people with multiple myeloma using a novel eHealth application: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Supervision, tailoring, and flexibility have been proposed as key program elements for delivering successful exercise programs for people with multiple myeloma (MM). However, no studies to date have evaluated the acceptability of an intervention employing these components. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a virtually supported exercise program and eHealth application for people with MM. METHODS: A qualitative description approach was used. One-on-one interviews were conducted with participants who completed the exercise program. Content analysis was used to analyze verbatim transcripts from interviews. RESULTS: Twenty participants were interviewed (64.9 ± 6.7 years of age, n = 12 females). Participants had positive perceptions of the exercise program. Two themes emerged related to strengths/limitations: One Size Does Not Fit All (sub-themes: Supportive & Responsive Programming and Diverse Exercise Opportunities), and App Usability. Supportive and Responsive Programming was a main strength of the program, characterized as programming that was tailored, involved active support, and delivered by appropriate personnel. The inclusion of Diverse Exercise Opportunities was also regarded as a strength, as it accommodated the preferences of all participants. Related to App Usability, participants felt the app was simple and user friendly but had a few less intuitive components. CONCLUSION: The virtually supported exercise program and eHealth application were acceptable for people with MM. Programs should employ tailoring, active support, and appropriate personnel to bolster acceptability and include both supervised and flexible exercise formats. eHealth apps should be simple to use so technology proficiency is not a barrier to participation.

Once weekly selinexor, carfilzomib and dexamethasone in carfilzomib non-refractory multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs), including carfilzomib, potentiate the activity of selinexor, a novel, first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in preclinical models of multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: The safety, efficacy, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor (80 or 100 mg) + carfilzomib (56 or 70 mg/m2) + dexamethasone (40 mg) (XKd) once weekly (QW) was evaluated in patients with relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) not refractory to carfilzomib. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients, median prior therapies 4 (range, 1-8), were enrolled. MM was triple-class refractory in 38% of patients and 53% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain 1q. Common treatment-related adverse events (all/Grade 3) were thrombocytopenia 72%/47% (G3 and G4), nausea 72%/6%, anaemia 53%/19% and fatigue 53%/9%, all expected and manageable with supportive care and dose modifications. MTD and RP2D were identified as selinexor 80 mg, carfilzomib 56 mg/m2, and dexamethasone 40 mg, all QW. The overall response rate was 78% including 14 (44%) ≥ very good partial responses. Median progression-free survival was 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly XKd is highly effective and well-tolerated. These data support further investigation of XKd in patients with MM.

Outcomes of daratumumab in the treatment of multiple myeloma: A retrospective cohort study from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database.

Daratumumab (dara) has significantly altered the therapeutic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), especially in the relapsed setting. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of dara-containing regimens in the Canadian real-world setting among relapsed and refractory MM available within the national Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB). A total of 583 MM patients who received dara-based therapy in second-line or later treatment were included. After a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 13.1 and 32.9 months, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 23.5 and 49.1 months in second-line treatment and decreased to 12.8 and 43.0 months in third-line and 7.0 and 20.5 months in fourth-line treatment respectively. Dara in monotherapy with or without corticosteroids after a median of four prior lines of therapy resulted in a median PFS of 3.9 months and a median OS of 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib, lenalidomide or pomalidomide to dara resulted in an improved median PFS and OS of 8.3 and 26.2 months; 26.8 and 43.0 months; and 9.7 and 31.4 months respectively. These retrospective data from the CMRG-DB suggest that outcomes are superior when dara is used in combination and in earlier lines of treatment.

Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.).

The Incidence and Prevalence of Cardiac Amyloidosis in a Large Community-Based Cohort in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite the improved awareness of cardiac amyloidosis among clinicians, its incidence and prevalence is not well-described in a community setting. We sought to investigate the incidence and prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis in the community. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the adult population of Alberta, we examined 3 cohorts: (1) probable cases of cardiac amyloidosis: the presence of physician-assigned diagnosis of amyloidosis (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10 code E85; ICD-9 277.3) and 1 or more health care encounter for heart failure (HF) (ICD-10 I50; ICD-9 428); (2) possible cardiac amyloidosis: the presence of clinical phenotypes suggestive of amyloidosis; and (3) a comparator HF cohort without amyloidosis. Between 2004 and 2018, 982 of the 145,329 patients with HF were identified as probable cardiac amyloidosis. During the same period, the incidence rates of probable cardiac amyloidosis increased from 1.38 to 3.69 per 100,000 person-years and the prevalence rates increased from 3.42 to 14.85 per 100,000 person-years (Ptrend < .0001). Patients with probable cardiac amyloidosis were more likely to be male, have a higher comorbidity burden, greater health care use, and poorer outcomes as compared with patients with HF without amyloidosis. A much larger group of patients was identified as possible cardiac amyloidosis (n = 46,255), with similar increase in prevalence from 2004 to 2018 (from 416 to 850 per 100,000 person-years). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis has increased over the last decade. Given the advent of new therapies for cardiac amyloidosis and considering their high cost, it is imperative to devise strategies to screen, identify, and track patients with cardiac amyloidosis from administrative databases.

Clinicopathologic predictors of renal outcomes in light chain cast nephropathy: a multicenter retrospective study.

Light chain cast nephropathy (LCCN) in multiple myeloma often leads to severe and poorly reversible acute kidney injury. Severe renal impairment influences the allocation of chemotherapy and its tolerability; it also affects patient survival. Whether renal biopsy findings add to the clinical assessment in predicting renal and patient outcomes in LCCN is uncertain. We retrospectively reviewed clinical presentation, chemotherapy regimens, hematologic response, and renal and patient outcomes in 178 patients with biopsy-proven LCCN from 10 centers in Europe and North America. A detailed pathology review, including assessment of the extent of cast formation, was performed to study correlations with initial presentation and outcomes. Patients presented with a mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 13 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 82% had stage 3 acute kidney injury. The mean number of casts was 3.2/mm2 in the cortex. Tubulointerstitial lesions were frequent: acute tubular injury (94%), tubulitis (82%), tubular rupture (62%), giant cell reaction (60%), and cortical and medullary inflammation (95% and 75%, respectively). Medullary inflammation, giant cell reaction, and the extent of cast formation correlated with eGFR value at LCCN diagnosis. During a median follow-up of 22 months, mean eGFR increased to 43 ± 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Age, ß2-microglobulin, best hematologic response, number of cortical casts per square millimeter, and degree of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) were independently associated with a higher eGFR during follow-up. This eGFR value correlated with overall survival, independently of the hematologic response. This study shows that extent of cast formation and IFTA in LCCN predicts the quality of renal response, which, in turn, is associated with overall survival.

Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. METHODS: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. FINDINGS: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. FINDINGS: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. INTERPRETATION: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. FUNDING: Karyopharm Therapeutics.

The impact of lenalidomide maintenance on second-line chemotherapy in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of therapy sequencing on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The use of daily, low-dose, lenalidomide maintenance (LM) has raised concern for fostering resistance, preventing its use in the relapsed setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database. Patients were grouped based on receipt of LM after autologous stem cell transplant and receipt of lenalidomide in second-line therapy, 575 patients were included. RESULTS: Patients treated with LM had statistically similar 2nd PFS when re-exposed to lenalidomide in second-line therapy compared to those receiving non-lenalidomide-containing regimens (10.2 vs 14.0 months, P =.53). This cohort also had the longest 2nd OS, 18 months longer than patients treated with LM who did not receive lenalidomide at relapse (55.3 vs 37 months, P =.004). Patients treated with LM also demonstrated deeper responses to second-line therapy than their non-LM counterparts. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients progressing on LM who receive lenalidomide-containing therapy at first relapse have comparable 2nd PFS and better 2nd OS compared to non-lenalidomide-containing second-line regimens. Identification of patients mostly likely to benefit from further lenalidomide-containing therapy is paramount.

Retrospective study of treatment patterns and outcomes post-lenalidomide for multiple myeloma in Canada.

Lenalidomide is an important component of initial therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, either as maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or as first-line therapy with dexamethasone for patients' ineligible for ASCT (non-ASCT). This retrospective study investigated treatment patterns and outcomes for ASCT-eligible and -ineligible patients who relapsed after lenalidomide as part of first-line therapy, based on data from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database for patients treated between January 2007 and April 2019. Among 256 patients who progressed on lenalidomide maintenance therapy, 28.5% received further immunomodulatory derivative-based (IMiD-based) therapy (lenalidomide/pomalidomide) without a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (bortezomib/carfilzomib/ixazomib), 26.2% received PI-based therapy without an IMiD, 19.5% received both an IMiD plus PI, 13.5% received daratumumab-based regimens, and 12.1% underwent salvage ASCT. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longest for daratumumab-based therapy (22.7 months) and salvage ASCT (23.4 months) and ranged from 6.6 to 7.3 months for the other treatments (P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was also longest for daratumumab and salvage ASCT. A total of 87 non-ASCT patients received subsequent therapy, with 66.7% receiving bortezomib-based therapy and 13.8% receiving other PI-based therapy. Median PFS was 15.4 and 24.8 months for bortezomib-based and other PI-based therapy, respectively (P = .404). During most of the study period, daratumumab was not funded; in this setting, switching to a different therapeutic class following relapse on lenalidomide produced the longest remissions for non-ASCT patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine optimum treatment following relapse on lenalidomide, especially in the light of increased access to daratumumab.

A descriptive cost-analysis of MYX.1/MCRN003, a phase 2 clinical trial evaluating high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data. METHODS: The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020). RESULTS: The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens.

Weekly carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Final results from the MCRN-003/MYX.1 single arm phase II trial.

The MCRN-003/CCTGMYX.1 is a single arm phase II trial of weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (wKCd), exploring a convenient immunomodulator (IMiD)-free regimen in relapsed myeloma. Weekly carfilzomib (20/70 mg/m2 ), dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 was delivered over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response after four cycles. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, response depth, PFS and OS. Exploratory endpoints included the impact of cytogenetics, prior therapy exposure and serum free light chain (sFLC) escape; 76 patients were accrued. The ORR was 85% (68% ≥very good partial response [VGPR] and 29% ≥complete response [CR]). The median OS and PFS were 27 and 17 months respectively. High-risk cytogenetics conferred a worse ORR (75% vs. 97%, p = .013) and median OS (18 months vs. NR, p = .002) with a trend toward a worse median PFS (14 vs. 22 months, p = .06). Prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) or lenalidomide did not influence OS or PFS. The sFLC was noted in 15% of patients with a median PFS of 17 months when included as a progression event. The most common ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events were infectious (40%), vascular (17%) and cardiac (15%). The wKCD is a safe and effective regimen in relapse, especially for patients ineligible for lenalidomide-based therapies.

Effect of age and frailty on the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.

Selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma: Outcomes by cytogenetic risk.

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.

Frequency, Timing, and Predictors of Palliative Care Consultation in Patients with Advanced Cancer at a Tertiary Cancer Center: Secondary Analysis of Routinely Collected Health Data.

INTRODUCTION: Early integration of palliative care (PC) with oncological care is associated with improved outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Limited information exists on the frequency, timing, and predictors of PC consultation in patients receiving oncological care. The Cross Cancer Institute (CCI) is the sole tertiary cancer center serving the northern half of the Canadian province of Alberta, located in the city of Edmonton. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients with advanced cancer at the CCI who received consultation by the CCI PC program and the comprehensive integrated PC program in Edmonton, and to determine the timing and predictors of consultation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this secondary analysis of routinely collected health data, adult patients who died between April 2013 and March 2014, and had advanced disease while under the care of a CCI oncologist, were eligible. Data from the Alberta Cancer Registry, electronic medical records, and Edmonton PC program database were linked. RESULTS: Of 2,253 eligible patients, 810 (36%) received CCI PC consultation. Median time between consultation and death was 2 months (range, 1.1-5.4). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, residence, income, cancer type, and interval from advanced cancer diagnosis to death influenced odds of receiving consultation. Among 1,439 patients residing in Edmonton, 1,121 (78%) were referred to the Edmonton PC program. CONCLUSION: A minority of patients with advanced cancer received PC consultation at the tertiary cancer center, occurring late in the disease trajectory. Frequency and timing of PC consultation varied significantly, according to multiple factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinical and demographic factors are associated with variations in frequency and timing of palliative care consultation at a cancer center and may, in some cases, reflect barriers to access that warrant attention.

Selinexor plus low-dose bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Selinexor is an oral inhibitor of the nuclear export protein exportin 1. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic antimyeloma activity between selinexor and proteasome inhibitors (PI) through suppression of NF-κB signaling and nuclear retention of tumor suppressor proteins. We tested selinexor in combination with low-dose bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The primary objectives of this study were to determine the safety profile, overall response rate (ORR), and a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of SVd. We enrolled 42 patients to receive selinexor (60, 80, or 100 mg orally) plus bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) once or twice weekly in 21- or 35-day cycles. Patients had a median of 3 (range 1-11) prior lines of therapy, and 50% were refractory to a PI. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in ≥10% of patients were thrombocytopenia (45%), neutropenia (24%), fatigue (14%), and anemia (12%). Incidence (4 patients, 10%) and grade (≤2) of peripheral neuropathy were low. The ORR for the entire population was 63%: 84% ORR for PI nonrefractory and 43% for PI-refractory patients. The median progression-free survival for all patients was 9.0 months; 17.8 months for PI nonrefractory, and 6.1 months for PI refractory. SVd treatment produced high response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory MM, including borezomib-refractory MM, with no unexpected side effects. The RP2D is selinexor (100 mg once weekly), bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 once weekly for 4 weeks), and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly) per 35-day cycle. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02343042.

Addressing heterogeneity of individual blood cancers: the need for single cell analysis.

Cancer heterogeneity is a significant factor in response to treatment and escape leading to relapse. Within an individual cancer, especially blood cancers, there exists multiple subclones as well as distinct clonal expansions unrelated to the clinically detected, dominant clone. Over time, multiple subclones and clones undergo emergence, expansion, and extinction. Although sometimes this intra-clonal and inter-clonal heterogeneity can be detected and/or quantified in tests that measure aggregate populations of cells, frequently, such heterogeneity can only be detected using single cell analysis to determine its frequency and to detect minor clones that may subsequently emerge to become drug resistant and dominant. Most genetic/genomic tests look at the pooled tumor population as a whole rather than at its individual cellular components. Yet, minor clones and cancer stem cells are unlikely to be detected against the background of expanded major clones. Because selective pressures are likely to govern much of what is seen clinically, single cell analysis allows identification of otherwise cryptic compartments of the malignancy that may ultimately mediate progression and relapse. Single cell analysis can track intra- or inter-clonal heterogeneity and provide useful clinical information, often before changes in the disease are detectable in the clinic. To a very limited extent, single cell analysis has already found roles in clinical care. Because inter- and intra-clonal heterogeneity likely occurs more frequently than can be currently appreciated on a clinical level, future use of single cell analysis is likely to have profound clinical utility.