Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better). RESULTS: Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

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.

Up-front carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with transplant for patients with multiple myeloma: the IFM KRd final results.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone plus transplant is a standard of care for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Because responses can deepen with time, regimens with longer and more potent induction/consolidation phases are needed. In this phase 2 study, patients received eight 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (K) 20/36 mg/m2 (days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16), lenalidomide (R) 25 mg (days 1-21), and dexamethasone (d) 20 mg (days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23). All patients proceeded to transplant after 4 cycles and received 1 year of lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg, days 1-21). The primary objective was stringent complete response at the completion of consolidation. Overall, 48 patients were screened and 46 enrolled; 21% had adverse cytogenetics. Among 42 evaluable patients after consolidation, 26 were in stringent complete response (CR; 61.9%), 27 were at least in CR (64.3%): 92.6% had undetectable minimal residual disease according to flow cytometry (≥2.5 × 10-5) and 63.0% according to next-generation sequencing (10-6). Median time to CR was 10.6 months. According to multiparametric flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing, 69.0% and 66.7% of patients, respectively, had undetectable minimal residual disease at some point. With a median follow-up of 60.5 months, 21 patients progressed, and 10 died (7 of multiple myeloma). Median progression-free survival was 56.4 months. There were no KRd-related deaths. Four patients discontinued the program due to toxicities; 56 serious adverse events were reported in 31 patients, including 8 cardiovascular events (2 heart failures, 5 pulmonary embolisms or deep vein thrombosis). Common grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic (74%) and infectious (22%). In summary, 8 cycles of KRd produce fast and deep responses in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The safety profile is acceptable, but cardiovascular adverse events should be closely monitored. This clinical trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02405364.

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

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

Plain language summary of the MajesTEC-1 study of teclistamab for the treatment of people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a phase 1-2 clinical trial called MajesTEC-1. This trial tested the cancer drug teclistamab in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, a cancer that forms in a certain type of white blood cells known as plasma cells. Most participants who took part in the study had at least 3 prior treatments for multiple myeloma before their cancer came back. HOW WAS THE STUDY IN THIS SUMMARY CONDUCTED?: A total of 165 participants from 9 countries were included in this study. All participants were given teclistamab once per week and monitored for side effects. Once participants started taking teclistamab, they were checked regularly to monitor if their cancer had no change, improved (responded to treatment), or worsened or spread (known as disease progression). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: After approximately 14.1 months of follow-up (from 2020 to 2021), 63% of participants who were given teclistamab had a decrease in myeloma burden, meaning that they responded to treatment with teclistamab. Participants who responded to teclistamab lived without their myeloma coming back for approximately 18.4 months. The most common side effects were infections, cytokine release syndrome, abnormally low white and red blood cell counts (neutropenia, lymphopenia, and anemia), and low platelet cell counts (thrombocytopenia). Approximately 65% of participants experienced serious side effects. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY MEAN?: Overall, more than half of the participants (63%) in the MajesTEC-1 study responded to treatment with teclistamab despite previous myeloma treatment failures. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03145181, NCT04557098 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MajesTEC-1): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for novel therapies for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is a validated target. Teclistamab is a bispecific antibody that binds BCMA and CD3 to redirect T cells to multiple myeloma cells. The aim of the MajesTEC-1 study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of teclistamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study enrolled patients with multiple myeloma who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to established therapies. Teclistamab was administered intravenously (range 0·3-19·2 µg/kg [once every 2 weeks] or 19·2-720 µg/kg [once per week]) or subcutaneously (range 80-3000 µg/kg [once per week]) in different cohorts, with step-up dosing for 38·4 µg/kg or higher doses. The primary objectives were to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (part one) and characterise teclistamab safety and tolerability at the recommended phase 2 dose (part two). Safety was assessed in all patients treated with at least one dose of teclistamab. Efficacy was analysed in response-evaluable patients (ie, patients who received at least one dose of teclistamab and had at least one post-baseline response evaluation). This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145181. FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2017, and March 29, 2021, 219 patients were screened for study inclusion, and 157 patients (median six previous therapy lines) were enrolled and received at least one dose of teclistamab (intravenous n=84; subcutaneous n=73). 40 patients were administered the recommended phase 2 dose, identified as once per week subcutaneous administration of teclistamab at 1500 µg/kg, after 60 µg/kg and 300 µg/kg step-up doses (median follow-up 6·1 months, IQR 3·6-8·2). There were no dose-limiting toxicities at the recommended phase 2 dose in part one. In the 40 patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome in 28 (70%; all grade 1 or 2 events) and neutropenia in 26 (65%) patients (grade 3 or 4 in 16 [40%]). The overall response rate in response-evaluable patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose (n=40) was 65% (95% CI 48-79); 58% achieved a very good partial response or better. At the recommended phase 2 dose, the median duration of response was not reached. 22 (85%) of 26 responders were alive and continuing treatment after 7·1 months' median follow-up (IQR 5·1-9·1). At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab exposure was maintained above target exposure levels, and consistent T-cell activation was reported. INTERPRETATION: Teclistamab is a novel treatment approach for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab showed promising efficacy, with durable responses that deepened over time, and was well tolerated, supporting further clinical development. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Maintenance with daratumumab or observation following treatment with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.

Daratumumab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. The increasing adoption of lenalidomide-based therapy for frontline treatment of multiple myeloma has resulted in a need for effective regimens for lenalidomide-refractory patients. This phase 1b study evaluated daratumumab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) in patients with RRMM after 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug; lenalidomide-refractory patients were eligible. Carfilzomib- and daratumumab-naïve patients (n = 85) received carfilzomib weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (20 mg/m2 initial dose, escalated to 70 mg/m2 thereafter) and dexamethasone (40 mg/wk). Of these, 10 patients received the first daratumumab dose as a single infusion (16 mg/kg, day 1 cycle 1), and 75 patients received a split first dose (8 mg/kg, days 1-2 cycle 1). Subsequent dosing was per the approved schedule for daratumumab. Patients received a median of 2 (range, 1-4) prior lines of therapy; 60% were lenalidomide refractory. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (31%), lymphopenia (24%), anemia (21%), and neutropenia (21%). Infusion-related reactions were observed in 60% and 43% of single and split first-dose patients, respectively. Overall response rate was 84% (79% in lenalidomide-refractory patients). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached; 12-month PFS rates were 74% for all treated patients and 65% for lenalidomide-refractory patients. D-Kd was well tolerated with low neutropenia rates, and it demonstrated deep responses and encouraging PFS, including in patients refractory to lenalidomide. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01998971.

Subcutaneous delivery of daratumumab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Daratumumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved as monotherapy and in combination regimens for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, daratumumab is administered IV. The phase 1b PAVO (MMY1004) study evaluated subcutaneously administered daratumumab in combination with the recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 enzyme (rHuPH20) in patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Part 1 of the study, reported here, evaluated a mix-and-deliver (MD) formulation of daratumumab and rHuPH20 (DARA-MD) administered by subcutaneous infusion. Patients received subcutaneous daratumumab according to the approved IV monotherapy dosing schedule at 1200 mg (n = 8) or 1800 mg (n = 45). Primary end points were safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) variables. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DARA-MD 1200 mg were thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, insomnia, and decreased appetite (37.5% each). Anemia (33.3%), upper respiratory tract infection, pyrexia, and diarrhea (26.7% each) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DARA-MD 1800 mg. One patient in the 1200-mg dose group (12.5%) and 11 patients in the 1800-mg dose group (24.4%) experienced infusion-related reactions, which were generally grade 1/2 and typically occurred at the first infusion. The 1800 mg dose achieved similar or greater serum concentrations compared with the 16 mg/kg IV dose. Overall response rates of 25.0% and 42.2% were achieved with 1200-mg and 1800-mg DARA-MD, respectively. Subcutaneous administration of DARA-MD was well tolerated in patients with relapsed or refractory MM, with the 1800-mg dose exhibiting PK concentrations and responses consistent with IV daratumumab in a similar patient population. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02519452.

Subcutaneous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Part 2 of the open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation phase 1b study (PAVO).

Intravenous daratumumab is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. In Part 1 of the PAVO study, a mix-and-deliver subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) was well tolerated, with low rates of infusion-related reactions and similar efficacy to intravenous daratumumab. Part 2 of PAVO evaluated a concentrated, pre-mixed co-formulation of daratumumab and rHuPH20 (DARA SC). Patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, received daratumumab (1800 mg) and rHuPH20 (30,000 U) in 15 mL subcutaneously over 3-5 minutes per the approved intravenous monotherapy dosing schedule. Primary endpoints were daratumumab trough concentration at the end of weekly dosing (just prior to the Cycle 3 Day 1 dose) and safety. Twenty-five patients were enrolled in PAVO Part 2. DARA SC achieved daratumumab trough concentrations similar to or greater than intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg. The adverse event profile of DARA SC was consistent with intravenous daratumumab, with no new safety concerns and a lower infusion-related reaction rate. At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the overall response rate was 52%, median duration of response was 15.7 months, and median progression-free survival was 12.0 months. DARA SC 1800 mg was well tolerated in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, with a low infusion-related reaction rate and reduced administration time. Daratumumab serum concentrations following DARA SC were consistent with intravenous dosing, and deep and durable responses were observed. Based on these results, ongoing studies are investigating DARA SC in multiple myeloma and other conditions. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: 02519452).

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation is standard treatment in Europe for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We evaluated whether the addition of daratumumab to VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation would improve stringent complete response rate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 CASSIOPEIA trial, we recruited transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at 111 European sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive four pre-transplant induction and two post-transplant consolidation cycles of VTd alone (VTd group) or in combination with daratumumab (D-VTd group). The primary endpoint of part 1 was stringent complete response assessed 100 days after transplantation. Part 2 (maintenance) is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled at 111 European sites and were randomly assigned to the D-VTd group (n=543) or the VTd group (n=542). At day 100 after transplantation, 157 (29%) of 543 patients in the D-VTd group and 110 (20%) of 542 patients in the VTd group in the intention-to-treat population had achieved a stringent complete response (odds ratio 1·60, 95% CI 1·21-2·12, p=0·0010). 211 (39%) patients in the D-VTd group versus 141 (26%) in the VTd group achieved a complete response or better, and 346 (64%) of 543 versus 236 (44%) of 542 achieved minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5 sensitivity threshold, assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry; both p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival from first randomisation was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·33-0·67, p<0·0001). 46 deaths on study were observed (14 vs 32, 0·43, 95% CI 0·23-0·80). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (28% vs 15%), lymphopenia (17% vs 10%), and stomatitis (13% vs 16%). INTERPRETATION: D-VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation improved depth of response and progression-free survival with acceptable safety. CASSIOPEIA is the first study showing the clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard of care in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.

Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma.

The introduction of novel agents has led to major improvements in clinical outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. To shorten evaluation times for new treatments, health agencies are currently examining minimal residual disease (MRD) as a surrogate end point in clinical trials. We assessed the prognostic value of MRD, measured during maintenance therapy by next-generation sequencing (NGS). MRD negativity was defined as the absence of tumor plasma cell within 1 000 000 bone marrow cells (<10-6). Data were analyzed from a recent clinical trial that evaluated the role of transplantation in newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). MRD negativity was achieved at least once during maintenance in 127 patients (25%). At the start of maintenance therapy, MRD was a strong prognostic factor for both progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.34; P < .001) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.54; P = .001). Patients who were MRD negative had a higher probability of prolonged progression-free survival than patients with detectable residual disease, regardless of treatment group (RVD vs transplant), cytogenetic risk profile, or International Staging System disease stage at diagnosis. These results were similar after completion of maintenance therapy. Our findings confirm the value of MRD status, as determined by NGS, as a prognostic biomarker in multiple myeloma, and suggest that this approach could be used to adapt treatment strategies in future clinical trials.

Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma.

This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified ≥60 months' follow-up). Patients were randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and was similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an ≈30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vs MPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00689936 and EudraCT as 2007-004823-39.

Daratumumab-based regimens are highly effective and well tolerated in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of patient age: subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CASTOR and POLLUX studies.

The phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR studies demonstrated superior benefit of daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone or bortezomib/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab was analyzed according to age groups of 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years. Patients received ≥1 prior line of therapy. In POLLUX, patients received lenalidomide/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-2; every two weeks, cycles 3-6; monthly until progression). In CASTOR, patients received eight cycles of bortezomib/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-3; every three weeks, cycles 4-8; monthly until progression). Patients aged >75 years received dexamethasone 20 mg weekly. For patients aged ≥75 years in POLLUX (median follow-up: 25.4 months), daratumumab/lenalido-mide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalido-mide/dexamethasone (median: 28.9 versus 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.69; P=0.0042) and increased overall response rate (93.1% versus 76.5%; P=0.0740). Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 44.8%; control: 31.4%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 12 (41.4%) patients. For patients aged ≥75 years in CASTOR (median follow-up: 19.4 months), daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib/dexamethasone (median: 17.9 versus 8.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.65; P=0.0022) and increased overall response rate (95.0% versus 78.8%; P=0.1134). Thrombocytopenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 45.0%; control: 37.1%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13 (65.0%) patients. Similar findings were reported for patients aged 65 to 74 years in both studies. Taken together, this subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of daratumumab was largely consistent with the overall populations.

Characteristics, combinations, treatments, and survival of second primary hematological neoplasm: a retrospective single-center cohort of 49 patients (Hemo2study).

The coexistence of dual hematological neoplasms is very rare. Sequential or synchronous neoplasms in hematology are an uncommon and complex clinical situation. The aim of the Hemo2 study was to describe the clinical characteristics and analyze the outcome of these patients. We performed a retrospective review of all patients diagnosed with sequential or synchronous hematological malignancies in the university hospital of Tours, between 2007 and 2018. We identified 49 patients in our study, with a prevalence of 0.89%. Sequential and synchronous combinations were found in 36 (73%) and 13 (27%) patients, respectively. One patient presented three sequential neoplasms. The median cumulative incidence was 6 years (95% CI 3-7). Among all neoplasms diagnosed (n = 99), we found 79 lymphoid neoplasms (LNs) (80%) and 20 myeloid neoplasms (MNs) (20%). Sex ratio was 1.88 with 65% of males and 35% of females. The most common LNs were Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 16; 16%) and multiple myeloma (n = 11; 11%). The most frequent MN was essential thrombocythemia (n = 5; 5%). The most common combination was Hodgkin lymphoma and follicular lymphoma in five (10%) patients. The overall survival from the first diagnosis (OS1) at 5 years was 82.4% (95% CI 72.1-94.3). The median overall survival from the second diagnosis (OS2) was 98 months (95% CI 44-NR) and 5-year OS2 was 58.7% (95% CI 45.5-75.7). Median progression-free survival from the second diagnosis (PFS) was 47 months (95% CI 27-NR) with 5-year PFS of 49% (95% CI 35.9-67). OS and PFS did not statistically differ between synchronous and sequential dual neoplasms. In this cohort, that the death relative risk (RR) was significantly lower if the second neoplasm appeared after more than 4 years following the first diagnosis (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.16-0.90)). The Hemo2study confirmed the rarity of dual hematological neoplasms. In this cohort, HL and FL were the most frequent combinations. Our results may support that synchronous and sequential dual neoplasms bear the same prognosis. Further studies are needed to better characterize these uncommon clinical situations.

Apixaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in immunomodulatory-treated myeloma patients: Myelaxat, a phase 2 pilot study.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is higher in myeloma patients receiving immunomodulatory compounds. A VTE prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or aspirin is therefore proposed. Apixaban is an oral direct anti-Xa. Several studies have shown the efficacy and safety of apixaban in VTE prophylaxis compared to enoxaparin. The objective of this prospective phase 2 pilot study was to assess the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with myeloma treated with immunomodulatory compounds lenalidomide (len) or thalidomide (thal), using apixaban in a preventive scheme. Myeloma patients requiring Melphalan-Prednisone-Thalidomide in the first line, or Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone in the relapse setting received apixaban, 2.5 mg x 2/day for 6 months. Venous (pulmonary embolism-PE, or symptomatic proximal or distal deep vein thrombosis-DVT, or all proximal asymptomatic events detected by systematic proximal bilateral compression ultrasound) or arterial thrombotic events, and bleeding events (ISTH 2005) were registered. One hundred and four patients were enrolled (mean age 69.8 ± 7.8 years), 11 in first line and 93 in relapse. Two venous thrombotic events were observed, for example, an asymptomatic proximal DVT and a symptomatic distal DVT, in the context of apixaban stopped 14 days before, due to lenalidomide-induced thrombocytopenia. No PE or arterial cardiovascular events were reported. Only one major and 11 CRNM hemorrhages were reported. These data must now be confirmed on a randomized large study.

Serum free light chains, not urine specimens, should be used to evaluate response in light-chain multiple myeloma.

Guidelines for monitoring multiple myeloma (MM) patients expressing light chains only (light-chain MM [LCMM]) rely on measurements of monoclonal protein in urine. Alternatively, serum free light chain (sFLC) measurements have better sensitivity over urine methods, however, demonstration that improved sensitivity provides any clinical benefit is lacking. Here, we compared performance of serum and urine measurements in 113 (72κ, 41λ) newly diagnosed LCMM patients enrolled in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial. All diagnostic samples (100%) had an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio, and involved (monoclonal) FLC (iFLC) expressed at levels deemed measurable for monitoring (≥100 mg/L). By contrast, only 64% patients had measurable levels of monoclonal protein (≥200 mg per 24 hours) in urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP). After 1 and 3 treatment cycles, iFLC remained elevated in 71% and 46% of patients, respectively, whereas UPEP reported a positive result in 37% and 18%; all of the patients with positive UPEP at cycle 3 also had elevated iFLC levels. Importantly, elevated iFLC or an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio after 3 treatment cycles associated with poorer progression-free survival (P = .006 and P < .0001, respectively), whereas positive UPEP or urine immunofixation electrophoresis (uIFE) did not. In addition, patients with an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio had poorer overall survival (P = .022). Finally, early normalization of κ:λ sFLC ratio but not negative uIFE predicted achieving negative minimal residual disease, as determined by flow cytometry, after consolidation therapy (100% positive predictive value). We conclude that improved sensitivity and prognostic value of serum over urine measurements provide a strong basis for recommending the former for monitoring LCMM patients.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of POLLUX.

In the POLLUX study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone significantly reduced risk of progression/death versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We provide one additional year of follow up and include the effect on minimal residual disease and in clinically relevant subgroups. After 25.4 months of follow up, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone (median not reached vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53; P<0.0001). The overall response rate was 92.9% versus 76.4%, and 51.2% versus 21.0% achieved a complete response or better, respectively (both P<0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, 26.2% versus 6.4% were minimal residual disease-negative, respectively (P<0.0001). Post hoc analyses of clinically relevant patient subgroups demonstrated that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Patients previously treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide and those refractory to bortezomib received similar benefits (all P<0.01). Treatment benefit with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone was maintained in high-risk patients (median progression-free survival 22.6 vs 10.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.13; P=0.0921) and patients with treatment-free intervals of >12 and ≤12 months and >6 and ≤6 months. No new safety signals were observed. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone continued to improve progression-free survival and deepen responses versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02076009.

Salvage therapy post pomalidomide-based regimen in relapsed/refractory myeloma.

The combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) has proved effective and safe in patients with end-stage relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), otherwise characterized by a very poor outcome. MM remains an incurable disease with unavoidable relapses, and the outcome after pomalidomide is still dismal. However, some patients demonstrate prolonged survival even beyond pomalidomide therapy.We sought to analyze the treatment of RRMM patients following Pom-Dex therapy and the response and survival after this next treatment line.We studied 134 patients treated with Pom-Dex until progression across two IFM studies. Seventy percent of these patients received further therapy after Pom-Dex. Among the treated patients, one third responded and one third maintained stable disease. The median OS for treated patients was 12 months (6.5;17), with 22 and 12.5% of patients surviving beyond 2 and 3 years, respectively. The factors associated with a better outcome were exposure to a triplet-based regimen containing a novel agent, response to therapy, absence of adverse cytogenetic, and a longer time from diagnosis to post pomalidomide therapy.This study suggests that patients relapsing after Pom-Dex therapy can still benefit from a further line of treatment. A subset of these treated patients even displayed a prolonged OS, while the prognosis remained very poor without treatment. An active approach could therefore be recommended even in this adverse situation, however guided by the patients' prognosis factors.