Empowering effective biomarker-driven precision oncology: A call to action.

Precision oncology has a significant role to play in delivering optimal patient care. Biomarkers are critical enablers for precision oncology across the continuum of cancer diagnosis, in defining patient prognosis, and in predicting the response to treatments and their potential toxicities, as well as delineating the risk of hereditary cancer syndromes. Biomarkers also potentiate cancer drug development, accelerating patient access to safe and effective therapies. However, despite an accurate and timely diagnosis being critical to patient survival, advances in genomic testing are not being fully exploited in daily clinical practice, leading to missed opportunities to deliver the most effective treatments for patients. Biomarker testing availability and implementation often lag behind approvals of respective biomarker-informed therapies, limiting prompt patient access to these life-saving drugs. Multiple factors currently impede the routine adoption of biomarker testing including, but not limited to, cost, lack of test reimbursement, limited access, regulatory hurdles, lack of knowledge, insufficient cooperation on assay development, and the urgent need to harmonize and validate testing assays, all leading to inefficient diagnostic pathways. Clinical guidelines increasingly include genomic profiling, and recent evidence suggests that precision oncology can be delivered in a cost-effective way for financially-challenged health systems. Therefore, precision genomic testing for cancer biomarkers must be embedded into the clinical practice of oncology care delivery going forward. We articulate a series of recommendations and a call to action to underpin the mainstreaming of a biomarker-informed precision oncology approach to enhance patient outcomes and deliver cost effective 21st century cancer care.

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.

Plain language summary of the MAIA study of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a clinical trial called MAIA. The trial tested 2 combinations of cancer drugs (daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) in people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. None of the participants who took part in the study had been treated before or were eligible to receive stem-cell transplants. HOW WAS THE STUDY IN THIS SUMMARY CONDUCTED?: A total of 737 participants took part. Half of the participants took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, while the other half of the participants took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Once participants started taking the drugs, the cancer was monitored for improvement (response to treatment), worsening (disease progression), or no change. Participants' blood and urine were tested for myeloma protein to measure response to the treatment. Participants were also monitored for side effects. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: After approximately 56 months of follow-up, more participants who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone were alive and had decreased myeloma protein levels (indicating improvement of cancer) than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The most common side effects were abnormally low white and red blood cell counts and increased lung infections. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In the MAIA study, participants with multiple myeloma who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone lived longer and had decreased myeloma protein levels than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone, indicating survival could be more likely with daratumumab added. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02252172 (Phase 3 MAIA study).

Assessing the prognostic utility of hematologic response for overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: results of a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits made up of toxic light chains causing progressive organ dysfunction and death. Recent studies suggest that hematologic response may be an important prognostic indicator of overall survival (OS) in AL amyloidosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial-level association between hematologic complete response (CR) or very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) and OS in newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: Studies were identified via systematic literature review. Pooled effect estimates were generated by a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies reporting hematologic CR or ≥VGPR and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were included in the meta-analysis. Achieving hematologic CR was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.34). Achieving ≥ VGPR was also associated with improved OS (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.17-0.26). Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study revealed no heterogeneity and a better overall HR estimate. Potential limitations of this meta-analysis include the small number of eligible studies (consistent with the rarity of the disease) and inconsistencies in reporting of results. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings support the use of deep hematologic response (CR or ≥VGPR) as a clinical trial endpoint in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This study provides evidence that early hematologic response is a strong patient-level surrogate for long-term OS in patients with AL amyloidosis receiving frontline therapy. Structured data collection of depth of response in future trials will further strengthen these observations.

Clinical impact of ibrutinib plus R-CHOP in untreated DLBCL coexpressing BCL2 and MYC in the phase 3 PHOENIX trial.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with high coexpression of BCL2 and MYC proteins (DE lymphoma), is considered an adverse prognostic indicator associated mostly with non-germinal center B-cell-like (non-GCB) DLBCL. BCL2/MYC overexpression is associated with B-cell receptor (BCR) pathway activation; consequently, DE DLBCL may be sensitive to BCR inhibitors. We assessed whether high BCL2/MYC coexpression by RNA sequencing could identify a patient subset responsive to ibrutinib using baseline biopsies from the PHOENIX trial, which evaluated the addition of ibrutinib to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in untreated non-GCB DLBCL. BCL2/MYC RNA expression was correlated with lower event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier estimates with Cox regression and log-rank testing. In total, 234 of 766 (30.5%) patients had high BCL2/MYC coexpression: 123 of 386 (31.9%) received ibrutinib plus R-CHOP and 111 of 380 (29.2%) received R-CHOP. EFS was superior with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP compared with R-CHOP alone in patients with high BCL2/MYC coexpression, but there was no significant impact on OS. However, EFS and OS showed clinically meaningful improvement with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP over R-CHOP alone in patients aged <60 years with high BCL2/MYC coexpression. We observed a significant association between high BCL2/MYC coexpression and activated B-cell-like and MYD88L265P/CD79B-mutated subtypes of DLBCL. Consequently, high BCL2/MYC coexpression identified a subset of non-GCB DLBCL that may be preferentially responsive to ibrutinib and warrants further investigation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01855750.

Ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone in patients with previously untreated non-germinal centre B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A Chinese subgroup analysis of the phase III PHOENIX trial.

In this post hoc subgroup analysis of 200 patients enrolled in China from the phase III PHOENIX trial (N = 838, NCT01855750), addition of ibrutinib to rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) did not improve event-free survival (EFS) versus placebo+R-CHOP in the intent-to-treat (ITT; n = 200, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·509-1.349; p = 0.4495) or activated B-cell-like (ABC; n = 141 [based on available gene-expression profiling data], HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.467-1.570; p = 0.6160) subpopulations. However, ibrutinib+R-CHOP improved EFS (HR = 0·50, 95% CI: 0.251-1.003) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.228-1.009) versus placebo+R-CHOP in patients aged <60 but not ≥60 years. Grade ≥3 serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred more with ibrutinib+R-CHOP (45·6% vs. 31·3%). The percentage of patients receiving ≥6 cycles of R-CHOP was similar across treatment arms in those <60 years. A numerical trend was seen towards improved EFS and PFS with ibrutinib+R-CHOP versus placebo+R-CHOP in patients with MYC-high/BCL2-high co-expression. In this slightly younger Chinese subgroup, ibrutinib+R-CHOP did not improve EFS in the ITT and ABC subpopulations but improved outcomes with manageable safety in patients <60 years, consistent with overall PHOENIX study outcomes.

Outcomes by Cardiac Stage in Patients With Newly Diagnosed AL Amyloidosis: Phase 3 ANDROMEDA Trial.

Background: Patients with amyloid light chain amyloidosis and severe cardiac dysfunction have a poor prognosis. Treatment options that induce rapid and deep hematologic and organ responses, irrespective of cardiac involvement, are needed. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of baseline cardiac stage on efficacy and safety outcomes in the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial. Methods: Rates of overall complete hematologic response and cardiac and renal response at 6 months and median major organ deterioration-progression-free survival and major organ deterioration-event-free survival were compared across cardiac stages (I, II, or IIIA) and treatments (daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone [D-VCd] or bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone [VCd]). Rates of adverse events (AEs) were summarized for patients with and without baseline cardiac involvement and by cardiac stage. Results: Median follow-up duration was 15.7 months. The proportions of stage I, II, and IIIA patients were 23.2%, 40.2%, and 36.6%. Across cardiac stages, hematologic and organ response rates were higher and major organ deterioration-progression-free survival and major organ deterioration-event-free survival were longer with D-VCd than VCd. AE rates were similar between treatments and by cardiac stage; serious AE rates were higher in patients with cardiac involvement and increased with increasing cardiac stage. The incidence of cardiac events was numerically greater with D-VCd vs VCd, but the rate of grade 3 or 4 events was similar. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate for cardiac events was lower with D-VCd than VCd (median exposure 13.4 and 5.3 months, respectively). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the efficacy of D-VCd over VCd in patients with newly diagnosed amyloid light chain amyloidosis across cardiac stages, thus supporting its use in patients with cardiac involvement. (NCT03201965).

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Analysis of vascular thrombotic events in the GRIFFIN study.

Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) ± daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy ± D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, ≥162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal.

Molecular determinants of outcomes in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma treated with ibrutinib or temsirolimus in the MCL3001 (RAY) trial.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, incurable lymphoma subtype characterized by heterogeneous outcomes. To better understand the clinical behavior and response to treatment, predictive biomarkers are needed. Using residual archived material from patients enrolled in the MCL3001 (RAY) study, we performed detailed analyses of gene expression and targeted genetic sequencing. This phase III clinical trial randomized patients with relapsed or refractory MCL to treatment with either ibrutinib or temsirolimus. We confirmed the prognostic capability of the gene expression proliferation assay MCL35 in this cohort treated with novel agents; it outperformed the simplified MCL International Prognostic Index in discriminating patients with different outcomes. Regardless of treatment arm, our data demonstrated that this assay captures the risk conferred by known biological factors, including increased MYC expression, blastoid morphology, aberrations of TP53, and truncated CCND1 3' untranslated region. We showed the negative impact of BIRC3 mutations/deletions on outcomes in this cohort and identified that deletion of chromosome 8p23.3 also negatively impacts survival. Restricted to patients with deletions/alterations in TP53, ibrutinib appeared to abrogate the deleterious impact on outcome. These data illustrate the potential to perform a molecular analysis of predictive biomarkers on routine patient samples that can meaningfully inform clinical practice.

Health-related quality of life in patients with light chain amyloidosis treated with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone ± daratumumab: Results from the ANDROMEDA study.

In the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial, patients treated with daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) had significantly higher rates of organ and hematologic response compared with patients who received VCd alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the ANDROMEDA trial. PROs were assessed through cycle 6 using three standardized questionnaires. Treatment effect through cycle 6 was measured by a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. The magnitude of changes in PROs versus baseline was generally low, but between-group differences favored the D-VCd group. Results were generally consistent irrespective of hematologic, cardiac, or renal responses. More patients in the D-VCd group experienced meaningful improvements in PROs; median time to improvement was more rapid in the D-VCd group versus the VCd group. After cycle 6, patients in the D-VCd group received daratumumab monotherapy and their PRO assessments continued, with improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported through cycle 19. PROs of subgroups with renal and cardiac involvement were consistent with those of the intent-to-treat population. These results demonstrate that the previously reported clinical benefits of D-VCd were achieved without decrement to patients' HRQoL and provide support of D-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis.

Identification of a genetic signature enriching for response to ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma in the DAWN phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The single-arm DAWN trial (NCT01779791) of ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 20.9% and a median response duration of 19.4 months. This biomarker analysis of the DAWN dataset sought to determine genetic classifiers for prediction of response to ibrutinib treatment. METHODS: Whole exome sequencing was performed on baseline tumor samples. Potential germline variants were excluded; a custom set of 1216 cancer-related genes was examined. Responder- versus nonresponder-associated variants were identified using Fisher's exact test. Classifiers with increasing numbers of genes were created using a greedy algorithm that repeatedly selected genes, adding the most nonresponders to the existing "predicted nonresponders" set and were evaluated with 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: Exome data were generated from 88 patient samples and 13,554 somatic mutation variants were inferred. Response data were available for 83 patients (17 responders, 66 nonresponders). Each sample showed 100 to >500 mutated genes, with greater variance across nonresponders. The overall variant pattern was consistent with previous FL studies; 75 genes had mutations in >10% of patients, including genes previously reported as associated with FL. Univariate analysis yielded responder-associated genes FANCA, HISTH1B, ANXA6, BTG1, and PARP10, highlighting the importance of functions outside of B-cell receptor signaling, including epigenetic processes, DNA damage repair, cell cycle/proliferation, and cell motility/invasiveness. While nonresponder-associated genes included well-known TP53 and CARD11, genetic classifiers developed using nonresponder-associated genes included ATP6AP1, EP400, ARID1A, SOCS1, and TBL1XR1, suggesting resistance to ibrutinib may be related to broad biological functions connected to epigenetic modification, telomere maintenance, and cancer-associated signaling pathways (mTOR, JAK/STAT, NF-κB). CONCLUSION: The results from univariate and genetic classifier analyses provide insights into genes associated with response or resistance to ibrutinib in FL and identify a classifier developed using nonresponder-associated genes, which warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01779791.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response Modeling of Daratumumab Subcutaneous Administration in Patients With Light-Chain Amyloidosis.

The purpose of this study is to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone and explore the relationship between daratumumab systemic exposure and selected efficacy and safety end points in patients with newly diagnosed systemic amyloid light-chain amyloidosis. The popPK analysis included pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity data from patients receiving daratumumab SC in combination with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in the ANDROMEDA study (AMY3001; safety run-in, n = 28; randomized phase, n = 183). Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling was used to characterize the popPK and quantify the impact of potential covariates. The exposure-response (E-R) analysis included data from all patients in the randomized phase of ANDROMEDA (n = 388). Logistic regression and survival analysis were used to evaluate the relationships between daratumumab systemic exposure and efficacy end points. The E-R analysis on safety was conducted using quartile comparison and logistic regression analysis. The observed concentration-time data of daratumumab SC were well described by a 1-compartment popPK model with first-order absorption and parallel linear and nonlinear Michaelis-Menten elimination pathways. None of the investigated covariates were determined to be clinically meaningful. Daratumumab systemic exposure was generally similar across subgroups that achieved different levels of hematologic response, and there was no apparent relationship between daratumumab systemic exposure and the investigated safety end points. In conclusion, the popPK and E-R analyses supported the selected 1800-mg flat dose of daratumumab SC in combination with the bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone regimen for the treatment of light-chain amyloidosis. No dose adjustment was recommended for investigated covariates.

Effect of ibrutinib with R-CHOP chemotherapy in genetic subtypes of DLBCL.

In diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), tumors belonging to the ABC but not GCB gene expression subgroup rely upon chronic active B cell receptor signaling for viability, a dependency that is targetable by ibrutinib. A phase III trial ("Phoenix;" ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01855750) showed a survival benefit of ibrutinib addition to R-CHOP chemotherapy in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, but the molecular basis for this benefit was unclear. Analysis of biopsies from Phoenix trial patients revealed three previously characterized genetic subtypes of DLBCL: MCD, BN2, and N1. The 3-year event-free survival of younger patients (age ≤60 years) treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP was 100% in the MCD and N1 subtypes while the survival of patients with these subtypes treated with R-CHOP alone was significantly inferior (42.9% and 50%, respectively). This work provides a mechanistic understanding of the benefit of ibrutinib addition to chemotherapy, supporting its use in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL.

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.

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.

Diagnostic delay and characterization of the clinical prodrome in AL amyloidosis among 1523 US adults diagnosed between 2001 and 2019.

Light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a multisystem disorder with a high early mortality and diagnostic delays of >1 year from symptom onset. This retrospective observational study sought to characterize the clinical prodrome and diagnostic delay to inform early detection. We identified 1523 adults with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in the Optum de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart US healthcare claims database as those with ≥2 new diagnosis codes for AL or other amyloidosis in 90 days with ≥1 multiple myeloma treatment within 730 days, excluding patients with prior hereditary or secondary amyloidosis and Familial Mediterranean Fever. We considered 34 signs/symptoms using diagnosis codes in all observable time on or before AL amyloidosis diagnosis. Sign/symptom prevalence was compared to that of 1:4 matched population controls. The overlap and sequence of signs/symptoms and the median time from first sign/symptom to AL amyloidosis diagnosis were explored. Healthcare utilization was summarized. The most common individual AL amyloidosis signs/symptoms were malaise/fatigue (61%) and dyspnea (59%). Cardiac signs/symptoms were observed in 77% of patients, followed by renal (62%) and neurologic (59%) signs/symptoms. Multisystem involvement (≥3 systems) was present in 54%. Monoclonal gammopathy was detected in 29% before diagnosis. Median time from symptom onset to AL amyloidosis diagnosis was 2.7 years. Healthcare utilization was high between first AL amyloidosis signs/symptoms and diagnosis, with 50% visiting ≥5 physician types. AL amyloidosis patients have a lengthy and complex clinical prodrome. Novel approaches to early diagnosis are needed to improve outcomes.

Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1-21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4-20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3-19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5-9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47-0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. FUNDING: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.