XENERA-1: a randomised double-blind Phase II trial of xentuzumab in combination with everolimus and exemestane versus everolimus and exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and non-visceral disease.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms. CONCLUSIONS: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

Pomalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Japanese subset analysis of OPTIMISMM.

In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall response rate (ORR) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. All patients were previously treated with lenalidomide (70% refractory to lenalidomide) and had received one to three prior regimens. Here we report the first efficacy and safety analysis of PVd vs Vd in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Seventeen patients enrolled in the OPTIMISMM trial in Japan. With a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median PFS was 17.6 months with PVd (n = 12) vs 4.4 months with Vd (n = 5), and the ORR was 100% vs 60.0%, respectively. The safety profile was as expected for PVd. Toxicities were managed with dose reductions and interruptions, and no patients discontinued PVd due to treatment-emergent adverse events. These results are consistent with those in the overall OPTIMISMM patient population and confirm the clinical benefit of PVd in Japanese patients.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of ß2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9-21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66-13·73] vs 7·10 months [5·88-8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49-0·77; p<0·0001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%] of 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%] vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=1]) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=1], hepatic encephalopathy [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.

Prospective subgroup analyses of the randomized MCL-002 (SPRINT) study: lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

In the mantle cell lymphoma (MCL)-002 study, lenalidomide demonstrated significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with investigator's choice (IC) in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. Here we present the long-term follow-up data and results of preplanned subgroup exploratory analyses from MCL-002 to evaluate the potential impact of demographic factors, baseline clinical characteristics and prior therapies on PFS. In MCL-002, patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were randomized 2:1 to receive lenalidomide (25 mg/day orally on days 1-21; 28-day cycles) or single-agent IC therapy (rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil or cytarabine). The intent-to-treat population comprised 254 patients (lenalidomide, n = 170; IC, n = 84). Subgroup analyses of PFS favoured lenalidomide over IC across most characteristics, including risk factors, such as high MCL International Prognostic Index score, age ≥65 years, high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), stage III/IV disease, high tumour burden, and refractoriness to last prior therapy. By multivariate Cox regression analysis, factors associated with significantly longer PFS (other than lenalidomide treatment) included normal LDH levels (P < 0·001), nonbulky disease (P = 0·045), <3 prior antilymphoma treatments (P = 0·005), and ≥6 months since last prior treatment (P = 0·032). Overall, lenalidomide improved PFS versus single-agent IC therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, irrespective of many demographic factors, disease characteristics and prior treatment history.

Adverse event management in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma taking pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone: A pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma are susceptible to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Managing AEs are important to ensure patients continue therapy long enough to receive the best clinical benefit. Data from the MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 trials were pooled to further characterize the safety profile of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and AE management. METHODS: This analysis included 1088 patients who received ≥ 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and progressed ≤ 60 days of last therapy. Patients received 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg/day on days 1-21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged > 75 years) weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thromboprophylaxis was required. RESULTS: The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (56.2%), anemia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (25.8%), which occurred within the first few cycles of treatment. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 33.7% patients, of whom 13.9% had pneumonia, and 40.3% had neutropenia. Pomalidomide dose reductions or interruptions were reported in 24.2% and 66.0% of patients, respectively. AEs were managed by dose modifications and/or supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed an acceptable safety profile, and AEs were well managed according to study protocols and established guidelines.

Lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL-002; SPRINT): a phase 2, randomised, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, showed activity in many single-group studies in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. The aim of this randomised study was to examine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide versus best investigator's choice of single-agent therapy in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. METHODS: The MCL-002 (SPRINT) study was a randomised, phase 2 study of patients with mantle cell lymphoma aged 18 years or older at 67 clinics and academic centres in 12 countries who relapsed one to three times, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, at least one measurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transplantation. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (2:1) patients in a permuted block size of six to receive lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 every 28 days) until progressive disease or intolerability, or single-agent investigator's choice of either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by time from diagnosis, time from last anti-lymphoma therapy, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Individual treatment assignment between lenalidomide and investigator's choice was open label, but investigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient. Patients who progressed on investigator's choice could cross over to lenalidomide treatment. We present the prespecified primary analysis results in the intention-to-treat population for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to progressive disease or death, whichever occurred first. Patient enrolment is complete, although treatment and collection of additional time-to-event data are ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00875667. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2009, and March 7, 2013, we enrolled 254 patients in the intention-to-treat population (170 [67%] were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide, 84 [33%] to receive investigator's choice monotherapy). Patients had a median age of 68·5 years and received a median of two previous regimens. With a median follow-up of 15·9 months (IQR 7·6-31·7), lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival compared with investigator's choice (median 8·7 months [95% CI 5·5-12·1] vs 5·2 months [95% CI 3·7-6·9]) with a hazard ratio of 0·61 (95% CI 0·44-0·84; p=0·004). In the 167 patients in the lenalidomide group and 83 patients in the investigator's choice group who received at least one dose of treatment the most common grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (73 [44%] of 167 vs 28 [34%] of 83) without increased risk of infection, thrombocytopenia (30 [18%] vs 23 [28%]), leucopenia (13 [8%] vs nine [11%]), and anaemia (14 [8%] vs six [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation have longer progression-free survival, with a manageable safety profile when treated with lenalidomide compared with monotherapy investigator's choice options. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): outcomes by prior treatment at first relapse.

In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) demonstrated superior efficacy vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide, including those refractory to lenalidomide. This analysis evaluated outcomes in patients at first relapse (N = 226) by lenalidomide-refractory status, prior bortezomib exposure, and prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Second-line PVd significantly improved PFS vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (17.8 vs 9.5 months; P = 0.0276) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory patients (22.0 vs 12.0 months; P = 0.0491), patients with prior bortezomib (17.8 vs 12.0 months; P = 0.0068), and patients with (22.0 vs 13.8 months; P = 0.0241) or without (16.5 vs 9.5 months; P = 0.0454) prior SCT. In patients without prior bortezomib, median PFS was 20.7 vs 9.5 months (P = 0.1055). Significant improvement in overall response rate was also observed with PVd vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (85.9% vs 50.8%; P < 0.001) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory (95.7% vs 60.0%; P < 0.001) patients, with similar results regardless of prior bortezomib or SCT. No new safety signals were observed. These data demonstrate the benefit of PVd at first relapse, including immediately after upfront lenalidomide treatment failure and other common first-line treatments.

Health-related quality-of-life results from the phase 3 OPTIMISMM study: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone versus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the randomized phase-3 OPTIMISMM study, the addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) resulted in significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), including lenalidomide refractory patients. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from this trial. Patients received PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles until disease progression or discontinuation. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-MY20, and EQ-5D-3L instruments on day 1 of each treatment cycle. Mean score changes for global QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, side effects of treatment domains, and EQ-5D-3L index were generally stable over time across treatment arms. The proportion of patients who experienced clinically meaningful worsening in global QoL and other domains of interest was similar. These HRQoL results with PVd along with previously demonstrated improvement in PFS vs Vd continue to support its use in patients with RRMM.