The extracellular matrix protein EMILIN-1 impacts on the microenvironment by hampering gastric cancer development and progression.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of the tumor microenvironment and extracellular matrix to the aggressive biology of Gastric Cancer (GC) has been recently characterized; however, the role of EMILIN-1 in this context is unknown. EMILIN-1 is an essential structural element for the maintenance of lymphatic vessel (LV) integrity and displays anti-proliferative properties as demonstrated in skin and colon cancer. Given the key role of LVs in GC progression, the aim of this study was to investigate the role of EMILIN-1 in GC mouse models. METHODS: We used the syngeneic YTN16 cells which were injected subcutaneously and intraperitoneally in genetically modified EMILIN-1 mice. In alternative, carcinogenesis was induced using N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU). Mouse-derived samples and human biopsies were analyzed by IHC and IF to the possible correlation between EMILIN-1 expression and LV pattern. RESULTS: Transgenic mice developed tumors earlier compared to WT animals. 20 days post-injection tumors developed in EMILIN-1 mutant mice were larger and displayed a significant increase of lymphangiogenesis. Treatment of transgenic mice with MNU associated with an increased number of tumors, exacerbated aggressive lesions and higher levels of LV abnormalities. A significant correlation between the levels of EMILIN-1 and podoplanin was detected also in human samples, confirming the results obtained with the pre-clinical models. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates for the first time that loss of EMILIN-1 in GC leads to lymphatic dysfunction and proliferative advantages that sustain tumorigenesis, and assess the use of our animal model as a valuable tool to verify the fate of GC upon loss of EMILIN-1.

Molecular mechanisms associated with chemoresistance in esophageal cancer.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is one of the most incident and lethal tumors worldwide. Although surgical resection is an important approach in EC treatment, late diagnosis, metastasis and recurrence after surgery have led to the management of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies over the past few decades. In this scenario, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin (CISP), and more recently paclitaxel (PTX) and carboplatin (CBP), have been traditionally used in EC treatment. However, chemoresistance to these agents along EC therapeutic management represents the main obstacle to successfully treat this malignancy. In this sense, despite the fact that most of chemotherapy drugs were discovered several decades ago, in many cases, including EC, they still represent the most affordable and widely employed treatment approach for these tumors. Therefore, this review summarizes the main mechanisms through which the response to the most widely chemotherapeutic agents used in EC treatment is impaired, such as drug metabolism, apoptosis resistance, cancer stem cells (CSCs), cell cycle, autophagy, energetic metabolism deregulation, tumor microenvironment and epigenetic modifications.

Interplay between HMGA and TP53 in cell cycle control along tumor progression.

The high mobility group A (HMGA) proteins are found to be aberrantly expressed in several tumors. Studies (in vitro and in vivo) have shown that HMGA protein overexpression has a causative role in carcinogenesis process. HMGA proteins regulate cell cycle progression through distinct mechanisms which strongly influence its normal dynamics along malignant transformation. Tumor protein p53 (TP53) is the most frequently altered gene in cancer. The loss of its activity is recognized as the fall of a barrier that enables neoplastic transformation. Among the different functions, TP53 signaling pathway is tightly involved in control of cell cycle, with cell cycle arrest being the main biological outcome observed upon p53 activation, which prevents accumulation of damaged DNA, as well as genomic instability. Therefore, the interaction and opposing effects of HMGA and p53 proteins on regulation of cell cycle in normal and tumor cells are discussed in this review. HMGA proteins and p53 may reciprocally regulate the expression and/or activity of each other, leading to the counteraction of their regulation mechanisms at different stages of the cell cycle. The existence of a functional crosstalk between these proteins in the control of cell cycle could open the possibility of targeting HMGA and p53 in combination with other therapeutic strategies, particularly those that target cell cycle regulation, to improve the management and prognosis of cancer patients.

Carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone in patients with advanced multiple myeloma: The EMN09 phase 1/2 study of the European Myeloma Network.

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy with carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone was evaluated in this multicenter phase 1/2 trial conducted within the European Myeloma Network (EMN09 trial). METHODS: Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included. The phase 1 portion of the study determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib with bendamustine set at 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. After 8 cycles, responding patients received maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone until progression. RESULTS: On the basis of the phase 1 results, the recommended phase 2 dose for carfilzomib was 27 mg/m2 twice weekly in weeks 1, 2, and 3. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved a partial response or better, and 32% reached a very good partial response or better. The clinical benefit rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months, and the median overall survival was 30.4 months. The reported grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (29%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). The main nonhematologic grade ≥3 AEs were pneumonia, thromboembolic events (10%), cardiac AEs (8%), and hypertension (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients who have relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, combined carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone is an effective treatment option administered in the outpatient setting. Infection prophylaxis and attention to patients with cardiovascular predisposition are required.

Pseudopyloric Metaplasia Is Not Associated With the Development of Gastric Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Corpus atrophic gastritis (CAG) is associated with intestinal metaplasia (IM) and pseudopyloric metaplasia (PPM). Prospective data on corpus mucosa PPM and its link to the development of gastric cancer (GC) are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the presence of corpus mucosa PPM at baseline and the development of GC at follow-up in patients with CAG. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study was conducted on patients with consecutive CAG adhering to endoscopic-histological surveillance. Patients were stratified for the presence/absence of corpus PPM without concomitant corpus IM at baseline, and the occurrence of gastric neoplastic lesions at the longest available follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients with CAG with a follow-up of 4.2 (3-17) years were included. At baseline, corpus PPM without corpus IM was diagnosed in 62 patients (21.2%). At the follow-up, GC was detected in 5 patients (1.7%) and gastric dysplasia (GD) in 4 patients (1.4%). In all these 9 patients with GC/GD at the follow-up, corpus IM was present at baseline and follow-up. Age <50 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.5), absence of pernicious anemia (OR 4.3), and absence of severe corpus atrophy (OR 2.3) were associated with corpus PPM without corpus IM. DISCUSSION: At the 4.2-year follow-up, in patients with CAG characterized at baseline with corpus PPM without corpus IM, GC or GD was not observed because these lesions were consistently associated with corpus IM. Corpus PPM without corpus IM was associated with younger age, absence of pernicious anemia, and severe corpus atrophy, suggesting a lower stage of disease progression. Corpus PPM alone seems not to be associated with GC, whose development seems to require the presence of corpus IM as a necessary step.

IDH2 inhibition enhances proteasome inhibitor responsiveness in hematological malignancies.

Proteasome inhibitors (PI) are extensively used for the therapy of multiple myeloma (MM) and mantle cell lymphoma. However, patients continuously relapse or are intrinsically resistant to this class of drugs. Here, to identify targets that synergize with PI, we carried out a functional screening in MM cell lines using a short hairpin RNA library against cancer driver genes. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) was identified as a top candidate, showing a synthetic lethal activity with the PI carfilzomib (CFZ). Combinations of US Food and Drug Administration-approved PI with a pharmacological IDH2 inhibitor (AGI-6780) triggered synergistic cytotoxicity in MM, mantle cell lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma cell lines. CFZ/AGI-6780 treatment increased death of primary CD138+ cells from MM patients and exhibited a favorable cytotoxicity profile toward peripheral blood mononuclear cells and bone marrow-derived stromal cells. Mechanistically, the CFZ/AGI-6780 combination significantly decreased tricarboxylic acid cycle activity and adenosine triphosphate levels as a consequence of enhanced IDH2 enzymatic inhibition. Specifically, CFZ treatment reduced the expression of nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT), thus limiting IDH2 activation through the NAD+-dependent deacetylase SIRT3. Consistently, combination of CFZ with either NAMPT or SIRT3 inhibitors impaired IDH2 activity and increased MM cell death. Finally, inducible IDH2 knockdown enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of CFZ in a subcutaneous xenograft model of MM, resulting in inhibition of tumor progression and extended survival. Taken together, these findings indicate that NAMPT/SIRT3/IDH2 pathway inhibition enhances the therapeutic efficacy of PI, thus providing compelling evidence for treatments with lower and less toxic doses and broadening the application of PI to other malignancies.

High subclonal fraction of 17p deletion is associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma.

Deletions of chromosome 17p (del17p) that span the TP53 gene are associated with poor outcome in multiple myeloma (MM), but the prognostic value of del17p cancer clonal fraction (CCF) remains unclear. We applied uniform cytogenetic assessments in a large cohort of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients carrying varying levels of del17p. Incremental CCF change was associated with shorter survival, and a robust CCF threshold of 0.55 was established in discovery and replication data sets. After stratification on the 0.55-CCF threshold, high-risk patients had statistically significantly poorer outcomes compared with low-risk patients (median progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS], 14 and 32 vs 23.1 and 76.2 months, respectively). Analyses of a third data set comprising whole-exome sequencing data from NDMM patients identified presence of TP53 deletions/mutations as a necessary requirement for high-risk stratification in addition to exceeding the del17p CCF threshold. Meta-analysis conducted across 3 data sets confirmed the robustness of the CCF threshold for PFS and OS. Our analyses demonstrate the feasibility of fluorescence in situ hybridization- and sequencing-based methods to identify TP53 deletions, estimate CCF, and establish that both CCF threshold of 0.55 and presence of TP53 deletion are necessary to identify del17p-carrying NDMM patients with poor prognosis.

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies.

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Real-world comparative effectiveness of triplets containing bortezomib (B), carfilzomib (C), daratumumab (D), or ixazomib (I) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US.

Multiple available combinations of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibodies are shifting the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape. Lack of head-to-head trials of triplet regimens highlights the need for real-world (RW) evidence. We conducted an RW comparative effectiveness analysis of bortezomib (V), carfilzomib (K), ixazomib (I), and daratumumab (D) combined with either lenalidomide or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd or Pd) in RRMM. A retrospective cohort of patients initiating triplet regimens in line of therapy (LOT) ≥ 2 on/after 1/1/2014 was followed between 1/2007 and 3/2018 in Optum's deidentified US electronic health records database. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; regimens were compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Seven hundred forty-one patients (820 patient LOTs) with an Rd backbone (VRd, n = 349; KRd, n = 218; DRd, n = 99; IRd, n = 154) and 348 patients (392 patient LOTs) with a Pd backbone (VPd, n = 52; KPd, n = 146; DPd, n = 149; IPd, n = 45) in LOTs ≥2 were identified. More patients ≥75 years received IRd (39.6%), IPd (37.8%), and VRd (36.7%) than other triplets. More patients receiving VRd/VPd were in LOT2 vs other triplets. Unadjusted median TTNT in LOT ≥ 2: VRd, 13.9; KRd, 8.7; IRd, 11.4; DRd, not estimable (NE); and VPd, 12.0; KPd, 6.7; IPd, 9.5 months; DPd, NE. In covariate-adjusted analysis, only KRd vs DRd was associated with a significantly higher risk of next LOT initiation/death (HR 1.72; P = 0.0142); no Pd triplet was significantly different vs DPd in LOT ≥ 2. Our data highlight important efficacy/effectiveness gaps between results observed in phase 3 clinical trials and those realized in the RW.

Oral ixazomib maintenance following autologous stem cell transplantation (TOURMALINE-MM3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT. METHODS: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3-35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7-33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

First-line therapy with either bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial.

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

Minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction in patients with myeloma receiving lenalidomide maintenance: A pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is one of the most relevant prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma (MM); however, the impact of maintenance therapy on MRD levels remains unclear. Among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) who received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed disease progression, the role of MRD status as a predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (ASO-RQ-PCR) analysis. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with NDMM enrolled in the RV-MM-EMN-441 (clinical trials.gov identifier, NCT01091831) and RV-MM-COOP-0556 (clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01208766; European Myeloma Network EMN02/HO95 MM Trial) phase 3 trials who achieved at least a very good partial response after intensification/consolidation were included. The median patient age was 57 years (interquartile range, 53-61 years), and all patients received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed progression. MRD was evaluated on bone marrow after intensification/consolidation, after 6 courses of maintenance, and every 6 months thereafter until clinical relapse using both ASO-RQ-PCR (sensitivity, 10-5 ) and MFC (sensitivity, from 10-4 to 10-5 ). RESULTS: After intensification/consolidation, 33 of 72 patients (46%) achieved a molecular complete response (m-CR), and 44 of 70 (63%) achieved a flow complete response (flow-CR). Almost 27% of patients who were MRD-positive after consolidation became MRD-negative during maintenance. After a median follow-up of 38 months, PFS was prolonged in patients who achieved negative MRD status during maintenance according to results from both ASO-RQ-PCR analysis (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.62; P = .0013) and MFC (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.41; P < .001). The impact of negative MRD status on PFS was similar in all subgroups (ASCT and no-ASCT; International Staging System stages I, II, and III; high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics), and the two techniques were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: MRD status is a stronger predictor of PFS than standard risk factors, and lenalidomide maintenance further increases the rate of negative MRD results.

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).

Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is currently being studied for the treatment of multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 722 patients who had relapsed, refractory, or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib group) or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 14.7 months (median progression-free survival, 20.6 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the ixazomib group, 0.74; P=0.01); a benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed with the ixazomib regimen, as compared with the placebo regimen, in all prespecified patient subgroups, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. The overall rates of response were 78% in the ixazomib group and 72% in the placebo group, and the corresponding rates of complete response plus very good partial response were 48% and 39%. The median time to response was 1.1 months in the ixazomib group and 1.9 months in the placebo group, and the corresponding median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15.0 months. At a median follow-up of approximately 23 months, the median overall survival has not been reached in either study group, and follow-up is ongoing. The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups (47% in the ixazomib group and 49% in the placebo group), as were the rates of death during the study period (4% and 6%, respectively); adverse events of at least grade 3 severity occurred in 74% and 69% of the patients, respectively. Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 and grade 4 severity occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group (12% and 7% of the patients, respectively) than in the placebo group (5% and 4% of the patients, respectively). Rash occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group (36% vs. 23% of the patients), as did gastrointestinal adverse events, which were predominantly low grade. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy was 27% in the ixazomib group and 22% in the placebo group (grade 3 events occurred in 2% of the patients in each study group). Patient-reported quality of life was similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ixazomib to a regimen of lenalidomide and dexamethasone was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival; the additional toxic effects with this all-oral regimen were limited. (Funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals; TOURMALINE-MM1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01564537.).

Ixazomib significantly prolongs progression-free survival in high-risk relapsed/refractory myeloma patients.

Certain cytogenetic abnormalities are known to adversely impact outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) compared with placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo-Rd). This preplanned analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd according to cytogenetic risk, as assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16); additionally, patients were assessed for 1q21 amplification. Of 722 randomized patients, 552 had cytogenetic results; 137 (25%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and 172 (32%) had 1q21 amplification alone. PFS was improved with IRd vs placebo-Rd in both high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.321-0.918; P = .021), with median PFS of 21.4 vs 9.7 months; in standard-risk patients, HR was 0.640 (95% CI, 0.462-0.888; P = .007), with median PFS of 20.6 vs 15.6 months. This PFS benefit was consistent across subgroups with individual high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including patients with del(17p) (HR, 0.596; 95% CI, 0.286-1.243). PFS was also longer with IRd vs placebo-Rd in patients with 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.492-1.240), and in the "expanded high-risk" group, defined as those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.664; 95% CI, 0.474-0.928). IRd demonstrated substantial benefit compared with placebo-Rd in relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics, and improves the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537.

Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase I/II studies.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Phase II study of carfilzomib, thalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone as induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma; the Carthadex trial.

This is a phase II dose escalation trial of carfilzomib in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone for induction and consolidation in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The results of four dose levels are reported. Induction therapy consisted of four cycles of carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 (n=50), 20/36 mg/m2 (n=20), 20/45 mg/m2 (n=21), and 20/56 mg/m2 (n=20) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 of a 28-day cycle; thalidomide 200 mg on day 1 through 28 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Induction therapy was followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation and consolidation therapy with four cycles of carfilzomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone in the same schedule except a lower dose of thalidomide (50 mg). Very good partial response rate or better and complete response rate or better after induction therapy were 65% and 18%, respectively, increasing to 86% and 63%, respectively, after consolidation therapy. In all cohorts combined, after a median follow up of 58.7 months, median progression-free survival was 58 months (95%CI: 45-67 months). Median overall survival was 83 months (95%CI: 83 months-not reached). Grade 3/4 adverse events consisted mainly of infections, respiratory disorders, skin and vascular disorders in 11%, 8%, 9%, and 9%, respectively. Grade 3 polyneuropathy was only reported in one patient. Cardiac events were limited: grade 3/4 in 5% of patients. Carfilzomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone as induction and consolidation treatment after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation is highly efficacious and safe in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. This study was registered as #NTR2422 at http://www.trialregister.nl.

Targeting CD38 with Daratumumab Monotherapy in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma cells uniformly overexpress CD38. We studied daratumumab, a CD38-targeting, human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody, in a phase 1-2 trial involving patients with relapsed myeloma or relapsed myeloma that was refractory to two or more prior lines of therapy. METHODS: In part 1, the dose-escalation phase, we administered daratumumab at doses of 0.005 to 24 mg per kilogram of body weight. In part 2, the dose-expansion phase, 30 patients received 8 mg per kilogram of daratumumab and 42 received 16 mg per kilogram, administered once weekly (8 doses), twice monthly (8 doses), and monthly for up to 24 months. End points included safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: No maximum tolerated dose was identified in part 1. In part 2, the median time since diagnosis was 5.7 years. Patients had received a median of four prior treatments; 79% of the patients had disease that was refractory to the last therapy received (64% had disease refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs and 64% had disease refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide), and 76% had received autologous stem-cell transplants. Infusion-related reactions in part 2 were mild (71% of patients had an event of any grade, and 1% had an event of grade 3), with no dose-dependent adverse events. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 (in ≥ 5% of patients) were pneumonia and thrombocytopenia. The overall response rate was 36% in the cohort that received 16 mg per kilogram (15 patients had a partial response or better, including 2 with a complete response and 2 with a very good partial response) and 10% in the cohort that received 8 mg per kilogram (3 had a partial response). In the cohort that received 16 mg per kilogram, the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 8.1), and 65% (95% CI, 28 to 86) of the patients who had a response did not have progression at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Daratumumab monotherapy had a favorable safety profile and encouraging efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated and refractory myeloma. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Genmab; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00574288.).

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).