The multiple myeloma microenvironment is defined by an inflammatory stromal cell landscape.

Progression and persistence of malignancies are influenced by the local tumor microenvironment, and future eradication of currently incurable tumors will, in part, hinge on our understanding of malignant cell biology in the context of their nourishing surroundings. Here, we generated paired single-cell transcriptomic datasets of tumor cells and the bone marrow immune and stromal microenvironment in multiple myeloma. These analyses identified myeloma-specific inflammatory mesenchymal stromal cells, which spatially colocalized with tumor cells and immune cells and transcribed genes involved in tumor survival and immune modulation. Inflammatory stromal cell signatures were driven by stimulation with proinflammatory cytokines, and analyses of immune cell subsets suggested interferon-responsive effector T cell and CD8+ stem cell memory T cell populations as potential sources of stromal cell-activating cytokines. Tracking stromal inflammation in individuals over time revealed that successful antitumor induction therapy is unable to revert bone marrow inflammation, predicting a role for mesenchymal stromal cells in disease persistence.

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.

Daratumumab-Based Treatment for Immunoglobulin Light-Chain Amyloidosis.

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

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).

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.

Daratumumab plus CyBorD for patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: safety run-in results of ANDROMEDA.

Although no therapies are approved for light chain (AL) amyloidosis, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is considered standard of care. Based on outcomes of daratumumab in multiple myeloma (MM), the phase 3 ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) is evaluating daratumumab-CyBorD vs CyBorD in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. We report results of the 28-patient safety run-in. Patients received subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) weekly in cycles 1 to 2, every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 2 years. CyBorD was given weekly for 6 cycles. Patients had a median of 2 involved organs (kidney, 68%; cardiac, 61%). Patients received a median of 16 (range, 1-23) treatment cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with DARA SC in MM and CyBorD. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 1 patient (grade 1). No grade 5 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred; 5 patients died, including 3 after transplant. Overall hematologic response rate was 96%, with a complete hematologic response in 15 (54%) patients; at least partial response occurred in 20, 22, and 17 patients at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Renal response occurred in 6 of 16, 7 of 15, and 10 of 15 patients, and cardiac response occurred in 6 of 16, 6 of 13, and 8 of 13 patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Hepatic response occurred in 2 of 3 patients at 12 months. Daratumumab-CyBorD was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns versus the intravenous formulation, and demonstrated robust hematologic and organ responses. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03201965.

Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the GRIFFIN trial.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard frontline therapy for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab (D) to RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM patients was evaluated. Patients (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to D-RVd or RVd induction (4 cycles), ASCT, D-RVd or RVd consolidation (2 cycles), and lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus D maintenance (26 cycles). The primary end point, stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation, favored D-RVd vs RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.82; 1-sided P = .068) and met the prespecified 1-sided α of 0.10. With longer follow-up (median, 22.1 months), responses deepened; sCR rates improved for D-RVd vs RVd (62.6% vs 45.4%; P = .0177), as did minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10-5 threshold) rates in the intent-to-treat population (51.0% vs 20.4%; P < .0001). Four patients (3.8%) in the D-RVd group and 7 patients (6.8%) in the RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more common with D-RVd. More infections occurred with D-RVd, but grade 3/4 infection rates were similar. Median CD34+ cell yield was 8.2 × 106/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 × 106/kg for RVd, although plerixafor use was more common with D-RVd. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were comparable. Daratumumab with RVd induction and consolidation improved depth of response in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of immunohistochemistry and gene expression profiling subtyping for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the phase III clinical trial of R-CHOP ± ibrutinib.

We assessed the concordance between immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene expression profiling (GEP) for determining diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cell of origin (COO) in the phase III PHOENIX trial of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) with or without ibrutinib. Among 910 of 1114 screened patients with non-germinal centre B cell-like (non-GCB) DLBCL by IHC, the concordance with GEP for non-GCB calls was 82·7%, with 691 (75·9%) identified as activated B cell-like (ABC), and 62 (6·8%) as unclassified. Among 746 of 837 enrolled patients with verified non-GCB DLBCL by IHC, the concordance with GEP was 82·8%, with 567 (76·0%) identified as ABC and 51 (6·8%) unclassified; survival outcomes were similar regardless of COO or treatment, whereas among patients with ABC DLBCL aged <60 years, the overall and event-free survival were substantially better with ibrutinib versus placebo plus R-CHOP [hazard ratio (HR) 0·365, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·147-0·909, P = 0·0305; HR 0·561, 95% CI 0·326-0·967, P = 0·0348, respectively]. IHC and GEP showed high concordance and consistent survival outcomes among tested patients, indicating centralised IHC may be used to enrich populations for response to ibrutinib plus R-CHOP.

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.

Outcomes in 370 patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated with ibrutinib: a pooled analysis from three open-label studies.

Ibrutinib is highly active in treating mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), an aggressive B-cell lymphoma. We pooled data from three ibrutinib studies to explore the impact of baseline patient characteristics on treatment response. Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (n = 370) treated with ibrutinib had an objective response rate (ORR) of 66% (20% complete response; 46% partial response); median duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18·6, 12·8 and 25·0 months, respectively. Univariate analyses showed patients with one versus >one prior line of therapy had longer OS. Multivariate analyses identified that one prior line of therapy affected PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, simplified MCL international prognostic index (sMIPI) score, bulky disease, and blastoid histology affected OS and PFS. Patients with blastoid versus non-blastoid histology had similar time to best response, but lower ORR, DOR, PFS and OS. OS and PFS were longer in patients with better sMIPI, patients with ECOG performance status 0-1, non-bulky disease and non-blastoid histology. Additionally, the proportion of patients with poor prognostic factors increased with increasing lines of therapy. Together, results suggest that patient outcomes following treatment failure with ibrutinib are related to the natural biological evolution of the disease.

Ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Mantle-cell lymphoma is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Both ibrutinib and temsirolimus have shown single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. We undertook a phase 3 study to assess the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma confirmed by central pathology in 21 countries who had received one or more rituximab-containing treatments. Patients were stratified by previous therapy and simplified mantle-cell lymphoma international prognostic index score, and were randomly assigned with a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive daily oral ibrutinib 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1; 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of subsequent 21-day cycles). Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by a masked independent review committee with the primary hypothesis that ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus significantly improves progression-free survival. The analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01646021) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT (number 2012-000601-74). FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Nov 26, 2013, 280 patients were randomised to ibrutinib (n=139) or temsirolimus (n=141). Primary efficacy analysis showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (p<0·0001) for patients treated with ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (hazard ratio 0·43 [95% CI 0·32-0·58]; median progression-free survival 14·6 months [95% CI 10·4-not estimable] vs 6·2 months [4·2-7·9], respectively). Ibrutinib was better tolerated than temsirolimus, with grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events reported for 94 (68%) versus 121 (87%) patients, and fewer discontinuations of study medication due to adverse events for ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (9 [6%] vs 36 [26%]). INTERPRETATION: Ibrutinib treatment resulted in significant improvement in progression-free survival and better tolerability versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. These data lend further support to the positive benefit-risk ratio for ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Characterization of atrial fibrillation adverse events reported in ibrutinib randomized controlled registration trials.

The first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has proven clinical benefit in B-cell malignancies; however, atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported in 6-16% of ibrutinib patients. We pooled data from 1505 chronic lymphocytic leukemia and mantle cell lymphoma patients enrolled in four large, randomized, controlled studies to characterize AF with ibrutinib and its management. AF incidence was 6.5% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 4.8, 8.5] for ibrutinib at 16.6-months versus 1.6% (95%CI: 0.8, 2.8) for comparator and 10.4% (95%CI: 8.4, 12.9) at the 36-month follow up; estimated cumulative incidence: 13.8% (95%CI: 11.2, 16.8). Ibrutinib treatment, prior history of AF and age 65 years or over were independent risk factors for AF. Multiple AF events were more common with ibrutinib (44.9%; comparator, 16.7%) among patients with AF. Most (85.7%) patients with AF did not discontinue ibrutinib, and more than half received common anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications on study. Low-grade bleeds were more frequent with ibrutinib, but serious bleeds were uncommon (ibrutinib, 2.9%; comparator, 2.0%). Although the AF rate among older non-trial patients with comorbidities is likely underestimated by this dataset, these results suggest that AF among clinical trial patients is generally manageable without ibrutinib discontinuation (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01578707, 01722487, 01611090, 01646021).

The effects of interleukin-6 neutralizing antibodies on symptoms of depressed mood and anhedonia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and multicentric Castleman's disease.

Cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), modulate neuronal plasticity and stress coping. Depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD) have been associated with changes in cytokines and their signaling. The current study examined the effect of IL-6 monoclonal antibody administration on depressive symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or multicentric Castleman's disease (MCD). The data were obtained from two phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials designed to test the efficacy of sirukumab in RA (N=176) or of siltuximab in MCD (N=65), and were analyzed post hoc to investigate the effects of these IL-6 antibodies on depressive symptoms. The SF-36 questionnaire items on depressed-mood and anhedonia were combined as the measure for depressive symptoms. The study participants were grouped by the presence/absence of prevalent depressed mood and anhedonia (PDMA, meaning either depressed mood or anhedonia was present at least 'most of the time' and the other at least 'some of the time' for four weeks) at baseline; 26.1% of the RA sample and 15.4% of the MCD sample met criteria for PDMA at baseline. Compared with placebo, sirukumab and siltuximab produced significantly greater improvements on depressive symptoms. To account for an effect on mood due to changes in RA or MCD, the analysis was (1) adjusted for symptom severities using DAS28-CRP for RA and MCDOS for MCD alone or together with bodily pain and physical functioning, and (2) performed within RA and MCD non-responders. Improvement in depressive symptoms remained significant in the treated group for both drugs. The significance over placebo was also observed in the siltuximab study. The improvement in depressive symptoms by sirukumab correlated positively with the baseline soluble IL-6 receptor levels. The data together suggest that the IL-6 antibodies improve depressive symptoms in patients with RA and MCD. Further studies are needed to elucidate to what extents the IL-6 antibodies improve depressive symptoms through improving primary disease dependent and independent mechanisms, especially in RA patients, and the brain mechanisms underlying depressive symptom improvements.