Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Multiple Myeloma Spinal Lesion Care: Management of a Primary Bone Malignancy Rather Than a Spinal Metastasis.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple myeloma (MM) is too often wrongly categorized as a spinal metastasis (SpM), although it is distinguishable from SpM in many aspects, such as its earlier natural history at the time of diagnosis, its increased overall survival (OS), and its response to therapeutic modalities. The characterization of these 2 different spine lesions remains a main challenge. METHODS: This study compares 2 consecutive prospective oncologic populations of patients with spine lesions: 361 patients treated for MM spine lesions and 660 patients treated for SpM between January 2014 and 2017. RESULTS: The mean time between the tumor/MM diagnosis and spine lesions was respectively 0.3 (standard deviation [SD] 4.1) and 35.1 months (SD 21.2) for the MM and SpM groups. The median OS for the MM group was 59.6 months (SD 6.0) versus 13.5 months (SD 1.3) for the SpM group (P < 0.0001). Regardless of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, patients with MM always have a significantly better median OS than do patients with SpM: ECOG 0, 75.3 versus 38.7 months; ECOG 1, 74.3 versus 24.7 months; ECOG 2, 34.6 versus 8.1 months; ECOG 3, 13.5 versus 3.2 months and ECOG 4, 7.3 versus 1.3 months (P < 0.0001). The patients with MM had more diffuse spinal involvement (mean, 7.8 lesions; SD 4.7) than did patients with SpM (mean, 3.9; SD 3.5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: MM must be considered as a primary bone tumor, not as SpM. The strategic position of the spine in the natural course of cancer (i.e., nurturing cradle of birth for MM vs. systemic metastases spreading for SpM) explains the differences in OS and outcome.

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

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

Spinal lesions in multiple myeloma: Primary bone tumors with distinct prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: Although prognostic factors of spinal multiple myeloma (MM) seem to differ from those of other spine metastases (SpM), the data in the literature remains scarce. METHODS: A prospective population of 361 patients treated for spine MM lesions between January 2014 and 2017. RESULTS: OS for our series was 59.6 months (SD 6.0 months; CI 95%: 47.7-71.3). Cox multivariate proportional-hazards analysis showed that bone marrow transplant [HR: 0.390, 95% CI 0.264-0.577; p < 0.0001] and light-chain isotype [HR: 0.748, 95% CI 0.318-1.759; p = 0.005] were independent predictors of longer survival. In contrast, age >80 years [HR: 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.3; p < 0.0001], ISS III [HR: 2.510, 95% CI 2.01-3.124; p = 0.001], IgA isotype [HR: 1.475, 95% CI 1.031-2.11; p = 0.034] and IgD/M isotype [HR: 2.753, 95% CI 1.230-6.130; p = 0.013] were independent poor prognostic factors. However, ECOG (p = 0.486), spine surgery (p = 0.391), spine radiotherapy (p = 0.260), epidural involvement (p = 0.259), the number of vertebra lesions (p = 0.222), and synchronous/metachronous timeline (p = 0.412) were not significantly associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal involvement in the context of MM does not influence OS. The main prognostic factors to consider before spinal surgery are the characteristics of the primary MM disease (ISS score, IgG isotype and systemic treatment).

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

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

Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

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

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: frailty subgroup analysis of MAIA.

In the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10-5) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status.

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.

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

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

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma according to prior lines of treatment and refractory status: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) experience several relapses, and become refractory to successive therapies. In the ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338), isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with RRMM. This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM assessed the treatment benefit of isatuximab by prior lines of therapy and refractory status. A total of 307 patients were randomized to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, then every other week. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. PFS was assessed by prior lines and refractory status. Overall, 102 (66 %) patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone and 101 (66 %) patients receiving pomalidomide-dexamethasone had received 2-3 prior lines; 52 (34 %) and 52 (34 %) had received >3 prior lines, respectively. Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who received 2-3 prior lines of therapy (12.3 vs. 7.8 months) and >3 prior lines of therapy (9.4 vs. 4.3 months). Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who were lenalidomide-refractory (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), lenalidomide-refractory at last line (11.6 vs. 5.7 months), refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), and double-refractory (11.2 vs. 4.8 months). Overall response rate (ORR) in patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone was 59.0 % versus 31.4 % in lenalidomide-refractory; 60.2 % versus 32.2 % in PI-refractory; and 58.6 % versus 29.9 % in double-refractory patients. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved PFS and ORR regardless of prior lines of therapy or refractory status, consistent with the benefit in the overall population.

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

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

Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

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

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

Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory myeloma: a cytogenetic subgroup analysis of POLLUX.

High cytogenetic risk abnormalities confer poor outcomes in multiple myeloma patients. In POLLUX, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. We report an updated subgroup analysis of POLLUX based on cytogenetic risk. The cytogenetic risk was determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization/karyotyping; patients with high cytogenetic risk had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10-5) was assessed via the clonoSEQ® assay V2.0. 569 patients were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283); 35 (12%) patients per group had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 44.3 months, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd in standard cytogenetic risk (median: not estimable vs 18.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < 0.0001) and high cytogenetic risk (median: 26.8 vs 8.3 months; HR, 0.34; P = 0.0035) patients. Responses with D-Rd were deep, including higher MRD negativity and sustained MRD-negativity rates versus Rd, regardless of cytogenetic risk. PFS on subsequent line of therapy was improved with D-Rd versus Rd in both cytogenetic risk subgroups. The safety profile of D-Rd by cytogenetic risk was consistent with the overall population. These findings demonstrate the improved efficacy of daratumumab plus standard of care versus standard of care in RRMM, regardless of cytogenetic risk.

Retrospective review of end-of-life care in the last month of life in older patients with multiple myeloma: what collaboration between haematologists and palliative care teams?

OBJECTIVES: Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) receive more aggressive treatments near the end-of-life (EOL) than patients with solid tumours. Palliative care (PC) needs are less widely acknowledged in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) than in other HM. The main objective of our study was to describe EOL care and PC referral in a population of older patients with MM. METHODS: We retrospectively included deceased inpatients and outpatients with an MM previously diagnosed at the age of 70 and over in two tertiary centres in France. We reported EOL characteristics regarding treatments considered to be aggressive-antimyeloma therapies, hospitalisations, blood product transfusions, intensive care units (ICUs) or emergency admissions-and PC referral. RESULTS: We included 119 patients. In their last month of life, 75 (63%) were hospitalised for fever, pain, asthenia, anaemia or bleeding, 49 (41%) were admitted in the emergency department and 12 (10%) in ICU, 76 (64%) still received antimyeloma therapy and 45 (38%) had at least two transfusions. Only 24 (20%) received PC intervention for pain, global care, family support, anxiety, social care or confusion. Median follow-up until death was 20 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a high rate of hospitalisations and antimyeloma therapies in the last month of life. The PC referral rate was low, often once specific treatments were stopped. Our results suggest the need for more effective collaboration between PC teams and haematologists in order to respond to the specific needs of these patients and to improve their quality of care at EOL.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of POLLUX, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study.

In POLLUX, daratumumab (D) plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Updated efficacy and safety after >3 years of follow-up are presented. Patients (N = 569) with ≥1 prior line received Rd (lenalidomide, 25 mg, on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone, 40 mg, weekly) ± daratumumab at the approved dosing schedule. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing. After 44.3 months median follow-up, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population (median 44.5 vs 17.5 months; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.55; P < 0.0001) and in patient subgroups. D-Rd demonstrated higher ORR (92.9 vs 76.4%; P < 0.0001) and deeper responses, including complete response or better (56.6 vs 23.2%; P < 0.0001) and MRD negativity (10-5; 30.4 vs 5.3%; P < 0.0001). Median time to next therapy was prolonged with D-Rd (50.6 vs 23.1 months; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31-0.50; P < 0.0001). Median PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2) was not reached with D-Rd versus 31.7 months with Rd (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.68; P < 0.0001). No new safety concerns were reported. These data support using D-Rd in patients with RRMM after first relapse.