ANCHOR: melflufen plus dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: final results of a phase I/IIa study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

Efficacy and safety of melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from the randomized, open-label, phase III LIGHTHOUSE study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes in risk-stratified patients with smoldering multiple myeloma: data from the Czech Republic Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non-high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non-high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non-high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non-high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS.

Daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients - real world evidence analysis.

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients' data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1-3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients.

Definition and Clinical Significance of the Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance-Like Phenotype in Patients With Monoclonal Gammopathies.

PURPOSE: The existence of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and light-chain (AL) amyloidosis who present with a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)-like phenotype has been hypothesized, but methods to identify this subgroup are not standardized and its clinical significance is not properly validated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An algorithm to identify patients having MGUS-like phenotype was developed on the basis of the percentages of total bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) and of clonal PC within the BM PC compartment, determined at diagnosis using flow cytometry in 548 patients with MGUS and 2,011 patients with active MM. The clinical significance of the algorithm was tested and validated in 488 patients with smoldering MM, 3,870 patients with active MM and 211 patients with AL amyloidosis. RESULTS: Patients with smoldering MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed significantly lower rates of disease progression (4.5% and 0% at 2 years in two independent series). There were no statistically significant differences in time to progression between treatment versus observation in these patients. In active newly diagnosed MM, MGUS-like phenotype retained independent prognostic value in multivariate analyses of progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .001) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.56; P = .039), together with International Staging System, lactate dehydrogenase, cytogenetic risk, transplant eligibility, and complete remission status. Transplant-eligible patients with active MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed PFS and OS rates at 5 years of 79% and 96%, respectively. In this subgroup, there were no differences in PFS and OS according to complete remission and measurable residual disease status. Application of the algorithm in two independent series of patients with AL predicted for different survival. CONCLUSION: We developed an open-access algorithm for the identification of MGUS-like patients with distinct clinical outcomes. This phenotypic classification could become part of the diagnostic workup of MM and AL amyloidosis.

Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients, a Retrospective Observational Study Using Czech Registry Data.

BACKGROUND: Although novel therapies improved prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, clinical outcomes in the multi-refractory population are still poor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies, identified and characterized triple-class exposed (3CE) relapsed/refractory MM patients, treatment patterns after 3CE, assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), explored cohorts with and without triple- and penta-refractoriness. RESULTS: In 83 3CE patients who started subsequent therapies, the median OS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 8.5-19.9), PFS 6.2 months (95% CI, 3.9-8.5), and TTNT 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.6-9.8). Triple- and penta-class refractory patients had a significantly worse prognosis in all outcomes. Their life expectancy was shorter, the disease progression started earlier, and the TTNT was shorter, which increased likelihood of becoming refractory to more therapies. Time-to-event results from the first index date and all index dates analyses were very similar. CONCLUSION: Similar to previous studies from the US and Europe, our results show a high disease burden. Introduction of novel therapies, such as CAR-T cells, new bispecific and trispecific monoclonal antibodies, and other drugs, is expected to bring significant benefits to these patients.

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy.

BACKGROUND: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. METHODS: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. RESULTS: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1-3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab-16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

Unexpected Heterogeneity of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Plasmacytomas.

In multiple myeloma (MM), malignant plasma cells infiltrate the bone marrow. In some cases, plasma cells migrate out of the bone marrow creating either para-skeletal plasmacytomas (PS) or infiltrating soft tissues as extramedullary plasmacytomas (EMD). The aim of this study was to define risk groups in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with PS and EMD plasmacytomas. In total, 523 NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas and 196 NDMM patients with EMD plasmacytomas were diagnosed in the Czech Republic between 2004 and 2021 using modern imaging methods. Patients' data were analyzed from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. In NDMM patients with PS plasmacytomas, we found a subgroup with <5% of bone-marrow plasma cells to have the best prognosis (mPFS: 58.3 months (95% CI: 33.0−NA); mOS: not reached). The subgroup with >5% of bone-marrow plasma cells and ≥3 plasmacytomas had the worst prognosis (mPFS: 19.3 months (95% CI: 13.4−28.8), p < 0.001; mOS: 27.9 months (95% CI: 19.3−67.8), p < 0.001). Our results show association between tumor burden and prognosis of NDMM patients with plasmacytomas. In the case of PS plasmacytomas, NDMM patients with low BM PC infiltration have an excellent prognosis.

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

Real-world evidence of efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: Czech registry data.

We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.

Identification of patients at high risk of secondary extramedullary multiple myeloma development.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by malignant plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. In extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD), a subclone of these cells migrates out of the bone marrow. Out of 4 985 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 in the Czech Republic, we analyzed 234 secondary EMD patients to clarify risk factors of secondary EMD development. We found younger age [<65 years; odds ratio (OR) 4·38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·46-7·80, P < 0·0001], high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (>5 µkat/l; OR 2·07, 95% CI: 1·51-2·84, P < 0·0001), extensive osteolytic activity (OR 2·21, 95% CI: 1·54-3·15, P < 0·001), and immunoglobulin A (IgA; OR 1·53, 95% CI: 1·11-2·11, P = 0·009) or the non-secretory type of MM (OR 2·83; 95% CI: 1·32-6·04, P = 0·007) at the time of MM diagnosis to be the main risk factors for secondary EMD development. Newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with subsequent EMD had inferior median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival when compared to NDMM patients without future EMD [mPFS: 13·8 months (95% CI: 11·4-16·3) vs 18·8 months (95% CI: 17·7-19·9), P = 0·006; mOS: 26·7 months (95% CI: 18·1-35·4) vs 58·7 months (95% CI: 54·8-62·6), P < 0·001]. We found that NDMM patients with specific risk factors associated with secondary EMD development have a more aggressive disease course before secondary EMD develops.

Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: Czech Registry Data.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the use of bortezomib in different combination regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group (CMG) to provide real-world evidence of outcome for 794 newly diagnosed MM transplant ineligible patients. The most frequently used regimen was VCd (bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone) (47.5%) over VMP (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) (21.7%), BDd (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone) (9.8%), and VTd (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone) (2.9%). RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.2% (478/691), including 12.6% (≥ CR); 34.7% very good partial responses (VGPR); and 21.9% partial responses (PR). Among triplet regimens, VMP was the most effective regimen compared to VCd, BDd, and VTd. Median PFS was 22.3 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.7 vs. 13.8 mo, (P = .275), respectively, and median OS was 49 vs. 41.7 vs. 37.9 vs. 32.2 mo (P = .004), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia in 17.4% and infections in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that bortezomib-based treatment is effective and safe in NDMM transplant ineligible patients, especially VMP, which was identified as superior between bortezomib-based induction regimens not only in clinical trials, but also in real clinical practice.

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.

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lay abstract Proteasome inhibitors are drugs used in multiple myeloma (MM), a blood cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved for use in MM, when given in combination with two other oral drugs, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, to adult patients who have received one prior therapy. Our study, which was conducted in routine clinical practice, found that the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone in previously treated MM patients were similar to those seen in the Phase III clinical trial on which approval was based. These findings are important because they suggest that MM patients in everyday practice can achieve the same benefits from this treatment as patients in clinical trials, despite often being in poorer health.

Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Subcutaneous daratumumab plus standard treatment regimens in patients with multiple myeloma across lines of therapy (PLEIADES): an open-label Phase II study.

Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody approved for intravenous (IV) infusion for multiple myeloma (MM). We describe the Phase II PLEIADES study of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA SC) in combination with standard-of-care regimens: DARA SC plus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM); DARA SC plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) for transplant-ineligible NDMM; and DARA SC plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) for relapsed/refractory MM. In total, 199 patients were treated (D-VRd, n = 67; D-VMP, n = 67; D-Rd, n = 65). The primary endpoints were met for all cohorts: the ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate after four 21-day induction cycles for D-VRd was 71·6% [90% confidence interval (CI) 61·2-80·6%], and the overall response rates (ORRs) for D-VMP and D-Rd were 88·1% (90% CI 79·5-93·9%) and 90·8% (90% CI 82·6-95·9%). With longer median follow-up for D-VMP and D-Rd (14·3 and 14·7 months respectively), responses deepened (ORR: 89·6%, 93·8%; ≥VGPR: 77·6%, 78·5%), and minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5 ) rates were 16·4% and 15·4%. Infusion-related reactions across all cohorts were infrequent (≤9·0%) and mild. The median DARA SC administration time was 5 min. DARA SC with standard-of-care regimens demonstrated comparable clinical activity to DARA IV-containing regimens, with low infusion-related reaction rates and reduced administration time.

Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2-67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3-64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5-46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62-0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3-49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0-not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5-58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63-0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]). INTERPRETATION: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. FUNDING: Janssen and Celgene.