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.

Melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: long-term survival follow-up from the Phase II study O-12-M1.

An updated survival analysis was conducted for the Phase II study O-12-M1 of melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with two or more prior lines of therapy (including bortezomib and lenalidomide). Partial response or better was seen in 31%. After a 46-month median overall survival (OS) follow-up, melflufen plus dexamethasone had a median OS of 20·7 months (75th percentile OS, 47·5 months). The median time-to-next treatment for melflufen plus dexamethasone was 7·9 months. In summary, melflufen plus dexamethasone resulted in sustained long-term clinical benefit in patients with RRMM.

Melflufen and Dexamethasone in Heavily Pretreated Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly and selectively releases alkylating agents into tumor cells. The phase II HORIZON trial evaluated the efficacy of melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), a population with an important unmet medical need. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with RRMM refractory to pomalidomide and/or an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody received melflufen 40 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 28-day cycle plus once weekly oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (20 mg in patients older than 75 years). The primary end point was overall response rate (partial response or better) assessed by the investigator and confirmed by independent review. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. The primary analysis is complete with long-term follow-up ongoing. RESULTS: Of 157 patients (median age 65 years; median five prior lines of therapy) enrolled and treated, 119 patients (76%) had triple-class-refractory disease, 55 (35%) had extramedullary disease, and 92 (59%) were refractory to previous alkylator therapy. The overall response rate was 29% in the all-treated population, with 26% in the triple-class-refractory population. In the all-treated population, median duration of response was 5.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.2 months, and median overall survival was 11.6 months at a median follow-up of 14 months. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 96% of patients, most commonly neutropenia (79%), thrombocytopenia (76%), and anemia (43%). Pneumonia (10%) was the most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic event. Thrombocytopenia and bleeding (both grade 3/4 but fully reversible) occurred concomitantly in four patients. GI events, reported in 97 patients (62%), were predominantly grade 1/2 (93%); none were grade 4. CONCLUSION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed clinically meaningful efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM, including those with triple-class-refractory and extramedullary disease.

Melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (O-12-M1): a multicentre, international, open-label, phase 1-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy, representing over 10% of haematological cancers in the USA. We did a phase 1-2 study of melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to determine the maximum tolerated dose of melflufen and to investigate its safety and efficacy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, dose-confirmation and dose-expansion, open-label, phase 1-2 study in seven centres in the USA and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, had received two or more previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and bortezomib), were refractory to their last line of therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. In phase 1, patients received an intravenous infusion of melflufen at 15 mg, 25 mg, 40 mg, or 55 mg for 30 min on day 1 in 21-day cycles plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg weekly and did not receive melflufen as a single agent. Melflufen was also tested in a single-agent cohort late in phase 2 in a small number of patients at the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase 1. In phase 2, patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose in the melflufen plus dexamethasone in the combination cohort.. The phase 1 primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose. The phase 2 primary objective was to evaluate overall response rate and clinical benefit rate. This primary analysis was done per protocol, in the all-treated and efficacy-evaluable population (defined as patients who received at least two doses of melflufen and who had a response assessment after baseline). The single-agent melflufen cohort was closed on October 6, 2016, as per the recommendation by the data safety monitoring committee on the basis of interim data suggesting greater activity in the melflufen plus dexamethasone cohort. The study is completed but survival follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01897714. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between July 4, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016: 23 patients in phase 1 and 58 in phase 2, including six patients from phase 1 treated at the maximum tolerated dose of melflufen 40 mg plus weekly dexamethasone. In phase 2, 45 patients were given a combination of melflufen plus dexamethasone and 13 patients were given single-agent melflufen. In phase 1, the established maximum tolerated dose was 40 mg of melflufen in combination with dexamethasone. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the first three dose cohorts (15 mg, 25 mg, and 40 mg). The highest dose cohort tested (55 mg) exceeded the maximum tolerated dose because four of six patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia with grade 4 thrombocytopenia also occurring in three of these patients; therefore, the planned highest dose of 70 mg was not tested. In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14 of 45 patients; 95% CI 18-47) and clinical benefit rate of 49% (22 of 45; 34-64) in the all-treated population, and 41% (14 of 34; 25-59) and 65% (22 of 34; 47-80) in the efficacy-evaluable population. In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (one of 13 patients; 0·2-36·0) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (three of 13; 5-54). Among the 45 patients given melflufen plus dexamethasone during phase 2, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (28 [62%] patients) and neutropenia (26 [58%]), and non-haematological toxicity was infrequent. 24 serious adverse events were reported in 17 (38%) of 45 patients, most commonly pneumonia (five [11%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in the phase 2 single-agent cohort of 13 patients were neutropenia (nine [69%]) and thrombocytopenia (eight [62%]). Nine patients experienced serious adverse events in the single-agent cohort, most commonly thrombocytopenia (two [15%]). There were three deaths from adverse events within 30 days of treatment that were possibly related to treatment: one in the 25 mg cohort in phase 1 (due to bacteraemia) and two in the phase 2 combination cohort (one due to neutropenic sepsis and one due to Escherichia coli sepsis), each in the setting of progressive disease. INTERPRETATION: These data show that melflufen is active in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma and tolerable in most patients. These results show the feasibility of this regimen and support the initiation of additional clinical studies of melflufen in multiple myeloma, both in combination with dexamethasone as well as in triplet regimens with additional classes of drugs. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

Ixazomib maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An integrated analysis of four phase I/II studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation. METHODS: Data were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice-weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice-weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug-related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Ixazomib maintenance following ixazomib-based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

Phase 2 study of all-oral ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

There is a need for efficacious, convenient treatments with long-term tolerability for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This phase 2 study evaluated the all-oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICd). Patients with RRMM received ixazomib 4 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Seventy-eight patients were enrolled (median age 63·5 years). At data cut-off, patients had received a median of 12 treatment cycles; 31% remained on treatment. ORR was 48% [16% very good partial response or better (≥VGPR)]. ORR was 64% and 32% in patients aged ≥65 and <65 years (25% and 16% ≥VGPR), respectively. At a median follow-up of 15·2 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14·2 months, with a trend towards better PFS in patients aged ≥65 years vs. <65 years (median 18·7 months vs. 12·0 months; hazard ratio 0·62, P = 0·14). ICd was well tolerated. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (33%), nausea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (24%), and thrombocytopenia (22%); 10 patients (13%) had peripheral neuropathy (one grade 3). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02046070).

All-oral ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Novel efficacious treatments with long-term tolerability are needed for transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. This phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of all-oral ixazomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd) followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive 4.0 mg of ixazomib, 300 (Arm A) or 400 (Arm B) mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide (days 1, 8, and 15), and 40 mg of dexamethasone (days 1, 8, 15, and 22) as induction (up to 13 × 28-day cycles), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance (28-day cycles) until progressive disease, death, or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point was complete response (CR) + very good partial response (VGPR) rate for ICd induction. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled (n = 36 Arm A; n = 34 Arm B); median age was 73 years (range, 61-87). At data cut-off, 66% of patients had completed 13 induction cycles followed by ixazomib maintenance. Median overall treatment duration was 19 cycles (range, 1-29); 21% of patients discontinued treatment during induction and 3% during maintenance due to adverse events (AEs). During induction, among 67 response-evaluable patients, CR+VGPR rate was 25%, and overall response rate (ORR) was 73%. Including the maintenance phase, CR+VGPR rate was 33%, and ORR was 76%. Median progression-free survival was 23.5 months (median follow-up: 26.1 months). The most common all-grade AE was neutropenia (31%). Grade ≥3 AEs were reported by 73% of patients. Five on-study deaths occurred (not treatment-related). CONCLUSIONS: ICd treatment followed by ixazomib maintenance is tolerable and active in elderly, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02046070.

Twice-weekly ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Weekly ixazomib with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) is feasible and has shown activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. This phase 1/2 study (NCT01383928) evaluated the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of twice-weekly ixazomib plus Rd in NDMM; 64 patients were enrolled across both phases. Patients received twice-weekly oral ixazomib 3·0 or 3·7 mg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg (10 mg in cycles 9-16) for up to sixteen 21-day cycles, followed by maintenance with twice-weekly ixazomib alone. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in cycle 1; the RP2D was 3·0 mg based on overall tolerability across multiple cycles. In 62 evaluable patients, the confirmed overall response rate was 94% (68% ≥very good partial response; 24% complete response). Median progression-free survival was 24·9 months. Responses (median duration 36·9 months for patients receiving the RP2D) deepened during treatment. Grade 3 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 64% of patients, including: rash, 13%; peripheral neuropathy, 8%; hyperglycaemia, 8%. There were no grade 4 drug-related AEs. Thirteen patients discontinued due to AEs. Twice-weekly ixazomib-Rd offers substantial activity with promising long-term outcomes in NDMM patients but may be associated with greater toxicity compared with weekly ixazomib-Rd in this setting.

A phase I/II dose-escalation study investigating all-oral ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone induction followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

This phase I/II dose-escalation study investigated the all-oral ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone regimen, followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, in elderly, transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Primary phase I objectives were to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone. The primary phase II objective was to determine the complete plus very good partial response rate. In phase I, patients were enrolled to 4 arms investigating weekly or twice-weekly ixazomib (13 28-day cycles or nine 42-day cycles) plus melphalan-prednisone. In phase II, an expansion cohort was enrolled at the recommended phase II ixazomib dose. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 26 received the recommended phase II dose (ixazomib 4.0 mg [days 1, 8, 15] plus melphalan-prednisone 60 mg/m2 [days 1-4], 28-day cycles). Of the 61 enrolled patients, 36 (13 of 26 in the recommended phase II dose cohort) received single-agent ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15; 28-day cycles). In phase I, 10/38 patients reported dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including grade 3 and/or 4 neutropenia (n=6) and thrombocytopenia (n=4). Complete plus very good partial response rate was 48% (48% at recommended phase II dose), including 28% (22%) complete response or better; responses deepened during maintenance in 34% (33%) of evaluable patients. After median follow up of 43.6 months, median progression-free survival was 22.1 months. Adverse events were mainly hematologic events, gastrointestinal events, and peripheral neuropathy. This study demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and activity of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone induction and single-agent ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. clinicaltrials.gov identifier 01335685.

Lenalidomide in combination with rituximab for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma: a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide has shown promise for the treatment of mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) in preclinical studies. We aimed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lenalidomide when combined with rituximab in a phase 1 trial and to assess the efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 2 trial in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. METHODS: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received one to four previous lines of treatment were enrolled in this single-arm, open-label, phase 1/2 trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center. In phase 1, to identify the MTD of lenalidomide, four patient cohorts received escalating doses (10, 15, 20, and 25 mg) of daily oral lenalidomide on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle. 375 mg/m(2) intravenous rituximab was also administered in four weekly doses during cycle 1 only. In phase 2, patients received rituximab plus the MTD of lenalidomide, following the same cycles as for phase 1. Treatment in both phases continued until disease progression, stem-cell transplantation, or severe toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response (complete or partial response). The secondary efficacy endpoint was survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate response duration, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294632. FINDINGS: 52 patients were enrolled between Feb 10, 2006 and July 30, 2009, 14 in phase 1 and 44 (including six patients who received the MTD of lenalidomide in the phase 1 portion) in phase 2. The MTD was 20 mg lenalidomide. One patient who was treated with 25 mg lenalidomide developed a grade 4 non-neutropenic infection and died. In the phase 2 portion of the study, grade 3-4 haematological toxicities included neutropenia (29 patients), lymphopenia (16 patients), leucopenia (13 patients), and thrombocytopenia (ten patients). There were only two episodes of febrile neutropenia. Among 44 patients in phase 2, 25 (57%) had an overall response: 16 (36%) had a complete response and nine (20%) had a partial response. The median response duration was 18·9 months (95% CI 17·0 months to not reached [NR]). The median progression-free survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 8·3 to 24·9 months), and the median overall survival was 24·3 months (19·8 months to NR). Five of 14 patients who had received bortezomib treatment before enrolment achieved an overall response. INTERPRETATION: Oral lenalidomide plus rituximab is well tolerated and effective for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. FUNDING: Celgene.

Clinical efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of a phase II study.

PURPOSE: Patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have profound immune defects and limited treatment options. Given the dramatic activity of lenalidomide in other B-cell malignancies and its pleotropic immunomodulatory effects, we conducted a phase II trial of this agent in CLL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell CLL (B-CLL) were eligible if they required treatment as per the National Cancer Institute Working Group 1996 guidelines. Lenalidomide was administered orally at 25 mg on days 1 through 21 of a 28-day cycle. Response was assessed after each cycle. Patients were to continue treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete remission. Rituximab was added to lenalidomide on disease progression. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled, with a median age of 64 years. Sixty-four percent of the patients had Rai stage III or IV disease, and 51% were refractory to fludarabine. The overall response rate was 47%, with 9% of the patients attaining a complete remission. Fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse effects noted in 83%, 78%, and 78% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide is clinically active in patients with relapsed or refractory B-CLL. These findings are encouraging and warrant further investigation of this agent in the treatment of this disorder.

Lenalidomide therapy in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia.

We present results of 2 similarly designed but separate phase 2 studies involving single-agent lenalidomide (CC-5013, Revlimid) in a total of 68 patients with symptomatic myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia (MMM). Protocol treatment consisted of oral lenalidomide at 10 mg/d (5 mg/d if baseline platelet count < 100 x 10(9)/L) for 3 to 4 months with a plan to continue treatment for either 3 or 24 additional months, in case of response. Overall response rates were 22% for anemia, 33% for splenomegaly, and 50% for thrombocytopenia. Response in anemia was deemed impressive in 8 patients whose hemoglobin level normalized from a baseline of either transfusion dependency or hemoglobin level lower than 100 g/L. Additional treatment effects in these patients included resolution of leukoerythroblastosis (4 patients), a decrease in medullary fibrosis and angiogenesis (2 patients), and del(5)(q13q33) cytogenetic remission accompanied by a reduction in JAK2(V617F) mutation burden (1 patient). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included neutropenia (31%) and thrombocytopenia (19%). We conclude that lenalidomide engenders an intriguing treatment activity in a subset of patients with MMM that includes an unprecedented effect on peripheral blood and bone marrow abnormalities.