Triplet Therapy, Transplantation, and Maintenance until Progression in Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.).

Health-related quality of life in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone: Patient-reported outcomes from GRIFFIN.

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM.

Clinical perspectives on the optimal use of lenalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

To improve the outcomes of patients with the otherwise incurable hematologic malignancy of multiple myeloma (MM), a key paradigm includes initial treatment to establish disease control rapidly followed by maintenance therapy to ensure durability of response with manageable toxicity. However, patients' prognosis worsens after relapse, and the disease burden and drug toxicities are generally more challenging with subsequent lines of therapy. It is therefore particularly important that patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) receive optimal frontline therapy. The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has consistently demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with significant and clinically relevant benefit, including deep and durable responses with improved survival in patients with NDMM regardless of their transplant eligibility. Furthermore, comparative studies evaluating this triplet regimen against both doublet and other triplet regimens have established RVd as a standard of care in this setting based upon its remarkable and concordant efficacy. Given the breadth of clinical data, physician familiarity, inclusion in treatment guidelines, and the emerging potential of RVd-containing quadruplet regimens, RVd will likely continue as a key cornerstone of the treatment of NDMM, and its role will therefore likely continue to grow as a therapeutic backbone in the initial treatment of MM.

Quality of life, psychological distress, and prognostic perceptions in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy requiring long-term, continuous therapy. Despite its chronic and unrelenting course, studies examining quality of life (QOL), psychological distress, and perceptions of prognosis by line of therapy are lacking. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional, multisite study of patients undergoing treatment for MM (excluding maintenance) between June 2020 and January 2021. The authors conducted purposeful sampling and recruited patients to 3 cohorts based on lines of therapy: 1) newly diagnosed receiving first-line therapy; 2) 2 to 3 lines; and 3) 4 or more lines. Patients completed validated questionnaires to assess their QOL, fatigue, psychological distress, and perceptions of prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients with MM were enrolled (newly diagnosed [n = 60], 2 to 3 lines [n = 60], and ≥4 lines of therapy [n = 60]). QOL, symptom burden, and fatigue scores did not differ by lines of therapy. There were no statistically significant differences in psychological distress by line of therapy. The rates of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms were 23.9% (43 of 180), 23.9% (43 of 180), and 24.4% (44 of 180), respectively. Most patients (84.7%, 149 of 176) reported that their oncologist told them their cancer was incurable, but only 30.6% (53 of 173) acknowledged that they were terminally ill, and 42.0% (73 of 174) reported that they thought their cancer was incurable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MM undergoing treatment experience impaired QOL and elevated psychological distress across the disease continuum, regardless of line of therapy. A substantial proportion of patients with MM have significant misperceptions about their prognosis and the curability of their illness despite reporting being informed of the prognosis by their oncologist. LAY SUMMARY: This study discusses 180 patients with MM (newly diagnosed [n = 60], 2-3 lines [n = 60], and ≥4 lines of therapy [n = 60]). Quality of life, symptom burden, and fatigue scores do not differ by lines of therapy. There are also no statistically significant differences in psychological distress by line of therapy. The rates of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms are 23.9%, 23.9%, and 24.4%, respectively. Most patients (84.7%) report that their oncologist told them their cancer was incurable, but only 30.6% acknowledge that they are terminally ill, and 42.0% report that they thought their cancer was incurable.

Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen plus dexamethasone: analyses from the Phase II HORIZON study.

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is known to have a high burden of disease and complications associated with refractoriness to prior lines of therapy. Severe pain and fatigue symptoms and impairments in physical and emotional functioning have been strongly linked to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM. Assessment of patient reported-outcome measures from the pivotal, Phase II HORIZON study (OP-106; NCT02963493) in patients with RRMM (n = 64) demonstrated that melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone treatment preserved HRQoL. Patients had clinically meaningful improvements, even after eight treatment cycles, in relevant scales such as global health status/QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, and fatigue. Patients with triple-class-refractory disease (n = 50) displayed similar improvements. Patient-reported outcome deterioration was delayed for a substantial amount of time in patients who experienced a response to melflufen plus dexamethasone treatment relative to patients who did not experience a response. These findings support the notion that treatment with melflufen plus dexamethasone may sustain or improve HRQoL over time in patients with RRMM, including in patients with triple-class-refractory disease for whom outcomes are generally worse. The clinical benefits observed in patients from the HORIZON trial are encouraging and supportive of translation into real-world practice.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Analysis of vascular thrombotic events in the GRIFFIN study.

Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) ± daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy ± D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, ≥162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal.

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

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

Final analysis of the phase III non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) µg/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) µg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105.

Phase 2 studies of lenalidomide, subcutaneous bortezomib, and dexamethasone as induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

There are limited prospective data on lenalidomide, subcutaneous bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RsqVd) in transplant-eligible/transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Reliable biomarkers for efficacy and toxicity are required to better tailor therapy. Two parallel studies were conducted by Cancer Trials Ireland (CTI; NCT02219178) and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI; NCT02441686). Patients received four 21-day cycles of RsqVd and could then receive either another 4 cycles of RsqVd or undergo autologous stem cell transplant. Postinduction/posttransplant, patients received lenalidomide maintenance, with bortezomib included for high-risk patients. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) after 4 cycles of RsqVd. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled and 84 treated across the two studies; median age was 64.7 (CTI study) and 60.0 years (DFCI study), and 59% and 57% had stage II-III disease. Pooled ORR after 4 cycles in evaluable patients was 93.5%, including 48.1% complete or very good partial responses (CTI study: 91.9%, 59.5%; DFCI study: 95.0%, 37.5%), and in the all-treated population was 85.7% (44.0%). Patients received a median of 4 (CTI study) and 8 (DFCI study) RsqVd cycles; 60% and 31% of patients (CTI study) and 33% and 51% of patients (DFCI study) underwent transplant or received further RsqVd induction, respectively. The most common toxicity was peripheral neuropathy (pooled: 68%, 7% grade 3-4; CTI study: 57%, 7%; DFCI study: 79%, 7%). Proteomics analyses indicated elevated kallikrein-6 in good versus poor responders, decreased midkine in good responders, and elevated macrophage inflammatory protein 1-alpha in patients who stopped treatment from neurotoxicity, suggesting predictive biomarkers warranting further investigation.

Improving rates of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in multiple myeloma patients on immunomodulatory drugs through a pharmacy-based system.

INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulatory drugs used to treat multiple myeloma carry an increased risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. Previously published guidelines outline consensus opinion on how to mitigate this risk. METHODS: We collected baseline data to analyze how these strategies are utilized at our single institution and sought to improve the rates of anticoagulation for high-risk patients. This was done through a quality improvement project that added pharmacy/haematology oversight to the VTE risk assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients newly started on IMiDs were assessed for VTE risk. This information was passed on to the myeloma provider for consideration. Twenty-two patients were classified as high risk for VTE. Of the high-risk patients, 14 (64%) were placed on an anticoagulant for thromboprophylaxis. Eleven (79%) of the 14 used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Eight high-risk patients did not receive an anticoagulant for thromboprophylaxis; 4 of these developed VTE. No patients on anticoagulation developed a VTE. This strategy had rare minor bleeding complications. CONCLUSION: This quality action verifies guideline-based thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma and supports the benefit of pharmacy oversight in improving VTE rates. The use of DOACs in myeloma should be further explored.

Efficacy and safety of oral panobinostat plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (PANORAMA 3): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication. METHODS: PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654990. FINDINGS: Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8-24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8-72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8-75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4-61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio.

A phase I/II study of ixazomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone for lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitor refractory multiple myeloma (Alliance A061202).

Preclinical studies have demonstrated activity of the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib (IXA) in bortezomib-resistant multiple myeloma (MM) and synergy with immunomodulatory drugs. We therefore conducted a phase I/II study to establish the safety and preliminary efficacy of IXA with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) in lenalidomide (LEN)/PI-refractory MM. Dose escalation established a 4 mg dose of POM and IXA and 20/40 mg dose of DEX as the maximum tolerated dose. The phase II portion of the trial was redesigned and started anew after six patients had been randomized to IXA-POM-DEX due to a rapidly changing treatment landscape. Among the 29 evaluable LEN/PI-refractory patients treated with IXA-POM-DEX in phase I/II, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 51.7% with a median duration of response of 16.8 months (range 56 days to 4.1 years), median progression-free survival of 4.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0-18.4), and median overall survival of 34.3 months (95% CI: 19.2 to not reached). Hematologic, gastrointestinal, and constitutional adverse events were common and consistent with the side-effect profiles of the individual agents. Our results support further evaluation of this all-oral regimen in relapsed/refractory MM.

Daratumumab-based regimens are highly effective and well tolerated in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of patient age: subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CASTOR and POLLUX studies.

The phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR studies demonstrated superior benefit of daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone or bortezomib/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab was analyzed according to age groups of 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years. Patients received ≥1 prior line of therapy. In POLLUX, patients received lenalidomide/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-2; every two weeks, cycles 3-6; monthly until progression). In CASTOR, patients received eight cycles of bortezomib/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-3; every three weeks, cycles 4-8; monthly until progression). Patients aged >75 years received dexamethasone 20 mg weekly. For patients aged ≥75 years in POLLUX (median follow-up: 25.4 months), daratumumab/lenalido-mide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalido-mide/dexamethasone (median: 28.9 versus 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.69; P=0.0042) and increased overall response rate (93.1% versus 76.5%; P=0.0740). Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 44.8%; control: 31.4%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 12 (41.4%) patients. For patients aged ≥75 years in CASTOR (median follow-up: 19.4 months), daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib/dexamethasone (median: 17.9 versus 8.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.65; P=0.0022) and increased overall response rate (95.0% versus 78.8%; P=0.1134). Thrombocytopenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 45.0%; control: 37.1%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13 (65.0%) patients. Similar findings were reported for patients aged 65 to 74 years in both studies. Taken together, this subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of daratumumab was largely consistent with the overall populations.

Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

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

Ixazomib 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 I/II trial of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

We tested the hypothesis that using CXCR4 inhibition to target the interaction between the tumor cells and the microenvironment leads to sensitization of the tumor cells to apoptosis. Eligibility criteria included multiple myeloma (MM) patients with 1-5 prior lines of therapy. The purposes of the phase I study were to evaluate the safety and maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. The treatment-related adverse events and response rate of the combination were assessed in the phase II study. A total of 58 patients were enrolled in the study. The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 43-85), and 78% of them received prior bortezomib. In the phase I study, the MTD was plerixafor 0.32 mg/kg, and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 . The overall response rate for the phase II study was 48.5%, and the clinical benefit rate 60.6%. The median disease-free survival was 12.6 months. The CyTOF analysis demonstrated significant mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ stem cells, and immune T cells in response to plerixafor. This is an unprecedented study that examines therapeutic targeting of the bone marrow microenvironment and its interaction with the tumor clone to overcome resistance to therapy. Our results indicate that this novel combination is safe and that the objective response rate is high even in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00903968.

Evaluating the adverse effects of melphalan formulations.

INTRODUCTION: For multiple myeloma patients who respond to primary therapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is considered standard of care with high-dose melphalan for transplant candidates. There are now two different melphalan formulations available, including a propylene glycol containing (PG-MEL) product and a propylene glycol-free (PG-free MEL) product. Although considered bioequivalent, there remains limited literature directly evaluating the adverse events between the two agents. We seek to assess the tolerability and severity of side effects between the two formulations in a real-life practice setting. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive analysis was conducted of multiple myeloma patients who received autologous stem cell conditioning with either melphalan formulation when dosed at 100 mg/m2/dose for two consecutive doses. The primary outcome was the assessment of tolerability and severity of side effects. Tolerability was split into four major categories including hematologic toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, renal toxicity, and highest recorded mucositis grade. RESULTS: There were a total of 78 patients who received a melphalan preparation during the study. The median time to myeloablation and neutrophil engraftment was five and seven days post-HSCT, respectively, for all patients. Patients who received PG-free MEL were less likely to develop mucositis, with 22 (56%) reported highest grade 0, defined by World Health Organization oral toxicity scale, compared to those who received PG-MEL (33%), p = 0.04. CONCLUSION: There were minimal differences in tolerability or side effects observed between PG-free MEL and PG-MEL. These data may assist in better understanding the anticipated adverse effects of a high-dose melphalan conditioning therapy.

The proteasome and proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma.

Proteasome inhibitors are one of the most important classes of agents to have emerged for the treatment of multiple myeloma in the past two decades, and now form one of the backbones of treatment. Three agents in this class have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration-the first-in-class compound bortezomib, the second-generation agent carfilzomib, and the first oral proteasome inhibitor, ixazomib. The success of this class of agents is due to the exquisite sensitivity of myeloma cells to the inhibition of the 26S proteasome, which plays a critical role in the pathogenesis and proliferation of the disease. Proteasome inhibition results in multiple downstream effects, including the inhibition of NF-κB signaling, the accumulation of misfolded and unfolded proteins, resulting in endoplasmic reticulum stress and leading to the unfolded protein response, the downregulation of growth factor receptors, suppression of adhesion molecule expression, and inhibition of angiogenesis; resistance to proteasome inhibition may arise through cellular responses mediating these downstream effects. These multiple biologic consequences of proteasome inhibition result in synergistic or additive activity with other chemotherapeutic and targeted agents for myeloma, and proteasome inhibitor-based combination regimens have become established as a cornerstone of therapy throughout the myeloma treatment algorithm, incorporating agents from the other key classes of antimyeloma agents, including the immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, and histone deacetylase inhibitors. This review gives an overview of the critical role of the proteasome in myeloma and the characteristics of the different proteasome inhibitors and provides a comprehensive summary of key clinical efficacy and safety data with the currently approved proteasome inhibitors.

Investigational agents in immunotherapy: a new horizon for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has gone through several major advances over the last 5 years with the introduction of next generation proteasome inhibitors (PI; carfilzomib, ixazomib) and immunomodulatory derivatives (IMiD; pomalidomide), with these new agents having a substantial impact on patient outcome. However, despite these advances, MM remains a highly resistant disease given its propensity for clonal heterogeneity and its complex interaction with the surrounding bone marrow microenvironment. Almost all patients eventually relapse despite therapeutic responses to a PI, IMiD or both. With the regulatory approval of the monoclonal antibodies Daratumumab and Elotuzumab in 2015, impressive and durable responses are being observed, even in heavily pre-treated patients who have exhausted other therapeutic options, suggesting immunological approaches in this setting have real merit. This review will focus on newer monoclonal antibodies and chimeric-antigen receptor (CAR) T cell strategies currently under investigation and in various stages of clinical development.

A phase 1 clinical trial evaluating marizomib, pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (NPI-0052-107): final study results.

Marizomib (MRZ) is an irreversible, pan-subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) in clinical development for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and glioma. This study analysed MRZ, pomalidomide (POM) and low-dose dexamethasone (Lo-DEX) [PMD] in RRMM to evaluate safety and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Intravenous MRZ (0·3-0·5 mg/m2 ) was administered over 2 h on days 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3-4 mg) on days 1-21; and Lo-DEX (5 or 10 mg) on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22 and 23 of every 28-day cycle. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled that had received a median of 4 (range 1-10) prior lines of therapy; all patients received prior lenalidomide and bortezomib. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed and 0·5 mg/m2 MRZ was determined to be the RP2D. The most common treatment-related ≥Grade 3 adverse events were: neutropenia (11/38 patients: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 patients 11%), anaemia (4/38 patients; 11%) and thrombocytopenia (4/38 patients; 11%). The overall response rate and clinical benefit rate was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively. In conclusion, PMD was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pre-treated, high-risk RRMM patients.