Belantamab Mafodotin, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin had single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, a finding that supports further evaluation of the agent in combination with standard-care therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd), as compared with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), in patients who had progression of multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response duration, and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. RESULTS: In total, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (243 patients) or DVd (251 patients). At a median follow-up of 28.2 months (range, 0.1 to 40.0), median progression-free survival was 36.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4 to not reached) in the BVd group and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.1 to 17.5) in the DVd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53; P<0.001). Overall survival at 18 months was 84% in the BVd group and 73% in the DVd group. An analysis of the restricted mean response duration favored BVd over DVd (P<0.001). A complete response or better plus MRD-negative status occurred in 25% of the patients in the BVd group and 10% of those in the DVd group. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 95% of the patients in the BVd group and 78% of those in the DVd group. Ocular events were more common in the BVd group than in the DVd group (79% vs. 29%); such events were managed with dose modifications, and events of worsening visual acuity mostly resolved. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with DVd therapy, BVd therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among patients who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least one line of therapy. Most patients had grade 3 or higher adverse events. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04246047; EudraCT number, 2018-003993-29.).

Safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin with pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) has shown promising antimyeloma activity in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) as a single agent. It was hypothesized that its multimodal activity may be enhanced by programmed cell death protein 1 pathway inhibition and activation of T cell-mediated antitumor responses. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of belamaf with pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. METHODS: DREAMM-4 (NCT03848845) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 study divided into dose-escalation (part 1) and dose-expansion (part 2) phases. Patients were ≥18 years old with ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 agent. Patients received belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg, part 1; 2.5 mg/kg, part 2) and 200 mg pembrolizumab for ≤35 cycles. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled patients, 34 (n = 6 part 1, n = 28 part 2) who received 2.5 mg/kg belamaf plus pembrolizumab were included in this final analysis. Sixteen patients (47%) achieved an overall response. Minimal residual disease negativity was achieved in three of 10 patients who had very good partial response or better. Five of eight patients who had prior anti-B-cell maturation antigen therapy achieved partial response or better, including two who had B-cell maturation antigen-refractory disease. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were keratopathy (38%) and thrombocytopenia (29%). Despite belamaf-related ocular events, quality-of-life measures remained stable over time. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of DREAMM-4 demonstrated clinical activity and a favorable safety profile of belamaf plus pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. This trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as NCT03848845.

A multi-center, phase Ib study of subcutaneous administration of isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Not available.

Selinexor, daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: results of the phase II, nonrandomized, multicenter GEM-SELIBORDARA study.

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma has significantly evolved in the last decade. Notwithstanding, a large proportion of patients continue to relapse and novel combinations continue to be needed. In this phase II study, selinexor, a first-in-class inhibitor of exportin-1 was evaluated in combination with standard daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (DVd), for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The aim of the trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of selinexor with DVd (S-DVd). A total of 57 patients were enrolled in the two parts of the study. Part 1 enrolled a heavily pretreated population with at least three prior lines (PL) of therapy and part 2 enrolled an early relapse population with at least one PL of therapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate in part 2 and overall response rate (ORR) in part 1. In the latter, 24 patients were treated with a median of three PL. Overall response rate (ORR) was 50% with two CR. Median progression- free survival (PFS) was 7 months. In part 2, 33 patients were enrolled, with a median of one PL. ORR was 82% and CR or better was 33%. Median PFS was 24 months. In lenalidomide-refractory patients, a median PFS of 22.1 months was observed. Thrombocytopenia was the most common hematological adverse event (69%; grade 3-4: 34%) and nausea, the most frequent non-hematological adverse event (38%; grade 3-4: 6%). Sixty-two percent of the patients required dose modifications. In summary, although the primary endpoint of the study was not met, the combination of S-DVd showed encouraging clinical efficacy with a generally manageable safety profile representing a potential option for the treatment of RRMM patients.

Single-point and kinetics of peripheral residual disease by mass spectrometry to predict outcome in patients with high risk smoldering multiple myeloma included in the GEM-CESAR trial.

The value of quantitative immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry (QIP-MS) to identify the M-protein is being investigated in patients with monoclonal gammopathies but no data are yet available in high-risk smoldering myeloma (HRsMM). We have therefore investigated QIP-MS to monitor peripheral residual disease (PRD) in 62 HRsMM patients enrolled in the GEM-CESAR trial. After 24 cycles of maintenance, detecting the M-protein by MS or clonal plasma cells by NGF identified cases with a significantly shorter median PFS (mPFS; MS: not reached vs 1,4 years, p=0.001; NGF: not reached vs 2 years, p=0.0002) but reaching CR+sCR did not discriminate patients with different outcome. With NGF as a reference, the combined results of NGF and MS showed a high negative predictive value (NPV) of MS: 81% overall and 73% at treatment completion. When sequential results were considered, sustained negativity by MS or NGF was associated with a very favorable outcome with a mPFS not yet reached vs 1.66 years and 2.18 years in cases never attaining PRD or minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, respectively. We can thus conclude that 1) the standard response categories of the IMWG do not seem to be useful for treatment monitoring in HRsMM patients, 2) MS could be used as a non-invasive, clinical valuable tool with the capacity of guiding timely bone marrow evaluations (based on its high NPV with NGF as a reference) and 3) similarly to NGF, sequential results of MS are able identify a subgroup of HRsMM patients with long-term disease control. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02415413).

Promises, Pitfalls, and Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatrics.

Artificial intelligence (AI) broadly describes a branch of computer science focused on developing machines capable of performing tasks typically associated with human intelligence. Those who connect AI with the world of science fiction may meet its growing rise with hesitancy or outright skepticism. However, AI is becoming increasingly pervasive in our society, from algorithms helping to sift through airline fares to substituting words in emails and SMS text messages based on user choices. Data collection is ongoing and is being leveraged by software platforms to analyze patterns and make predictions across multiple industries. Health care is gradually becoming part of this technological transformation, as advancements in computational power and storage converge with the rapid expansion of digitized medical information. Given the growing and inevitable integration of AI into health care systems, it is our viewpoint that pediatricians urgently require training and orientation to the uses, promises, and pitfalls of AI in medicine. AI is unlikely to solve the full array of complex challenges confronting pediatricians today; however, if used responsibly, it holds great potential to improve many aspects of care for providers, children, and families. Our aim in this viewpoint is to provide clinicians with a targeted introduction to the field of AI in pediatrics, including key promises, pitfalls, and clinical applications, so they can play a more active role in shaping the future impact of AI in medicine.

An open-label phase 2 study treating patients with first or second relapse of multiple myeloma with carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd): SELECT study.

Once-weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg/m2 plus immunomodulatory drugs and dexamethasone has shown efficacy and tolerability treating early relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The phase 2 SELECT study (NCT04191616) evaluated efficacy/safety of weekly carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) in early RRMM patients refractory to lenalidomide. All 52 treated patients were refractory to prior treatment, and 19 (37%) were triple-class refractory. Overall response rate (ORR; primary endpoint) was 58% (35% ≥ very good partial response, 6% ≥ complete response); median response duration was 20.3 months. Minimal residual disease negativity (10-5) was achieved in 10% of patients. Median progression-free survival was 11.1 months; median overall survival was 18.8 months. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the known safety profile including grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs reported in 67% of patients. Although the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, KPd showed meaningful clinical benefits in lenalidomide-refractory RRMM patients, including those who were daratumumab-refractory and/or triple-class refractory.

CD200 genotype is associated with clinical outcome of patients with multiple myeloma.

Immune dysfunction in patients with MM affects both the innate and adaptive immune system. Molecules involved in the immune response pathways are essential to determine the ability of cancer cells to escape from the immune system surveillance. However, few data are available concerning the role of immune checkpoint molecules in predicting the myeloma control and immunological scape as mechanism of disease progression. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical impact of the CD200 genotype (rs1131199 and rs2272022) in 291 patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients with a CD200 rs1131199 GG genotype showed a median overall survival (OS) significantly lower than those with CC+CG genotype (67.8 months versus 94.4 months respectively; p: 0.022) maintaining significance in the multivariate analysis. This effect was specially detected in patients not receiving an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) (p < 0.001). In these patients the rs1131199 GG genotype negatively influenced in the mortality not related with the progression of MM (p: 0.02) mainly due to infections events.

Nivolumab, Pomalidomide, and Elotuzumab Combination Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Phase 3 CheckMate 602 Study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that combining nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) with or without elotuzumab, an antisignaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 monoclonal antibody, may improve multiple myeloma (MM) treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase 3 CheckMate 602 study (NCT02726581) assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone (NPd) and NPd plus elotuzumab (NE-Pd). Eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years) had measurable MM after ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, that included an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI), each for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles, alone or combined, and were refractory to their last line of therapy. Patients were randomized 3:3:1 to receive NPd, Pd, or NE-Pd. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.8 months, PFS was similar between treatment arms (Pd, 7.3 months [95% CI, 6.5-8.4]; NPd, 8.4 months [95% CI, 5.8-12.1]; NE-Pd, 6.3 months [95% CI, 2.4-11.1]). ORR was similar in the Pd (55%), NPd (48%), and NE-Pd (42%) arms. Nivolumab-containing arms were associated with a less favorable safety profile versus Pd, including a higher rate of thrombocytopenia (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 15.7%), any-grade immune-mediated adverse events (NPd, 13.9%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 2.9%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 33.3%; Pd, 18.6%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 602 did not demonstrate clinical benefit of nivolumab (+/- elotuzumab) plus Pd versus Pd for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): overall survival analysis of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Previous analyses of the IKEMA trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients with this disease who received isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone as compared with those who received carfilzomib-dexamethasone alone. Herein, we report the analysis of overall survival from the IKEMA trial. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 study included patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged 18 years or older, who had received one to three previous lines of treatment from 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were randomly allocated (3:2) to treatment with either isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, patients received intravenous isatuximab (10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 28-day cycle, and days 1 and 15 of subsequent 28-day cycles). In both treatment groups, intravenous carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of the first cycle; and 56 mg/m2 on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of the first cycle, and days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of subsequent cycles) and intravenous or oral dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23) were administered. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, which was reported previously. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request to discontine. The overall survival analysis reported here was planned to be conducted 3 years after the primary progression-free survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Additional analyses were conducted on the secondary endpoints of time to next treatment and second-progression-free survival. Reported p values are non-inferential due to hierarchical testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03275285). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated: 179 (59%) to the isatuximab group and 123 (41%) to the control group. 169 (56%) patients were male, 133 (44%) were female, 214 (71%) were White, 50 (17%) were Asian, nine (3%) were Black or African American, and three (1%) were multiracial. At data cutoff for this overall survival analysis (Feb 7, 2023), 79 (44%) overall survival events in the isatuximab group and 59 (48%) in the control group had occurred (median follow-up 56·61 months [IQR 54·90-58·02]). Median overall survival (in months) was not reached (NR; 95% CI 52·17-NR) in the isatuximab group and was 50·60 months (38·93-NR) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·855 [95% CI 0·608-1·202], nominal one-sided p=0·18). Survival probability at 48 months was 59·7% (95% CI 52·0-66·7) in the isatuximab group and 52·2% (95% CI 42·7-60·8) in the control group (based on Kaplan-Meier analysis). Improvements in time to next treatment (HR 0·583 [95% CI 0·429-0·792], nominal one-sided p=0·0002) and second-progression-free survival (0·663 [0·491-0·895], nominal one-sided p=0·0035) were observed in the isatuximab group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion reactions (82 [46%] patients in the isatuximab group and four [3%] in the control group) and upper respiratory tract infections (71 [40%] and 34 [28%], respectively). Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups (24 [14%] in the isatuximab group and 22 [18%] in the control group), despite an additional 30 weeks of exposure in the isatuximab group. 12 (7%) patients in the isatuximab group and six (5%) patients in the control group had a treatment-related adverse event with a fatal outcome during study treatment. INTERPRETATION: At the time of the current analysis, a difference in overall survival could not be detected between the treatment groups, and no new safety signals were observed. Collectively, the evidence suggests that isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone is a key treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Curative Strategy for High-Risk Smoldering Myeloma: Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (KRd) Followed by Transplant, KRd Consolidation, and Rd Maintenance.

PURPOSE: Early treatment of high-risk smoldering myeloma has been shown to delay progression to multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted this trial with curative intention using a treatment approach employed for newly diagnosed patients with MM. METHODS: Patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma (>50% progression risk at 2 years) and transplant candidates were included and received induction therapy with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), six cycles, followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDM-ASCT), two KRd consolidation cycles, and Rd maintenance for 2 years. The primary end point was undetectable measurable residual disease (uMRD) rate by next-generation flow after ASCT. Sustained uMRD 4 years after ASCT was the secondary end point. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and June 2017, 90 patients were included, and 31% met at least one SixtyLightchain MRI (SLiM)-hypercalcemia, renal impairment, anemia, bone disease (CRAB) criterion. After a median follow-up of 70.1 months, 3 months after ASCT, in the intention-to-treat population, 56 (62%) of 90 patients had uMRD, and 4 years later, it was sustained in 29 patients (31%). Five patients progressed to MM, and the 70-month progression rate was 94% (95% CI, 84 to 89). The presence of any SLiM CRAB criteria predicted progression to MM (four of the five patients; hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.13; P = .03). Thirty-six patients showed biochemical progression, and failure to achieve uMRD at the end of treatment predicted it. The 70-month overall survival was 92% (95% CI, 82 to 89). Neutropenia and infections were the most frequent adverse events during treatment, resulting in one treatment-related death. Three second primary malignancies have been reported. CONCLUSION: Although a longer follow-up is needed, this curative approach is encouraging and more effective than active MM, with 31% of the patients maintaining the uMRD 4 years after HDM-ASCT.