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

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

Outcome of carfilzomib/pomalidomide-based regimens after daratumumab-based treatment in relapsed multiple myeloma: A Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although daratumumab-containing regimens improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, recurrence is inevitable. METHODS AND OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective study using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database to benchmark the efficacy of carfilzomib- or pomalidomide-based therapies immediately following progression on daratumumab treatment. RESULTS: We identified 178 such patients; median number of prior lines of therapy was 3, 97% triple-class exposed, and 60% triple-class refractory. In our cohort, 75 received a subsequent carfilzomib-based therapy, 79 received a pomalidomide-based therapy, and 24 received a treatment with both immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI) using carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 4.5 and 14.2 months, respectively. Carfilzomib-based therapy yielded a median PFS and OS of 4.5 and 10.2 months, respectively, compared to 5.2 and 21.7 months for pomalidomide-based therapy. Patients who received both IMiD and PI with carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide had a median PFS and OS of 4.1 and 14.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our observations demonstrate the poor outcome of MM patients when standard regimens based on carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide are utilized directly after daratumumab-based therapy given in the relapsed setting. Novel therapies, including immune therapies, are urgently needed to improve the outcomes of these daratumumab-exposed patients.

Switching to daratumumab SC from IV is safe and preferred by patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Two phase 3 studies demonstrated superior efficacy of intravenous daratumumab (DARA IV) plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (ALCYONE) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd; MAIA) versus standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In these studies, patients could switch from DARA IV to subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) while receiving daratumumab monotherapy in ALCYONE (as of Cycle 11) or daratumumab plus Rd in MAIA. The phase 3 COLUMBA study demonstrated noninferiority of DARA SC to DARA IV. DARA SC reduced administration time, allowing patients to spend less time in healthcare settings, a relevant practical consideration for patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic/settings of limited healthcare resources. METHODS: DARA SC 1800 mg was administered every 4 weeks, per approved dosing schedules. We evaluated safety and patient-reported experience (ALCYONE only) among patients who switched from DARA IV to DARA SC. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in ALCYONE and 135 in MAIA switched to DARA SC. Three (2.2%; MAIA) patients reported injection-site reactions, all of which were mild. No infusion-related reactions occurred with DARA SC. In ALCYONE, >80% of patients preferred DARA SC over DARA IV. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 5.3% of patients in ALCYONE and 25.9% in MAIA; one (0.7%; MAIA) patient experienced a TEAE with an outcome of death. CONCLUSION: For transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, DARA SC (monotherapy/with Rd) was safe and preferred over DARA IV. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479/NCT02252172.

Once weekly selinexor, carfilzomib and dexamethasone in carfilzomib non-refractory multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs), including carfilzomib, potentiate the activity of selinexor, a novel, first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in preclinical models of multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: The safety, efficacy, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor (80 or 100 mg) + carfilzomib (56 or 70 mg/m2) + dexamethasone (40 mg) (XKd) once weekly (QW) was evaluated in patients with relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) not refractory to carfilzomib. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients, median prior therapies 4 (range, 1-8), were enrolled. MM was triple-class refractory in 38% of patients and 53% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain 1q. Common treatment-related adverse events (all/Grade 3) were thrombocytopenia 72%/47% (G3 and G4), nausea 72%/6%, anaemia 53%/19% and fatigue 53%/9%, all expected and manageable with supportive care and dose modifications. MTD and RP2D were identified as selinexor 80 mg, carfilzomib 56 mg/m2, and dexamethasone 40 mg, all QW. The overall response rate was 78% including 14 (44%) ≥ very good partial responses. Median progression-free survival was 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly XKd is highly effective and well-tolerated. These data support further investigation of XKd in patients with MM.

Outcomes of daratumumab in the treatment of multiple myeloma: A retrospective cohort study from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database.

Daratumumab (dara) has significantly altered the therapeutic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), especially in the relapsed setting. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of dara-containing regimens in the Canadian real-world setting among relapsed and refractory MM available within the national Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB). A total of 583 MM patients who received dara-based therapy in second-line or later treatment were included. After a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 13.1 and 32.9 months, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 23.5 and 49.1 months in second-line treatment and decreased to 12.8 and 43.0 months in third-line and 7.0 and 20.5 months in fourth-line treatment respectively. Dara in monotherapy with or without corticosteroids after a median of four prior lines of therapy resulted in a median PFS of 3.9 months and a median OS of 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib, lenalidomide or pomalidomide to dara resulted in an improved median PFS and OS of 8.3 and 26.2 months; 26.8 and 43.0 months; and 9.7 and 31.4 months respectively. These retrospective data from the CMRG-DB suggest that outcomes are superior when dara is used in combination and in earlier lines of treatment.

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.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at first relapse in lenalidomide-pretreated myeloma: A subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) by age, renal function, and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse. METHODS: OPTIMISMM was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized study (NCT01734928; N = 559). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 226 patients had received one prior line of therapy. PVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in patients aged ≤65 years (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 months; P = .0258) and >65 years (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 months; P = .0369). Median PFS in patients with renal impairment (RI; creatinine clearance <60 mL/min) was 15.1 months with PVd vs 9.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34-1.34]). In patients without RI, median PFS was 22.0 vs 13.1 months (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.76]). In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 14.7 vs 9.9 months (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.13-1.17]). PVd significantly improved overall response rate vs Vd in all subgroups. The safety profile of PVd was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirmed the benefits of PVd at first relapse, including in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. FINDINGS: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. INTERPRETATION: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. FUNDING: Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Carfilzomib vs bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma and renal failure: a subgroup analysis of ENDEAVOR.

In ENDEAVOR, carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (Kd56) demonstrated longer progression-free survival (PFS) over bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here we evaluated Kd56 vs Vd by baseline renal function in a post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis. The intent-to-treat population included 929 patients (creatinine clearance [CrCL] ≥15 to <50 mL/min, n = 85 and n = 99; CrCL 50 to <80 mL/min, n = 186 and n = 177; and CrCL ≥80 mL/min, n = 193 and n = 189 for Kd56 and Vd arms, respectively). In these respective subgroups, median PFS was 14.9 vs 6.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.320-0.757), 18.6 vs 9.4 months (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.351-0.652), and not reached (NR) vs 12.2 months (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.434-0.827) for those receiving Kd56 vs Vd, respectively; median overall survival (OS) was 42.1 vs 23.7 months (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.443-0.989), 42.5 vs 32.8 months (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.626-1.104), and NR vs 42.3 months (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.554-1.009). Complete renal response (ie, CrCL improvement to ≥60 mL/min in any 2 consecutive visits if baseline CrCL <50 mL/min) rates were 15.3% (95% CI, 8.4-24.7) and 14.1% (95% CI, 8.0-22.6) for those receiving Kd56 vs Vd, respectively. In a combined Kd56 and Vd analysis, complete renal responders had longer median PFS (14.1 vs 9.4 months; HR, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.438-1.481) and OS (35.3 vs 29.7 months; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.524-1.577) vs nonresponders. Grade ≥3 adverse event rates in the respective subgroups were 87.1% vs 79.4%, 84.4% vs 71.8%, and 77.1% vs 65.9% for those receiving Kd56 vs Vd, respectively. Thus, Kd56 demonstrated PFS and OS improvements over Vd in RRMM patients regardless of their baseline renal function. The ENDEAVOR trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01568866.

Medical and mental health implications of gestational surrogacy.

Gestational surrogacy in the United States has quadrupled since 1999, but to date, only a few states explicitly permit compensated gestational surrogacy. Current legal prohibitions are often influenced by outdated and stereotyped understandings of surrogacy. It is increasingly important to understand the current literature about the medical and mental health impacts of surrogacy and how state legislatures have addressed compensated gestational surrogacy in recent years. Based on this review, we found no evidence of substantial adverse medical or psychological outcomes among women who are gestational carriers or among the children they give birth to. The literature suggests that gestational surrogacy is a safe and increasingly popular option for families as long as rigorous screening and medical, psychological, and social supports are equitably provided. As states move to responsibly legalize and regulate gestational surrogacy, there is a continued need for further longitudinal studies on the health and psychological outcomes of gestational surrogacy.

The impact of lenalidomide maintenance on second-line chemotherapy in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of therapy sequencing on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The use of daily, low-dose, lenalidomide maintenance (LM) has raised concern for fostering resistance, preventing its use in the relapsed setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database. Patients were grouped based on receipt of LM after autologous stem cell transplant and receipt of lenalidomide in second-line therapy, 575 patients were included. RESULTS: Patients treated with LM had statistically similar 2nd PFS when re-exposed to lenalidomide in second-line therapy compared to those receiving non-lenalidomide-containing regimens (10.2 vs 14.0 months, P =.53). This cohort also had the longest 2nd OS, 18 months longer than patients treated with LM who did not receive lenalidomide at relapse (55.3 vs 37 months, P =.004). Patients treated with LM also demonstrated deeper responses to second-line therapy than their non-LM counterparts. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients progressing on LM who receive lenalidomide-containing therapy at first relapse have comparable 2nd PFS and better 2nd OS compared to non-lenalidomide-containing second-line regimens. Identification of patients mostly likely to benefit from further lenalidomide-containing therapy is paramount.

Retrospective study of treatment patterns and outcomes post-lenalidomide for multiple myeloma in Canada.

Lenalidomide is an important component of initial therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, either as maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or as first-line therapy with dexamethasone for patients' ineligible for ASCT (non-ASCT). This retrospective study investigated treatment patterns and outcomes for ASCT-eligible and -ineligible patients who relapsed after lenalidomide as part of first-line therapy, based on data from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database for patients treated between January 2007 and April 2019. Among 256 patients who progressed on lenalidomide maintenance therapy, 28.5% received further immunomodulatory derivative-based (IMiD-based) therapy (lenalidomide/pomalidomide) without a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (bortezomib/carfilzomib/ixazomib), 26.2% received PI-based therapy without an IMiD, 19.5% received both an IMiD plus PI, 13.5% received daratumumab-based regimens, and 12.1% underwent salvage ASCT. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was longest for daratumumab-based therapy (22.7 months) and salvage ASCT (23.4 months) and ranged from 6.6 to 7.3 months for the other treatments (P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was also longest for daratumumab and salvage ASCT. A total of 87 non-ASCT patients received subsequent therapy, with 66.7% receiving bortezomib-based therapy and 13.8% receiving other PI-based therapy. Median PFS was 15.4 and 24.8 months for bortezomib-based and other PI-based therapy, respectively (P = .404). During most of the study period, daratumumab was not funded; in this setting, switching to a different therapeutic class following relapse on lenalidomide produced the longest remissions for non-ASCT patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine optimum treatment following relapse on lenalidomide, especially in the light of increased access to daratumumab.

Weekly carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Final results from the MCRN-003/MYX.1 single arm phase II trial.

The MCRN-003/CCTGMYX.1 is a single arm phase II trial of weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (wKCd), exploring a convenient immunomodulator (IMiD)-free regimen in relapsed myeloma. Weekly carfilzomib (20/70 mg/m2 ), dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 was delivered over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response after four cycles. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, response depth, PFS and OS. Exploratory endpoints included the impact of cytogenetics, prior therapy exposure and serum free light chain (sFLC) escape; 76 patients were accrued. The ORR was 85% (68% ≥very good partial response [VGPR] and 29% ≥complete response [CR]). The median OS and PFS were 27 and 17 months respectively. High-risk cytogenetics conferred a worse ORR (75% vs. 97%, p = .013) and median OS (18 months vs. NR, p = .002) with a trend toward a worse median PFS (14 vs. 22 months, p = .06). Prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) or lenalidomide did not influence OS or PFS. The sFLC was noted in 15% of patients with a median PFS of 17 months when included as a progression event. The most common ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events were infectious (40%), vascular (17%) and cardiac (15%). The wKCD is a safe and effective regimen in relapse, especially for patients ineligible for lenalidomide-based therapies.

Selinexor plus low-dose bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Selinexor is an oral inhibitor of the nuclear export protein exportin 1. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic antimyeloma activity between selinexor and proteasome inhibitors (PI) through suppression of NF-κB signaling and nuclear retention of tumor suppressor proteins. We tested selinexor in combination with low-dose bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The primary objectives of this study were to determine the safety profile, overall response rate (ORR), and a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of SVd. We enrolled 42 patients to receive selinexor (60, 80, or 100 mg orally) plus bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) once or twice weekly in 21- or 35-day cycles. Patients had a median of 3 (range 1-11) prior lines of therapy, and 50% were refractory to a PI. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in ≥10% of patients were thrombocytopenia (45%), neutropenia (24%), fatigue (14%), and anemia (12%). Incidence (4 patients, 10%) and grade (≤2) of peripheral neuropathy were low. The ORR for the entire population was 63%: 84% ORR for PI nonrefractory and 43% for PI-refractory patients. The median progression-free survival for all patients was 9.0 months; 17.8 months for PI nonrefractory, and 6.1 months for PI refractory. SVd treatment produced high response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory MM, including borezomib-refractory MM, with no unexpected side effects. The RP2D is selinexor (100 mg once weekly), bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 once weekly for 4 weeks), and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly) per 35-day cycle. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02343042.

Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma.

This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified ≥60 months' follow-up). Patients were randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and was similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an ≈30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vs MPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00689936 and EudraCT as 2007-004823-39.

Chronic Conjunctivitis From a Retained Contact Lens.

PURPOSE: To help clinicians diagnose and manage unilateral recalcitrant chronic bacterial conjunctivitis secondary to a retained soft contact lens and describe the first report of Gram-negative bacteria causing this condition. METHODS: Chart review of successive cases presenting with unilateral chronic conjunctivitis with positive cultures and a retained contact lens. RESULTS: Three cases were identified and described. Culturing of the retained contact lenses grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the first case, Achromobacter xylosoxidans in the second, and Staphylococcus epidermidis in the third. All three patients were successfully treated with removal of the retained lens and targeted antibiotic eyedrop therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral chronic recurrent or recalcitrant purulent papillary conjunctivitis is rare, and a retained contact lens should be suspected in patients with a history of wearing contact lenses. Careful examination with double eversion of the upper eyelid and sweeping of the fornices can recover the offending lens. Although only Gram-positive organisms have been isolated in previous reports, two of our three cultures grew Gram-negative organisms, highlighting the importance of broad-spectrum antibiotic usage for these cases.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of ß2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9-21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66-13·73] vs 7·10 months [5·88-8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49-0·77; p<0·0001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%] of 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%] vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=1]) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=1], hepatic encephalopathy [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.

Low-depth sequencing for copy number abnormalities in multiple myeloma supersedes fluorescent in situ hybridization in scope and resolution.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematological malignancy that relies on cytogenetic determination of copy number abnormalities (CNAs) for prognosis and management. Low-depth whole genome sequencing (LD-WGS) is a cost-effective alternative to targeted genomics for CNA detection, but its value has yet to be explored in MM. DNA from CD138+ cells from MM patients were sequenced using an Illumina NextSeq at <1x depth (ultralow-depth). Subsampling analysis and window size adjustment were performed for determining sensitivity limits and results compared to fluorescent in-Situ hybridization (FISH). CNA calls made down to 5 million (M) reads were comparable to those at 20 M reads at a window size of 100 kb had a sensitivity and specificity of 93%, 92% and an area under the curve of 0.94. All CNAs detected by FISH on the MM samples were also detected by LD-WGS; the latter detected a further 36 focal CNAs not detected by FISH. Cost per sample of LD-WGS was significantly lower for our organization than FISH testing. LD-WGS for MM is significantly more sensitive than targeted technologies such as FISH in CNA detection and resolution, provides a more cost-effective option for clinical purposes and potential for exploring prognostically relevant and drug discovery targets.

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of POLLUX.

In the POLLUX study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone significantly reduced risk of progression/death versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We provide one additional year of follow up and include the effect on minimal residual disease and in clinically relevant subgroups. After 25.4 months of follow up, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone (median not reached vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53; P<0.0001). The overall response rate was 92.9% versus 76.4%, and 51.2% versus 21.0% achieved a complete response or better, respectively (both P<0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, 26.2% versus 6.4% were minimal residual disease-negative, respectively (P<0.0001). Post hoc analyses of clinically relevant patient subgroups demonstrated that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Patients previously treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide and those refractory to bortezomib received similar benefits (all P<0.01). Treatment benefit with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone was maintained in high-risk patients (median progression-free survival 22.6 vs 10.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.13; P=0.0921) and patients with treatment-free intervals of >12 and ≤12 months and >6 and ≤6 months. No new safety signals were observed. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone continued to improve progression-free survival and deepen responses versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02076009.