Pomalidomide/Daratumumab/Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Overall Survival From MM-014.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have exhausted lenalidomide benefits require improved therapies. The 3-cohort phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) explored pomalidomide in early lines of treatment for lenalidomide-exposed RRMM. In cohort B, pomalidomide plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (DPd) showed promising efficacy (median follow-up 28.4 months), as previously reported. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) in cohort B. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years were treated in 28-day cycles: pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily from days 1 to 21; daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycles 1-2), days 1 and 15 (cycles 3-6), and day 1 (cycle ≥ 7); and dexamethasone 40 mg (age ≤ 75 years) or 20 mg (age > 75 years) orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was ORR. OS and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among 112 patients enrolled, 85 (75.9%) had lenalidomide-refractory disease and 27 (24.1%) had lenalidomide-relapsed disease. At a median follow-up of 41.9 months (range, 0.4-73.1), median OS was 56.7 months (95% confidence interval, 46.5-not reached). Treatment-emergent adverse events related to, and leading to discontinuation of, pomalidomide, dexamethasone, or daratumumab occurred in 7 (6.3%), 9 (8.0%), and 6 (5.4%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: With long-term follow-up, our results show favorable OS with DPd. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified. IMiD agent-based therapy can still be considered in patients with RRMM who experience progressive disease on or after lenalidomide.

Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals.

Biomarker analysis of the ASPEN study comparing zanubrutinib with ibrutinib for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

ABSTRACT: The phase 3 ASPEN trial (NCT03053440) compared Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), zanubrutinib and ibrutinib, in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Post-hoc biomarker analysis was performed using next-generation sequencing on pretreatment bone marrow samples from 98 patients treated with zanubrutinib and 92 patients treated with ibrutinib with mutated (MUT) MYD88 and 20 patients with wild-type (WT) MYD88 treated with zanubrutinib. Of 329 mutations in 52 genes, mutations in CXCR4 (25.7%), TP53 (24.8%), ARID1A (15.7%), and TERT (9.0%) were most common. TP53MUT, ARID1AMUT, and TERTMUT were associated with higher rates of CXCR4MUT (P < .05). Patients with CXCR4MUT (frameshift or nonsense [NS] mutations) had lower very good partial response (VGPR) and complete response rates (CR; 17.0% vs 37.2%, P = .020) and longer time to response (11.1 vs 8.4 months) than patients with CXCR4WT treated with BTKis. CXCR4NS was associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 3.39; P = .017) in patients treated with ibrutinib but not in those treated with zanubrutinib (HR, 0.67; P = .598), but VGPR + CR rates were similar between treatment groups (14.3% vs 15.4%). Compared with ibrutinib, patients with CXCR4NS treated with zanubrutinib had a favorable major response rate (MRR; 85.7% vs 53.8%; P = .09) and PFS (HR, 0.30; P = .093). In patients with TP53MUT, significantly lower MRRs were observed for patients treated with ibrutinib (63.6% vs 85.7%; P = .04) but not for those treated with zanubrutinib (80.8% vs 81.9%; P = .978). In TP53MUT, compared with ibrutinib, patients treated with zanubrutinib had higher VGPR and CR (34.6% vs 13.6%; P < .05), numerically improved MRR (80.8% vs 63.6%; P = .11), and longer PFS (not reached vs 44.2 months; HR, 0.66; P = .37). Collectively, patients with WM with CXCR4MUT or TP53MUT had worse prognosis compared with patients with WT alleles, and zanubrutinib led to better clinical outcomes.

Zanubrutinib Versus Ibrutinib in Symptomatic Waldenström Macroglobulinemia: Final Analysis From the Randomized Phase III ASPEN Study.

The phase III ASPEN study demonstrated the comparable efficacy and improved safety of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Here, we report long-term follow-up outcomes from ASPEN. The primary end point was the sum of very good partial response (VGPR) + complete response (CR) rates; secondary and exploratory end points were also reported. Cohort 1 comprised 201 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88-mutant WM: 102 receiving zanubrutinib; 99 receiving ibrutinib); cohort 2 comprised 28 patients (myeloid differentiation primary response 88 wild-type WM: 28 zanubrutinib; 26 efficacy evaluable). At 44.4-month median follow-up, VGPR + CR rates were 36.3% with zanubrutinib versus 25.3% with ibrutinib in cohort 1 and 30.8% with one CR in cohort 2. In patients with CXC motif chemokine receptor 4 mutation, VGPR + CR rates were 21.2% with zanubrutinib versus 10.0% with ibrutinib (cohort 1). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. Any-grade adverse events (AEs) of diarrhea (34.7% v 22.8%), muscle spasms (28.6% v 11.9%), hypertension (25.5% v 14.9%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (23.5% v 7.9%), and pneumonia (18.4% v 5.0%) were more common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib; neutropenia (20.4% v 34.7%) was less common with ibrutinib versus zanubrutinib (cohort 1). Zanubrutinib was associated with lower risk of AE-related treatment discontinuation. Overall, these findings confirm the long-term response quality and tolerability associated with zanubrutinib.

BTK Inhibitors in the Frontline Management of Waldenström Macroglobulinemia.

The discovery of MYD88 (L265P) mutation led to investigating BTK inhibitors in Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Ibrutinib, the first-in-class agent, was approved based on a phase II trial in relapsed/refractory patients. In the phase III iNNOVATE study, the combination of rituximab and ibrutinib was compared with rituximab and placebo in treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory patients. Second-generation BTK inhibitor, zanubrutinib, was compared with Ibrutinib in MYD88-mutated WM patients in the phase III ASPEN trial, whereas acalabrutinib was investigated in a phase II trial. Here, we discuss the role of BTK inhibitors in treatment-naïve patients with WM based on currently available evidence.

Report of consensus panel 1 from the 11th International Workshop on Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia on management of symptomatic, treatment-naïve patients.

Consensus Panel 1 (CP1) of the 11th International Workshop on Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-11) was tasked with updating guidelines for the management of symptomatic, treatment-naïve patients with WM. The panel reiterated that watchful waiting remains the gold standard for asymptomatic patients without critically elevated IgM or compromised hematopoietic function. For first-line treatment, chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) regimens such as dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (DRC), or bendamustine, rituximab (Benda-R) continue to play a central role in managing WM, as they are effective, of fixed duration, generally well-tolerated, and affordable. Covalent BTK inhibitors (cBTKi) offer a continuous, generally well-tolerated alternative for the primary treatment of WM patients, particularly those unsuitable for CIT. In a Phase III randomized trial updated at IWWM-11, the second-generation cBTKi, zanubrutinib, was less toxic than ibrutinib and induced deeper remissions, thus categorizing zanubrutinib as a suitable treatment option in WM. While the overall findings of a prospective, randomized trial updated at IWWM-11 did not show superiority of fixed duration rituximab maintenance over observation following attainment of a major response to Benda-R induction, a subset analysis showed benefit in patients >65 years and those with a high IPPSWM score. Whenever possible, the mutational status of MYD88 and CXCR4 should be determined before treatment initiation, as alterations in these 2 genes predict sensitivity towards cBTKi activity. Treatment approaches for WM-associated cryoglobulins, cold agglutinins, AL amyloidosis, Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS), peripheral neuropathy, and hyperviscosity syndrome follow the common principle of reducing tumor and abnormal protein burden rapidly and deeply to improve symptoms. In BNS, ibrutinib can be highly active and produce durable responses. In contrast, cBTKi are not recommended for treating AL amyloidosis. The panel emphasized that continuous improvement of treatment options for symptomatic, treatment-naïve WM patients critically depends on the participation of patients in clinical trials, whenever possible.

Plain Language Summary of the iNNOVATE study: ibrutinib plus rituximab is well-tolerated and effective in people with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article provides a short summary of 5-year results from the iNNOVATE trial. The original paper was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in October 2021. People with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) were randomly divided into two groups of 75 people each. One group received a combination treatment composed of two drugs, ibrutinib plus rituximab, and the other group took placebo ("sugar pill") plus rituximab. Ibrutinib (also known by the brand name Imbruvica®) is a drug that reduces cancer cells' ability to multiply and survive. Ibrutinib is an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of WM. Rituximab is a drug that helps the immune system find and kill cancer cells. Participants in the trial were treated and their health monitored for up to 5 years (63 months). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: During the 5 years of monitoring, more people who took ibrutinib plus rituximab experienced an improvement in their disease and lived longer without their disease getting worse compared to those who took placebo plus rituximab. Side effects from ibrutinib and rituximab were manageable and generally decreased over time. Participants in both study groups reported improvements in quality of life, but those who took ibrutinib plus rituximab reported significantly greater improvement in their quality of life (as measured by FACT-An score) compared to those who took placebo plus rituximab. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results show that ibrutinib plus rituximab is better than rituximab alone in people with WM and that ibrutinib plus rituximab is safe and effective in the long term. This information confirms the role of ibrutinib plus rituximab as a standard of care for WM. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02165397 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Allogeneic BCMA-targeting CAR T cells in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: phase 1 UNIVERSAL trial interim results.

ALLO-715 is a first-in-class, allogeneic, anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy engineered to abrogate graft-versus-host disease and minimize CAR T rejection. We evaluated escalating doses of ALLO-715 after lymphodepletion with an anti-CD52 antibody (ALLO-647)-containing regimen in 43 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as part A of the ongoing first-in-human phase 1 UNIVERSAL trial. Primary objectives included determination of the safety and tolerability of ALLO-715 and the safety profile of the ALLO-647-containing lymphodepletion regimen. Key secondary endpoints were response rate and duration of response. Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 38 (88.0%) of patients. Cytokine release syndrome was observed in 24 patients (55.8%), with 1 grade ≥3 event (2.3%) and neurotoxicity in 6 patients (14%), with no grade ≥3 events. Infections occurred in 23 patients (53.5%), with 10 (23.3%) of grade ≥3. Overall, 24 patients (55.8%) had a response. Among patients treated with 320 × 106 CAR+ T cells and a fludarabine-, cyclophosphamide- and ALLO-647-based lymphodepletion regimen (n = 24), 17 (70.8%) had a response including 11 (45.8%) with very good partial response or better and 6 (25%) with a complete response/stringent complete response. The median duration of response was 8.3 months. These initial results support the feasibility and safety of allogeneic CAR T cell therapy for myeloma.

Immune biomarkers of response to immunotherapy in patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma.

Patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) are observed until progression, but early treatment may improve outcomes. We conducted a phase II trial of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloLenDex) in patients with high-risk SMM and performed single-cell RNA and T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing on 149 bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) samples from patients and healthy donors (HDs). We find that early treatment with EloLenDex is safe and effective and provide a comprehensive characterization of alterations in immune cell composition and TCR repertoire diversity in patients. We show that the similarity of a patient's immune cell composition to that of HDs may have prognostic relevance at diagnosis and after treatment and that the abundance of granzyme K (GZMK)+ CD8+ effector memory T (TEM) cells may be associated with treatment response. Last, we uncover similarities between immune alterations observed in the BM and PB, suggesting that PB-based immune profiling may have diagnostic and prognostic utility.

Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment in patients with multiple myeloma: updated efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life results from the phase 2 MM-014 trial.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) need proven subsequent therapies after early-line lenalidomide treatment failure. The phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) investigated pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab after 1 to 2 prior treatment lines (62.5%, 1 prior line) in patients with RRMM and prior lenalidomide (75.0%, lenalidomide refractory). With a median follow-up of 28.4 months, overall response rate was 77.7% (52.7% achieved very good partial response or better) and median progression-free survival was 30.8 months. For patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease, these outcomes were 76.2%, 47.6%, and 23.7 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed; 64.3% experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia. Health-related quality of life was preserved or trended toward improvement through 12 treatment cycles. Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab given immediately after early-line lenalidomide-based treatment continues to demonstrate safety and efficacy, supporting pomalidomide-dexamethasone as a foundation of combination therapy in RRMM and providing evidence that the immunomodulatory agent class delivers benefit after lenalidomide treatment failure.

Ibrutinib Plus Rituximab Versus Placebo Plus Rituximab for Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Final Analysis From the Randomized Phase III iNNOVATE Study.

PURPOSE: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III iNNOVATE study showed sustained efficacy of ibrutinib-rituximab in Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM). Here, we present the final analysis from iNNOVATE. METHODS: Patients had confirmed symptomatic WM, either previously untreated or previously treated; patients with prior rituximab had at least a minor response to their last rituximab-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily ibrutinib 420 mg plus rituximab or placebo plus rituximab (n = 75 per arm). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, time to next treatment, hemoglobin improvement, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 50 (range, 0.5-63) months, median (95% CI) PFS was not reached (57.7 months to not evaluable) with ibrutinib-rituximab versus 20.3 months (13.0 to 27.6) with placebo-rituximab (hazard ratio, 0.250; P < .0001). PFS benefit was regardless of prior treatment status, MYD88 and CXCR4 mutation status, or key patient characteristics. Higher response rates (partial response or better) were observed with ibrutinib-rituximab (76% v 31% with placebo-rituximab; P < .0001) and were sustained over time. Median time to next treatment was not reached with ibrutinib-rituximab versus 18 months with placebo-rituximab. More patients receiving ibrutinib-rituximab versus placebo-rituximab had sustained hemoglobin improvement (77% v 43%; P < .0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. Ibrutinib-rituximab maintained a manageable safety profile; the prevalence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events of clinical interest generally decreased over time. CONCLUSION: In the final analysis of iNNOVATE with a median follow-up of 50 months, ibrutinib-rituximab showed ongoing superiority across clinical outcomes in patients with WM regardless of MYD88 or CXCR4 mutation status, prior treatment, and key patient characteristics.

Single-Agent Ibrutinib for Rituximab-Refractory Waldenström Macroglobulinemia: Final Analysis of the Substudy of the Phase III InnovateTM Trial.

PURPOSE: The first report from the open-label substudy of the phase III iNNOVATE study (PCYC-1127; NCT02165397) demonstrated that single-agent ibrutinib was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated, rituximab-refractory Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Results from the final analysis are now reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ibrutinib 420 mg was administered once daily to patients (N = 31) who failed to achieve at least a minor response (MR) or who relapsed <12 months after their last rituximab-containing therapy. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR; MR or better) per independent review committee, hemoglobin improvement, overall survival (OS), and safety; serum IgM was also assessed. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 58 months (range: 9-61), median PFS was 39 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 25-not evaluable]; 60-month PFS rate was 40%. In MYD88L265P/CXCR4WHIM and MYD88L265P/CXCR4WT subtypes, median PFS was 18 months and not reached, respectively. In all patients, ORR was 87%; responses deepened over time with major response (≥ partial response) rates increasing from 61% at 6 months to 77% at 60 months. Median OS was not reached. Seventeen of 21 patients (81%) with baseline hemoglobin ≤11.0 g/dL had sustained hemoglobin improvement. Improvements in serum IgM levels were sustained, reaching a maximum median change of -37 g/L at 54 months. Ibrutinib maintained a manageable safety profile, with no new safety signals identified. There were no events of major hemorrhage or atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: In the final analysis from iNNOVATE, single-agent ibrutinib continued to show sustained efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated, rituximab-refractory Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

A phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Final analysis of second dose-expansion cohort.

The maximum tolerated dose of the panobinostat and carfilzomib combination in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) was not reached in our previous dose-escalation study. We report additional dose levels in the phase I/II, single-arm, multicenter, standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation expansion-cohort study (NCT01496118). Patients with RRMM were treated with panobinostat 30 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 3), or panobinostat 20 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 33). Treatment cycles lasted 28 days; panobinostat: days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, 19; carfilzomib: days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16. For dose level 6 (DL 6), median age was 63 years (range, 49-91 years), 60.6% were male, 42.4% were high risk. Patients received a median of two prior therapies (range 1-7); proteasome inhibitors (PI; 100%), immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiD; 78.8%), and stem cell transplant (36.4%); 48.5%, 51.1%, and 24.2% were refractory to prior PI or prior IMiD treatment or both, respectively. Patients completed a median of seven (range 1-40) treatment cycles. Overall response rate (primary endpoint) of evaluable patients in the expansion cohort (N = 32): 84.4%; clinical benefit rate: 90.6%. With a median follow-up of 26.1 months (range, 0-72.5 months), median (95% CI) progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival of patients was 10.3 (6.1, 13.9), 11.7 (5.6, 14.5), and 44.6 (20.8, N/A) months, respectively. Common adverse events (AEs) included thrombocytopenia (78.8%), nausea (63.6%), fatigue (63.6%), diarrhea (51.5%), and vomiting (51.5%). Seven patients had serious treatment-related AEs. There was one treatment-related death. In conclusion, panobinostat plus carfilzomib is an effective steroid-sparing regimen for RRMM.

A randomized phase 3 trial of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in symptomatic Waldenström macroglobulinemia: the ASPEN study.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition is an effective treatment approach for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). The phase 3 ASPEN study compared the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor, with zanubrutinib, a novel highly selective BTK inhibitor, in patients with WM. Patients with MYD88L265P disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with ibrutinib or zanubrutinib. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR) or a very good partial response (VGPR) by independent review. Key secondary end points included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease burden, and safety. A total of 201 patients were randomized, and 199 received ≥1 dose of study treatment. No patient achieved a CR. Twenty-nine (28%) zanubrutinib patients and 19 (19%) ibrutinib patients achieved a VGPR, a nonstatistically significant difference (P = .09). MRRs were 77% and 78%, respectively. Median DOR and PFS were not reached; 84% and 85% of ibrutinib and zanubrutinib patients were progression free at 18 months. Atrial fibrillation, contusion, diarrhea, peripheral edema, hemorrhage, muscle spasms, and pneumonia, as well as adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, were less common among zanubrutinib recipients. Incidence of neutropenia was higher with zanubrutinib, although grade ≥3 infection rates were similar in both arms (1.2 and 1.1 events per 100 person-months). These results demonstrate that zanubrutinib and ibrutinib are highly effective in the treatment of WM, but zanubrutinib treatment was associated with a trend toward better response quality and less toxicity, particularly cardiovascular toxicity.

Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment.

Patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg daily from days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N = 112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.

Final analysis of a phase 1/2b study of ibrutinib combined with carfilzomib/dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) inevitably relapse on initial treatment regimens, and novel combination therapies are needed. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, an enzyme implicated in growth and survival of MM cells. Preclinical data suggest supra-additivity or synergy between ibrutinib and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) against MM. This phase 1/2b study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib plus the PI carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). In this final analysis, we report results in patients who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; ibrutinib 840 mg and carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 with dexamethasone), which was determined in phase 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Fifty-nine patients with RRMM received the RP2D (18 in phase 1 and 41 in phase 2b). These patients had received a median of three prior lines of therapy; 69% were refractory to bortezomib, and 90% were refractory to their last treatment. ORR in the RP2D population was 71% (stringent complete response and complete response: 3% each). Median duration of clinical benefit and median duration of response were both 6.5 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 35.9 months. High-risk patients had comparable ORR and median PFS (67% and 7.7 months, respectively) to non-high-risk patients, whose ORR was 73% and median PFS was 6.9 months, whereas median OS in high-risk patients was 13.9 months and not reached in non-high-risk patients. The most common grade ≥3 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia and thrombocytopenia (17% each); the most common grade ≥3 non-hematologic TEAE was hypertension (19%). In patients with RRMM treated with multiple previous lines of therapy, ibrutinib plus carfilzomib demonstrated anticancer activity within the expected efficacy range. No new safety signals were identified and the combination was well-tolerated.

Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Observation is the current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma. We hypothesized that early intervention with lenalidomide could delay progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial that assessed the efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide compared with observation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide was administered orally at a dose of 25 mg on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with disease progression requiring the development of end-organ damage attributable to multiple myeloma and biochemical progression. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned-92 patients to the lenalidomide arm and 90 to the observation arm. Median follow-up is 35 months. Response to therapy was observed in 50% (95% CI, 39% to 61%) of patients in the lenalidomide arm, with no responses in the observation arm. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide compared with observation (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.62; P = .002). One-, 2-, and 3-year progression-free survival was 98%, 93%, and 91% for the lenalidomide arm versus 89%, 76%, and 66% for the observation arm, respectively. Only six deaths have been reported, two in the lenalidomide arm versus four in the observation arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08 to 2.53). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%) on lenalidomide. CONCLUSION: Early intervention with lenalidomide in smoldering multiple myeloma significantly delays progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma and the development of end-organ damage.

Combination trial of duvelisib (IPI-145) with rituximab or bendamustine/rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Duvelisib, a potent δ- and γ-PI3K inhibitor, is a potential therapeutic for hematologic malignancies. Rituximab and bendamustine have demonstrated activity in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Combining duvelisib with either rituximab alone or rituximab and bendamustine may improve response rates and remission durability. We conducted this Phase one study in relapsed/refractory NHL and CLL patients. During expansion, each arm enrolled to disease-specific cohorts to assess efficacy. Arm one received rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV weekly for two 4-week cycles plus duvelisib until progression/intolerance. Arm two received rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV Day one, bendamustine 90 mg/m2 IV (NHL patients) or 70 mg/m2 IV (CLL patients) Days one-two for six cycles, plus duvelisib until progression/intolerance. Duvelisib doses of 50 mg and 75 mg BID were tested during dose escalation. Forty-six patients (27 NHL, 19 CLL) were treated. The adverse events of the drug combinations were consistent with single agent toxicities. The most common AEs were neutropenia (47.7%), fatigue (41.3%), and rash (41.3%). A duvelisib expansion dose of 25 mg BID was chosen based on the monotherapy phase one study, IPI-145-02, which confirmed that dose for further clinical development. Overall response rate was 71.8%. Median progression-free survival was 13.7 months. Median overall survival has not been reached, but 30-month overall survival probability was 62%. Duvelisib combined with rituximab, or bendamustine and rituximab did not appear to increase toxicities beyond the known safety profile of the individual agents. Further study is needed to determine if these combinations improve efficacy.