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.).

Daratumumab-Based Treatment for Immunoglobulin Light-Chain Amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P<0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.).

Prognostic value of minimal residual disease negativity in myeloma: combined analysis of POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA.

We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10-5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172.

Impact of prior lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitor exposure on the effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis from the INSURE study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA, and REMIX. RESULTS: Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide-naïve/-exposed/-refractory and 37/411/110 were PI-naïve/-exposed/-refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable. CONCLUSION: IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide- and/or PI-nonrefractory versus refractory patients.

Isatuximab as monotherapy and combined with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

This phase 2 study evaluated isatuximab as monotherapy or combined with dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients had RRMM refractory to an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy incorporating an IMiD and PI. Patients received isatuximab either as monotherapy (20 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 [once weekly] of cycle 1 followed by 20 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles; Isa group) or in combination with dexamethasone (40 mg/d [20 mg/d in patients aged ≥75 years] once weekly; Isa-dex group). Treated patients (N = 164) had received a median of 4 (range, 2-10) prior treatment lines. Patients received a median of 5 (1-24) and 7 (1-22) treatment cycles; at data cutoff, 13 (11.9%) of 109 and 15 (27.3%) of 55 patients remained on treatment in the Isa and Isa-dex arms, respectively. Overall response rate (primary efficacy end point) was 23.9% in the Isa arm and 43.6% in the Isa-dex arm (odds ratio, 0.405; 95% confidence interval, 0.192-0.859; P = .008). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.9 and 18.9 months for Isa, and 10.2 and 17.3 months for Isa-dex. Infusion reactions (mostly grade 1/2) and hematologic abnormalities were the most common adverse events. There was a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher infections in both groups (22.0% and 21.8%). In conclusion, addition of dexamethasone to isatuximab increased response rates and survival outcomes with no detrimental effect on safety. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01084252.

How I treat triple-class refractory multiple myeloma.

Immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) are the pillars of modern multiple myeloma (MM) therapy. The prognosis of patients with MM that became refractory to these three classes (triple-class refractory [TCR]) is historically poor. Observational studies indicate an overall response rate of ~30% and overall survival inferior to 1 year with existing therapies. While no randomised trial has been completed in this setting, several agents exploring new mechanisms of action showed activity in TCR MM in single-arm trials, including anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor T cells, anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugates and exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitors. Among agents in development, anti-BCMA bispecific T-cell engagers (TCE), and non-BCMA TCEs demonstrated activity in most patients. Additionally, specific agents may exhibit unique activity in biologically defined patient subsets, as exemplified by venetoclax in t(11;14) MM. The main open questions in TCR MM are preferred sequence of existing therapies, the utility of sequential use of agents with similar mechanism of action, but different immunotherapy target and the relative efficacy of the different anti-BCMA platforms. Here, we summarise the existing literature and provide general guidance on selecting therapy for this challenging and heterogenous group of patients.

Clinical features associated with COVID-19 outcome in multiple myeloma: first results from the International Myeloma Society data set.

The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19-infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

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.

Health-related quality of life in patients with light chain amyloidosis treated with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone ± daratumumab: Results from the ANDROMEDA study.

In the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial, patients treated with daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) had significantly higher rates of organ and hematologic response compared with patients who received VCd alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the ANDROMEDA trial. PROs were assessed through cycle 6 using three standardized questionnaires. Treatment effect through cycle 6 was measured by a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. The magnitude of changes in PROs versus baseline was generally low, but between-group differences favored the D-VCd group. Results were generally consistent irrespective of hematologic, cardiac, or renal responses. More patients in the D-VCd group experienced meaningful improvements in PROs; median time to improvement was more rapid in the D-VCd group versus the VCd group. After cycle 6, patients in the D-VCd group received daratumumab monotherapy and their PRO assessments continued, with improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported through cycle 19. PROs of subgroups with renal and cardiac involvement were consistent with those of the intent-to-treat population. These results demonstrate that the previously reported clinical benefits of D-VCd were achieved without decrement to patients' HRQoL and provide support of D-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis.

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.

Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes.

Health-related quality of life maintained over time in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone: results from the phase III CASTOR trial.

In the phase III CASTOR trial, daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly extended progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the CASTOR trial. PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system questionnaire. Treatment effects through Cycle 8 were measured by a repeated measures mixed-effects model. After Cycle 8, PROs were only collected for patients in the D-Vd group who continued on daratumumab monotherapy. Compliance rates for PRO assessments were high and similar between treatment groups. Mean changes from baseline were generally similar between treatment groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS), functioning and symptoms, and did not exceed 10 points for either treatment group. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the results observed in the overall population. There was no change in patients' health-related quality of life for the first eight cycles of therapy; thereafter, patients treated with daratumumab over the long-term reported improvements in GHS and pain. These results complement the significant clinical benefits observed with D-Vd in patients with RRMM and support its use in this patient population.

Subcutaneous daratumumab plus standard treatment regimens in patients with multiple myeloma across lines of therapy (PLEIADES): an open-label Phase II study.

Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody approved for intravenous (IV) infusion for multiple myeloma (MM). We describe the Phase II PLEIADES study of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA SC) in combination with standard-of-care regimens: DARA SC plus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM); DARA SC plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) for transplant-ineligible NDMM; and DARA SC plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) for relapsed/refractory MM. In total, 199 patients were treated (D-VRd, n = 67; D-VMP, n = 67; D-Rd, n = 65). The primary endpoints were met for all cohorts: the ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate after four 21-day induction cycles for D-VRd was 71·6% [90% confidence interval (CI) 61·2-80·6%], and the overall response rates (ORRs) for D-VMP and D-Rd were 88·1% (90% CI 79·5-93·9%) and 90·8% (90% CI 82·6-95·9%). With longer median follow-up for D-VMP and D-Rd (14·3 and 14·7 months respectively), responses deepened (ORR: 89·6%, 93·8%; ≥VGPR: 77·6%, 78·5%), and minimal residual disease-negativity (10-5 ) rates were 16·4% and 15·4%. Infusion-related reactions across all cohorts were infrequent (≤9·0%) and mild. The median DARA SC administration time was 5 min. DARA SC with standard-of-care regimens demonstrated comparable clinical activity to DARA IV-containing regimens, with low infusion-related reaction rates and reduced administration time.

Expert review on soft-tissue plasmacytomas in multiple myeloma: definition, disease assessment and treatment considerations.

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population.

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lay abstract Proteasome inhibitors are drugs used in multiple myeloma (MM), a blood cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved for use in MM, when given in combination with two other oral drugs, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, to adult patients who have received one prior therapy. Our study, which was conducted in routine clinical practice, found that the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone in previously treated MM patients were similar to those seen in the Phase III clinical trial on which approval was based. These findings are important because they suggest that MM patients in everyday practice can achieve the same benefits from this treatment as patients in clinical trials, despite often being in poorer health.

Venetoclax or placebo in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (BELLINI): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, which induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown encouraging clinical efficacy with acceptable safety and tolerability in a phase 1 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received one to three previous therapies were enrolled from 90 hospitals in 16 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) centrally using an interactive response technology system and a block size of three to receive venetoclax (800 mg per day orally) or placebo with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). Treatment was given in 21-day cycles for the first eight cycles and 35-day cycles from the ninth cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and the number of previous therapies. Sponsors, investigators, study site personnel, and patients were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02755597. FINDINGS: Between July 19, 2016, and Oct 31, 2017, 291 patients were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax (n=194) or placebo (n=97). With a median follow-up of 18·7 months (IQR 16·6-21·0), median progression-free survival according to independent review committee was 22·4 months (95% CI 15·3-not estimable) with venetoclax versus 11·5 months (9·6-15·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·44-0·90]; p=0·010). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients in the venetoclax group vs seven [7%] of 96 patients in the placebo group), pneumonia (30 [16%] vs nine [9%]), thrombocytopenia (28 [15%] vs 29 [30%]), anaemia (28 [15%] vs 14 [15%]), and diarrhoea (28 [15%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 93 (48%) patients in the venetoclax group and 48 (50%) patients in the placebo group, with eight (4%) treatment-emergent fatal infections reported in the venetoclax group and none reported in the placebo group. Three deaths in the venetoclax group (two from pneumonia and one from septic shock) were considered treatment-related; no deaths in the placebo group were treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with venetoclax versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. However, increased mortality was seen in the venetoclax group, mostly because of an increased rate of infections, highlighting the importance of appropriate selection of patients for this treatment option. FUNDING: AbbVie and Genentech.

Multiple myeloma treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in the Latin America Haemato-Oncology (HOLA) Observational Study, 2008-2016.

Limited data are available regarding contemporary multiple myeloma (MM) treatment practices in Latin America. In this retrospective cohort study, medical records were reviewed for a multinational cohort of 1103 Latin American MM patients (median age, 61 years) diagnosed in 2008-2015 who initiated first-line therapy (LOT1). Of these patients, 33·9% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). During follow-up, 501 (45·4%) and 129 (11·7%) patients initiated second- (LOT2) and third-line therapy (LOT3), respectively. In the LOT1 setting, from 2008 to 2015, there was a decrease in the use of thalidomide-based therapy, from 66·7% to 42·6%, and chemotherapy from, 20·2% to 5·9%, whereas use of bortezomib-based therapy or bortezomib + thalidomide increased from 10·7% to 45·5%. Bortezomib-based therapy and bortezomib + thalidomide were more commonly used in ASCT patients and in private clinics. In non-ASCT and ASCT patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15·0 and 31·1 months following LOT1 and 10·9 and 9·5 months following LOT2, respectively. PFS was generally longer in patients treated with bortezomib-based or thalidomide-based therapy versus chemotherapy. These data shed light on recent trends in the management of MM in Latin America. Slower uptake of newer therapies in public clinics and poor PFS among patients with relapsed MM point to areas of unmet therapeutic need in Latin America.

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).

Survival differences in multiple myeloma in Latin America and Asia: a comparison involving 3664 patients from regional registries.

In previous observational studies, we have separately characterized patients with multiple myeloma (MM) both from Latin America (LA) and from Asia. Here, we analyze these two datasets jointly, in order to assess the overall survival (OS) in these two world regions. Data were available from 3664 patients (1968 from LA and 1696 from Asia); all of whom diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Approximately, 26% of patients in both world regions underwent transplantation. OS (from diagnosis of MM) was explored with Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards models. Patients from LA were significantly younger and had hypercalcemia more often than Asian patients, who in turn had higher proportions of anemia and International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease. The median OS was 56 months in LA, and 47 months in Asia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.91; P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, age, ISS stage III, anemia, hypercalcemia, and world region remained significantly associated with OS (P < 0.001 for all covariates). These results were largely driven by patients not undergoing transplantation, as no difference in OS emerged between the two world regions in univariable or multivariable analysis for transplanted patients. Despite adverse prognostic features differentially favoring each region, and adjusting for such differences, we found an OS advantage for patients from LA, in comparison with contemporaneous patients from Asia. Whether this is due to different biological features, differences in access to novel agents (especially thalidomide in earlier periods of the study), unmeasured confounders, or the play of chance, remain unknown.

Whole-Body Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Diagnostic Criteria.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell proliferative disorder characterized by primary infiltration of bone marrow and excessive production of abnormal immunoglobulin. This disease is the second most common hematologic malignancy (after lymphoma), and its spectrum of characteristic features are widely known by the acronym CRAB (hypercalcemia, renal impairment, anemia, and bone lesions). Traditionally, the diagnosis and treatment of MM have been triggered by clear end-organ damage. However, owing to recently introduced treatment options that can extend patient survival and the increasing recognition of biomarkers that can be used to identify patients at high risk of progression to active disease, the diagnostic criteria have been revised. Bone disease is one of the most prominent features of MM, and imaging has an important role in diagnosis and follow-up, with each whole-body imaging modality having different indications in distinct disease situations. Skeletal survey has been the standard imaging procedure used during the past decade, but it should no longer be used unless it is the only option. Whole-body low-dose CT is a reasonable and cost-effective initial imaging approach. Whole-body MRI is the most sensitive technique for detecting bone involvement and assessing painful complications. PET/CT is the best tool for evaluating treatment response. The importance of radiologists has increased in this scenario. Therefore, to properly assist hematologists and improve the care of patients with MM, it is essential that radiologists know the updated diagnostic criteria for MM, indications for and limitations of each imaging option, and recommendations for follow-up. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2019.