Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

Plain language summary of the KarMMa-3 study of ide-cel or standard of care regimens in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

What is this summary about? This plain language summary describes the results of a Phase 3 study called KarMMa-3. In this ongoing study, researchers looked at a relatively new treatment for people with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, whose cancer got worse despite treatment (refractory) or had cancer that at first improved with treatment, but eventually stopped responding (relapsed).How was this study conducted? In the KarMMa-3 study, people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either a one-time infusion of a new treatment, named ide-cel, or one of the standard of care regimens currently available for patients with this cancer. People were treated with the standard of care regimens in weekly or monthly cycles until the cancer got worse, there were unacceptable side effects, or the person withdrew from the study.What were the results? The results of this study showed that people receiving the one-time infusion of ide-cel lived longer without the cancer getting worse and had a greater reduction in cancer cells than patients receiving the standard of care regimen. A higher percentage of patients receiving ide-cel responded to treatment than patients receiving the standard of care regimen, and the response to treatment was better with idecel. These results show that ide-cel is a promising treatment for this challenging disease.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03651128 (KarMMa-3 study).

Health-related quality of life in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with idecabtagene vicleucel or standard regimens: patient-reported outcomes from the phase 3, randomised, open-label KarMMa-3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) showed significantly improved progression-free survival compared with standard regimens in adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four previous regimens in the ongoing phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128). This study analysed patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a KarMMa-3 secondary endpoint. METHODS: In the randomised, open-label, phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, 386 patients in hospitals (≥18 years of age, with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, who had received two to four previous regimens-including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab-and had documented disease progression after receiving their last dose of the last therapy) were randomly assigned to ide-cel (n=254) or standard regimens (daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone; daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone; carfilzomib and dexamethasone; or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone; n=132). Patients were expected to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life C30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), EQ 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and follow-up timepoints (data cutoff April 18, 2022). PROs included nine prespecified primary domains: EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS-quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) index score and EQ-5D visual VAS. Differences in overall least-squares mean changes from baseline to month 20 were analysed using post-hoc constrained longitudinal data analysis. Time to confirmed improvement or deterioration from baseline was analysed using Cox proportional hazard models. FINDINGS: Patients were randomly assigned between May 6, 2019, and April 8, 2022. Overall, the median age was 63 years (IQR 55-68); 151 (39%) patients were female; and 250 (65%) patients were White, 36 (9%) Black or African American, 19 (5%) Hispanic or Latino, 12 (3%) Asian, and seven (2%) of other race. The median follow-up was 18·6 months (IQR 14·0-26·4). PRO compliance was higher than 75% throughout. Overall least-squares mean changes from baseline favoured ide-cel with Hedges' g effect sizes from 0·3 to 0·7 for most domains. Patients in the ide-cel group showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements across the primary PRO domains of interest, with the exception of QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms, side effects of treatment, and EQ-5D-5L index score, which showed improvement across assessment visits but did not exceed the within-group minimally important difference thresholds. The ide-cel group had shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement than the standard regimens group in QLQ-C30 domains except in role functioning, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties; in QLQ-MY20 domains except body image; and in EQ-5D-VAS. INTERPRETATION: Ide-cel offers improved health-related quality of life compared with standard regimens for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after previous lines of therapy. The PRO data highlight the extended QoL benefits of a one-time infusion with ide-cel compared with continuous treatment with standard regimens in the treatment of triple-class exposed patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Company.

Comparative Effectiveness of Teclistamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice of Therapy in LocoMMotion and MoMMent in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Teclistamab is the first approved B cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody with precision dosing for the treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients from the prospective, non-interventional LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies. METHODS: Patients treated with teclistamab from MajesTEC-1 (N = 165) were compared with an external control arm from LocoMMotion (N = 248) or LocoMMotion + MoMMent pooled (N = 302). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for imbalances in prognostic baseline characteristics. The relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate was estimated with an odds ratio using weighted logistic regression transformed into a response-rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Weighted proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment cohorts after reweighting. Patients treated with teclistamab had significantly improved outcomes versus RWPC in LocoMMotion: ORR (RR [95% CI], 2.44 [1.79-3.33]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.78 [3.74-8.93]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 113.73 [15.68-825.13]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.39 [0.24-0.64]; p = 0.0002), PFS (HR 0.48 [0.35-0.64]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.0055). Teclistamab versus RWPC in LocoMMotion + MoMMent also had significantly improved outcomes: ORR (RR 2.41 [1.80-3.23]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.91 [3.93-8.88]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 132.32 [19.06-918.47]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.43 [0.26-0.71]; p = 0.0011), PFS (HR 0.49 [0.37-0.66]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.69 [0.50-0.95]; p = 0.0247). CONCLUSION: Teclistamab demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness over RWPC in LocoMMotion ± MoMMent, emphasizing its clinical benefit as a highly effective treatment for patients with TCE RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MajesTEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145181 (phase 1) and NCT04557098 (phase 2); LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226; MoMMent, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160584.