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.).

Zanubrutinib or Ibrutinib in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In a multinational, phase 3, head-to-head trial, ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, was compared with zanubrutinib, a BTK inhibitor with greater specificity, as treatment for relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). In prespecified interim analyses, zanubrutinib was superior to ibrutinib with respect to overall response (the primary end point). Data from the final analysis of progression-free survival are now available. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or SLL who had received at least one previous course of therapy to receive zanubrutinib or ibrutinib until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. In this final analysis, progression-free survival (a key secondary end point) was assessed with the use of a hierarchical testing strategy to determine whether zanubrutinib was noninferior to ibrutinib. If noninferiority was established, the superiority of zanubrutinib was assessed and claimed if the two-sided P value was less than 0.05. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib was found to be superior to ibrutinib with respect to progression-free survival among 652 patients (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 0.49 to 0.86; P = 0.002), as assessed by the investigators; the results were similar to those as assessed by an independent-review committee. At 24 months, the investigator-assessed rates of progression-free survival were 78.4% in the zanubrutinib group and 65.9% in the ibrutinib group. Among patients with a 17p deletion, a TP53 mutation, or both, those who received zanubrutinib had longer progression-free survival than those who received ibrutinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.88); progression-free survival across other major subgroups consistently favored zanubrutinib. The percentage of patients with an overall response was higher in the zanubrutinib group than in the ibrutinib group. The safety profile of zanubrutinib was better than that of ibrutinib, with fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and fewer cardiac events, including fewer cardiac events leading to treatment discontinuation or death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or SLL, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received zanubrutinib than among those who received ibrutinib, and zanubrutinib was associated with fewer cardiac adverse events. (Funded by BeiGene; ALPINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03734016.).

Sustained Benefit of Zanubrutinib vs Ibrutinib in Patients With R/R CLL/SLL: Final Comparative Analysis of ALPINE.

ALPINE (NCT03734016) established the superiority of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (R/R CLL/SLL); here we present data from the final comparative analysis with extended follow-up. Overall, 652 patients received zanubrutinib (n=327) or ibrutinib (n=325). At an overall median follow-up of 42.5 months, progression-free survival benefit with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib was sustained (HR: 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84]), including in patients with del(17p)/TP53 mutation (HR: 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.78]) and across multiple sensitivity analyses. Overall response rate remained higher with zanubrutinib compared with ibrutinib (85.6% vs 75.4%); responses deepened over time with complete response/complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery rates of 11.6% (zanubrutinib) and 7.7% (ibrutinib). While median overall survival has not been reached in either treatment group, fewer zanubrutinib patients have died than ibrutinib patients (HR: 0.77 [95% CI, 0.55-1.06]). With median exposure time of 41.2 and 37.8 months in zanubrutinib and ibrutinib arms, respectively, the most common non-hematologic adverse events included COVID-19-related infection (46.0% vs 33.3%), diarrhea (18.8% vs 25.6%), upper respiratory tract infection (29.3% vs 19.8%), and hypertension (27.2% vs 25.3%). Cardiac events were lower with zanubrutinib (25.9% vs 35.5%) despite similar rates of hypertension. Incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter was lower with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib (7.1% vs 17.0%); no cardiac deaths were reported with zanubrutinib vs six cardiac deaths with ibrutinib. This analysis, at 42.5 months median follow-up, demonstrates that zanubrutinib remains more efficacious than ibrutinib with an improved overall safety/tolerability profile.

Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis. METHODS: MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; <22 vs ≥22), spleen size (<12 cm vs ≥12 cm), red blood cell or whole blood units transfused in the 8 weeks before randomisation (0 units vs 1-4 units vs ≥5 units), and study site. The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at week 24 (defined as ≥50% reduction in mean MFSAF TSS over the 28 days immediately before the end of week 24 compared with baseline). MOMENTUM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04173494, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6-26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia. FUNDING: Sierra Oncology.

Donor's age influences outcome in haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide - a single center experience.

Haploidentical stem cell transplantation (haplo-SCT) using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (post-Cy) is considered a reasonable therapeutic option for patients who lack matched donor or who urgently need transplant procedure due to high risk disease. We analyzed the results of haplo-SCT performed in years 2018-2023. Eighty one patients (46 males) at median age of 52 years underwent haplo-SCT using peripheral blood as a stem cell source in most cases. Indications included hematological malignancies (acute leukemias in 88% of cases). In 25 cases (31%) transplantation was performed in relapsed/refractory disease. Majority of patients (61%) presented with very high and high disease risk index (DRI). Conditioning regimens were as follows: nonmyeloablative - 46 cases (57%), myeloablative - in 18 (22%) and reduced intensity - 17(20%). 90% of patients engrafted. All patients received unified immunosuppressive treatment (post-Cy/TAC/MMF). Median follow-up time was 12 months The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD was 37.5% and 37.6%, respectively. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) was 43.1% and donor's age was the only factor influencing survival. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 42.5%, whereas relapse incidence (RI) - 35%. The cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 44% and was mostly due to infections. Haplo-SCT is a feasible treatment option for hematological patients. Younger donor improves post-transplant survival. Strategies to reduce infection-related mortality and relapse rate remain a challenge.

ROP-ET: a prospective phase III trial investigating the efficacy and safety of ropeginterferon alfa-2b in essential thrombocythemia patients with limited treatment options.

Interferon-based therapies, such as ropeginterferon alfa-2b have emerged as promising disease-modifying agents for myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia (ET). Current ET treatments aim to normalize hematological parameters and reduce the thrombotic risk, but they do not modify the natural history of the disease and hence, have no impact on disease progression. Ropeginterferon alfa-2b (trade name BESREMi®), a novel, monopegylated interferon alfa-2b with an extended administration interval, has demonstrated a robust and sustained efficacy in polycythemia vera (PV) patients. Given the similarities in disease pathophysiology and treatment goals, ropeginterferon alfa-2b holds promise as a treatment option for ET. The ROP-ET trial is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm phase III study that includes patients with ET who are intolerant or resistant to, and/or are ineligible for current therapies, such as hydroxyurea (HU), anagrelide (ANA), busulfan (BUS) and pipobroman, leaving these patients with limited treatment options. The primary endpoint is a composite response of hematologic parameters and disease-related symptoms, according to modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. Secondary endpoints include improvements in symptoms and quality of life, molecular response and the safety profile of ropeginterferon alfa-2b. Over a 3-year period the trial assesses longer term outcomes, particularly the effects on allele burden and clinical outcomes, such as disease-related symptoms, vascular events and disease progression. No prospective clinical trial data exist for ropeginterferon alfa-2b in the planned ET study population and this study will provide new findings that may contribute to advancing the treatment landscape for ET patients with limited alternatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register; EudraCT, 2023-505160-12-00; Registered on October 30, 2023.

Plain language summary of zanubrutinib or ibrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia that is resistant to treatment or has come back after treatment.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a research study called ALPINE. The study involved people who had been diagnosed with, and previously treated at least once for, relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Lymphocytes help to find and fight off viruses and infections in the body, but when someone has CLL or SLL, the body creates abnormal lymphocytes, leaving the patient with a weakened immune system and susceptible to illness. In CLL, these lymphocytes are in the bone marrow and bloodstream, whereas for SLL, they are mostly found in the lymph nodes, such as those in the neck. HOW WAS THE RESEARCH DONE?: The ALPINE study was designed to directly compare the cancer-fighting effects and side effects of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib as treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: After 30 months, zanubrutinib was more effective than ibrutinib at reducing and keeping the cancer from coming back. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03734016 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Eltrombopag for Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndromes or Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Severe Thrombocytopenia: Results of the ASPIRE Extension Study.

ASPIRE, a three-part, international, phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01440374), investigated eltrombopag efficacy and safety in patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (<25 × 109 platelets/L). Approximately 30-65% of patients in this open-label extension phase experienced clinically relevant thrombocytopenic events; no conclusions could be made regarding long-term efficacy (non-randomized design, no placebo control), and survival rates may simply reflect advanced disease. Long-term safety was consistent with the double-blind phase and contrasted with earlier SUPPORT study findings in higher-risk patients, suggesting that eltrombopag may have a role in treating thrombocytopenia in patients with low-/intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndrome.

Many People With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia or Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma Benefit From Ibrutinib Treatment Up To 8 Years: A Plain Language Summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a publication describing long-term results from the RESONATE-2 study with up to 8 years of follow-up. The original paper was published in Blood Advances in June 2022. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers looked at 269 adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had not received any treatment for their CLL/SLL. Study participants were randomly divided into two groups: 136 participants received treatment with a drug called ibrutinib, and 133 participants received treatment with a drug called chlorambucil. Participants in the study were treated and followed for up to 8 years, with results showing that more participants who took ibrutinib (59%) were alive without worsening of their disease at 7 years after starting treatment than participants who took chlorambucil (9%). Almost half of the participants (42%) were able to stay on ibrutinib treatment for up to 8 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In people with CLL or SLL, more participants who were taking ibrutinib were alive without worsening of their disease after 7 years compared with participants who took chlorambucil. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01722487 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01724346 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Zanubrutinib is a next-generation, selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). We compared zanubrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab to determine its effectiveness as frontline therapy in patients with CLL or SLL. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study at 153 academic or community hospitals in 14 countries and regions. Eligible patients had untreated CLL or SLL requiring treatment as per International Workshop on CLL criteria; were aged 65 years or older, or 18 years or older and had comorbidities; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. A central interactive web response system randomly assigned patients without del(17)(p13·1) to zanubrutinib (group A) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B) by sequential block method (permutated blocks with a random block size of four). Patients with del(17)(p13·1) were enrolled in group C and received zanubrutinib. Zanubrutinib was administered orally at 160 mg twice per day (28-day cycles); bendamustine at 90 mg/m2 of body surface area on days 1 and 2 for six cycles plus rituximab at 375 mg/m2 of body surface area the day before or on day 1 of cycle 1, and 500 mg/m2 of body surface area on day 1 of cycles 2-6, were administered intravenously. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival per independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population in groups A and B, with minimum two-sided α of 0·05 for superiority. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03336333, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 590 patients were enrolled; patients without del(17)(p13·1) were randomly assigned to zanubrutinib (group A; n=241) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B; n=238). At median follow-up of 26·2 months (IQR 23·7-29·6), median progression-free survival per independent review committee was not reached in either group (group A 95% CI not estimable [NE] to NE; group B 28·1 months to NE). Progression-free survival was significantly improved in group A versus group B (HR 0·42 [95% CI 0·28 to 0·63]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia (27 [11%] of 240 patients in group A, 116 [51%] of 227 in group B, and 17 [15%] of 111 patients in group C). Serious adverse events occurred in 88 (37%) of 240 patients in group A, 113 (50%) of 227 patients in group B, and 45 (41%) of 111 patients in group C. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 11 (5%) of 240 patients in group A, 12 (5%) of 227 patients in group B, and three (3%) of 111 patients in group C, most commonly due to COVID-19 (four [2%] of 240 patients in group A), diarrhoea, and aspiration pneumonia (two each [1%] of 227 patients in group B). INTERPRETATION: Zanubrutinib significantly improved progression-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab, with an acceptable safety profile consistent with previous studies. These data support zanubrutinib as a potential new treatment option for untreated CLL and SLL. FUNDING: BeiGene.

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.

Phase III MANIFEST-2: pelabresib + ruxolitinib vs placebo + ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor treatment-naive myelofibrosis.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, typically associated with disease-related symptoms, splenomegaly, cytopenias and bone marrow fibrosis. Patients experience a significant symptom burden and a reduced life expectancy. Patients with MF receive ruxolitinib as the current standard of care, but the depth and durability of responses and the percentage of patients achieving clinical outcome measures are limited; thus, a significant unmet medical need exists. Pelabresib is an investigational small-molecule bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor currently in clinical development for MF. The aim of this article is to describe the design of the ongoing, global, phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled MANIFEST-2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pelabresib and ruxolitinib versus placebo and ruxolitinib in patients with JAKi treatment-naive MF. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04603495 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare type of blood cancer that interferes with the process of blood cell production by the bone marrow. In patients with MF, the bone marrow becomes overactive, leading to scarring and subsequently a lack of healthy blood cells being produced. The main symptoms of MF include anemia, fatigue, weakness and pain or discomfort in the abdomen. MF is associated with a shortened life expectancy. The current go-to treatment for MF is ruxolitinib. However, ruxolitinib has shown limited efficacy in improving clinical symptoms long term; so, new safe and effective treatments are needed. Pelabresib is a novel drug currently in clinical development for treating MF. The aim of this article is to describe the design of the ongoing, global phase III MANIFEST-2 study. MANIFEST-2 is evaluating the efficacy and safety of pelabresib and ruxolitinib versus placebo and ruxolitinib in patients with MF.

Health-related quality of life in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: treatment with daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in the phase 3 POLLUX trial.

In the phase 3 POLLUX trial, daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from POLLUX, assessed using the validated 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 (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires. Changes from baseline are presented as least-squares mean changes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a mixed-effects model. PRO assessment compliance rates were high and similar in both D-Rd and Rd groups through cycle 40 (week 156). In this on-treatment analysis, mean changes from baseline were significantly greater in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status, physical functioning, and pain scores in the D-Rd group versus the Rd group at multiple time points; however, magnitude of changes was low, suggesting no meaningful impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Subgroup results were similar to those in the overall population. In the POLLUX study, baseline HRQoL was maintained with prolonged D-Rd treatment. These findings complement the sustained and significant improvement in progression-free survival observed with D-Rd and supports its use in patients with RRMM. Clinical trial registration: NCT02076009.

Overall survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ALCYONE): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma includes combination therapies for patients who are not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. At the primary analysis for progression-free survival of the phase 3 ALCYONE trial, progression-free survival was significantly longer with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) alone in patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here we report updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified, interim, overall survival analysis of ALCYONE with more than 36 months of follow-up. METHODS: ALCYONE was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients between Feb 9, 2015, and July 14, 2016, at 162 sites in 25 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation, because of their age (≥65 years) or because of substantial comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio and by permuted block randomisation to receive D-VMP or VMP. An interactive web-based randomisation system was used. Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. There was no masking to treatment assignments. All patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 of body surface area on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 of cycle one and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 of cycles two through nine), oral melphalan (9 mg/m2 once daily on days 1 through 4 of each cycle), and oral prednisone (60 mg/m2 once daily on days 1 through 4 of each cycle). Patients in the D-VMP group also received intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg of bodyweight, once weekly during cycle one, once every 3 weeks in cycles two through nine, and once every 4 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which has been reported previously. Results presented are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. The primary analysis population (including for overall survival) was the intention-to-treat population of all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. The safety population included patients who received any dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479. FINDINGS: 706 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (350 to the D-VMP group, 356 to the VMP group). At a median follow-up of 40·1 months (IQR 37·4-43·1), a significant benefit in overall survival was observed for the D-VMP group. The hazard ratio (HR) for death in the D-VMP group compared with the VMP group was 0·60 (95% CI 0·46-0·80; p=0·0003). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 36-month rate of overall survival was 78·0% (95% CI 73·2-82·0) in the D-VMP group and 67·9% (62·6-72·6) in the VMP group. Progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, remained significantly improved for the D-VMP group (HR 0·42 [0·34-0·51]; p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse events during maintenance daratumumab monotherapy in patients in the D-VMP group were respiratory infections (54 [19%] of 278 patients had upper respiratory tract infections; 42 [15%] had bronchitis, 34 [12%] had viral upper respiratory tract infections), cough (34 [12%]), and diarrhoea (28 [10%]). INTERPRETATION: D-VMP prolonged overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. With more than 3 years of follow-up, the D-VMP group continued to show significant improvement in progression-free survival, with no new safety concerns. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

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.

Elotuzumab plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide plus dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were randomly assigned to the elotuzumab group (60 patients) or the control group (57 patients). After a minimum follow-up period of 9.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the elotuzumab group and 4.7 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the elotuzumab group as compared with the control group was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.86; P=0.008). The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab group as compared with 26% in the control group (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.49 to 7.11). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (13% in the elotuzumab group vs. 27% in the control group), anemia (10% vs. 20%), and hyperglycemia (8% vs. 7%). A total of 65% of the patients in each group had infections. Infusion reactions occurred in 3 patients (5%) in the elotuzumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with multiple myeloma in whom treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had failed, the risk of progression or death was significantly lower among those who received elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received pomalidomide plus dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02654132 .).

Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard-of-care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The overall response rate was 90.9% in the daratumumab group, as compared with 73.9% in the control group (P<0.001), and the rate of complete response or better (including stringent complete response) was 42.6%, versus 24.4% (P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.3% of the patients were negative for minimal residual disease (at a threshold of 1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 6.2% of those in the control group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hematologic: neutropenia (in 39.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group and in 38.7% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 34.4% and 37.6%, respectively), and anemia (in 15.9% and 19.8%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 infections was 23.1% in the daratumumab group and 14.7% in the control group; the rate of treatment discontinuation due to infections was 0.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 27.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, daratumumab combined with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than the same regimen without daratumumab. The daratumumab-containing regimen was associated with more grade 3 or 4 infections. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ALCYONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02195479 .).

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for stem cell transplantation: results from the randomized phase III ALCYONE trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III ALCYONE trial, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) significantly improved overall response rate and progression-free status compared with VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALCYONE. METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire were administered at baseline, every 3 months (year 1) and every 6 months (until progression). Treatment effects were assessed using a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Compliance with PRO assessments was comparable at baseline (> 90%) and throughout study (> 76%) for both treatment groups. Improvements from baseline were observed in both groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (GHS), most functional scales, symptom scales and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS). Between-group differences were significant for GHS (p = 0.0240) and VAS (p = 0.0160) at month 3. Improvements in pain were clinically meaningful in both groups at all assessment time points. Cognitive function declined in both groups, but the magnitude of the decline was not clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM demonstrated early and continuous improvements in health-related quality of life, including improvements in functioning and symptoms, following treatment with D-VMP or VMP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02195479 , registered September 21, 2014.

Effect of age and frailty on the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.

Selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma: Outcomes by cytogenetic risk.

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.