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.).

Outcomes and characteristics of nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms on ruxolitinib.

ABSTRACT: Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) in ruxolitinib-treated patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms behave aggressively, with adverse features and high recurrence. In our cohort, mortality from metastatic NMSC exceeded that from myelofibrosis. Vigilant skin assessment, counseling on NMSC risks, and prospective ruxolitinib-NMSC studies are crucial.

Rilzabrutinib, an Oral BTK Inhibitor, in Immune Thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Rilzabrutinib, an oral, reversible covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, may increase platelet counts in patients with immune thrombocytopenia by means of dual mechanisms of action: decreased macrophage (Fcγ receptor)-mediated platelet destruction and reduced production of pathogenic autoantibodies. METHODS: In an international, adaptive, open-label, dose-finding, phase 1-2 clinical trial, we evaluated rilzabrutinib therapy in previously treated patients with immune thrombocytopenia. We used intrapatient dose escalation of oral rilzabrutinib over a period of 24 weeks; the lowest starting dose was 200 mg once daily, with higher starting doses of 400 mg once daily, 300 mg twice daily, and 400 mg twice daily. The primary end points were safety and platelet response (defined as at least two consecutive platelet counts of ≥50×103 per cubic millimeter and an increase from baseline of ≥20×103 per cubic millimeter without the use of rescue medication). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled. At baseline, the median platelet count was 15×103 per cubic millimeter, the median duration of disease was 6.3 years, and patients had received a median of four different immune thrombocytopenia therapies previously. All the treatment-related adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 and transient. There were no treatment-related bleeding or thrombotic events of grade 2 or higher. At a median of 167.5 days (range, 4 to 293) of treatment, 24 of 60 patients (40%) overall and 18 of the 45 patients (40%) who had started rilzabrutinib treatment at the highest dose met the primary end point of platelet response. The median time to the first platelet count of at least 50×103 per cubic millimeter was 11.5 days. Among patients with a primary platelet response, the mean percentage of weeks with a platelet count of at least 50×103 per cubic millimeter was 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Rilzabrutinib was active and associated with only low-level toxic effects at all dose levels. The dose of 400 mg twice daily was identified as the dose for further testing. Overall, rilzabrutinib showed a rapid and durable clinical activity that improved with length of treatment. (Funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03395210; EudraCT number, 2017-004012-19.).

Prevention and treatment of infection in patients with an absent or hypofunctional spleen: A British Society for Haematology guideline.

Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of infection in patients with an absent or dysfunctional spleen were published by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology in 1996 and updated in 2002 and 2011. With advances in vaccinations and changes in patterns of infection, the guidelines required updating. Key aspects included in this guideline are the identification of patients at risk of infection, patient education and information and immunisation schedules. This guideline does not address the non-infective complications of splenectomy or functional hyposplenism (FH). This replaces previous guidelines and significantly revises the recommendations related to immunisation. Patients at risk include those who have undergone surgical removal of the spleen, including partial splenectomy and splenic embolisation, and those with medical conditions that predispose to FH. Immunisations should include those against Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus) and influenza. Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) is part of the infant immunisation schedule and is no longer required for older hyposplenic patients. Treatment of suspected or proven infections should be based on local protocols and consider relevant anti-microbial resistance patterns. The education of patients and their medical practitioners is essential, particularly in relation to the risk of serious infection and its prevention. Further research is required to establish the effectiveness of vaccinations in hyposplenic patients; infective episodes should be regularly audited. There is no single group ideally placed to conduct audits into complications arising from hyposplenism, highlighting a need for a national registry, as has proved very successful in Australia or alternatively, the establishment of appropriate multidisciplinary networks.

Guideline for the management of conception and pregnancy in thalassaemia syndromes: A British Society for Haematology Guideline.

This comprehensive guideline, developed by a representative group of UK-based medical experts specialising in haemoglobinopathies, addresses the management of conception and pregnancy in patients with thalassaemia. A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE using specific keywords, formed the basis of the literature review. Key terms included "thalassaemia," "pregnancy," "Cooley's anaemia," "Mediterranean anaemia," and others, covering aspects such as fertility, iron burden and ultrasonography. The guideline underwent rigorous review by prominent organisations, including the Endocrine Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the United Kingdom Thalassaemia Society and the British Society of Haematology (BSH) guideline writing group. Additional feedback was solicited from a sounding board of UK haematologists, ensuring a thorough and collaborative approach. The objective of the guideline is to equip healthcare professionals with precise recommendations for managing conception and pregnancy in patients with thalassaemia.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of adult aplastic anaemia: A British Society for Haematology Guideline.

Pancytopenia with hypocellular bone marrow is the hallmark of aplastic anaemia (AA) and the diagnosis is confirmed after careful evaluation, following exclusion of alternate diagnosis including hypoplastic myelodysplastic syndromes. Emerging use of molecular cyto-genomics is helpful in delineating immune mediated AA from inherited bone marrow failures (IBMF). Camitta criteria is used to assess disease severity, which along with age and availability of human leucocyte antigen compatible donor are determinants for therapeutic decisions. Supportive care with blood and platelet transfusion support, along with anti-microbial prophylaxis and prompt management of opportunistic infections remain key throughout the disease course. The standard first-line treatment for newly diagnosed acquired severe/very severe AA patients is horse anti-thymocyte globulin and ciclosporin-based immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with eltrombopag or allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from a matched sibling donor. Unrelated donor HSCT in adults should be considered after lack of response to IST, and up front for young adults with severe infections and a readily available matched unrelated donor. Management of IBMF, AA in pregnancy and in elderly require special attention. In view of the rarity of AA and complexity of management, appropriate discussion in multidisciplinary meetings and involvement of expert centres is strongly recommended to improve patient outcomes.

Real-world efficacy of single-agent belantamab mafodotin in relapsed systemic AL amyloidosis.

Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a relapsing plasma cell disorder. Therapy is limited, particularly for triple-class refractory disease. We report the use of belantamab mafodotin, a BCMA-directed drug-antibody conjugate, for relapsed AL amyloidosis, including patients traditionally excluded from clinical trials. Thirty-one patients were reviewed, with a median of three prior lines of therapy. The median follow-up was 12 months (95% CI 4-19), and a median of five doses were delivered. The best haematological overall response rate was 71%, and the complete/very good partial response was 58%. Sixty-eight percent had keratopathy and improved in all. Belantamab mafodotin has high efficacy and good tolerability in patients with relapsed AL amyloidosis.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) as induction therapy for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients (Myeloma XI+): Interim analysis of an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. CONCLUSIONS: The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852.

Optimising the value of immunomodulatory drugs during induction and maintenance in transplant ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from Myeloma XI, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, Phase III trial.

Second-generation immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide, have a more favourable side-effect profile than the first-generation thalidomide, but their optimum combination and duration for patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible myeloma (ND-TNE-MM) has not been defined. The most appropriate delivery and dosing regimens of these therapies for patients at advanced age and frailty status is also unclear. The Myeloma XI study compared cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTDa) to cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (CRDa) as induction therapy, followed by a maintenance randomisation between ongoing therapy with lenalidomide or observation for patients with ND-TNE-MM. CRDa deepened response but did not improve progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) compared to CTDa. However, analysis by age group highlighted significant differences in tolerability in older, frailer patients that may have limited treatment delivery and impacted outcome. Deeper responses and PFS and OS benefits with CRDa over CTDs were seen in patients aged ≤70 years, with an increase in toxicity and discontinuation observed in older patients. Our results highlight the importance of considering age and frailty in the approach to therapy for patients with ND-TNE-MM, highlighting the need for prospective validation of frailty adapted therapy approaches, which may improve outcomes by tailoring treatment to the individual.

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.

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 .).

Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma after one prior therapy: results from a multicenter, phase II, randomized, controlled trial (MUKfive).

The proteasome inhibitors, carfilzomib and bortezomib, are widely used to treat myeloma but head-to-head comparisons have produced conflicting results. We compared the activity of these proteasome inhibitors in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCd vs. VCd) in second-line treatment using fixed duration therapy and evaluated the efficacy of carfilzomib maintenance. MUKfive was a phase II controlled, parallel group trial that randomized patients (2:1) to KCd (n=201) or VCd (n=99); responding patients on carfilzomib were randomized to maintenance carfilzomib (n=69) or no further treatment (n=72). Primary endpoints were: (i) very good partial response (non-inferiority, odds ratio [OR] 0.8) at 24 weeks, and (ii) progression-free survival. More participants achieved a very good partial response or better with carfilzomib than with bortezomib (40.2% vs. 31.9%, OR=1.48, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 2.31; non-inferior), with a trend for particular benefit in patients with adverse-risk disease. KCd was associated with higher overall response (partial response or better, 84.0% vs. 68.1%, OR=2.72, 90% CI: 1.62, 4.55, P=0.001). Neuropathy (grade ≥3 or ≥2 with pain) was more common with bortezomib (19.8% vs. 1.5%, P<0.0001), while grade ≥3 cardiac events and hypertension were only reported in the KCd arm (3.6% each). The median progression-free survival in the KCd arm was 11.7 months vs. 10.2 months in the VCd arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.95, 80% CI: 0.77, 1.18). Carfilzomib maintenance was associated with longer progression-free survival, median 11.9 months vs. 5.6 months for no maintenance (HR 0.59, 80% CI: 0.46-0.77, P=0.0086). When used as fixed duration therapy in first relapase, KCd is at least as effective as VCd, and carfilzomib is an effective maintenance agent. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) identifier: ISRCTN17354232.

Lenalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible patients of all ages in the randomized, phase III, Myeloma XI trial.

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n = 2042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before ASCT to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.96; P = 0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15) and ultra high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n = 451) or observation (n = 377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; P < 0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.

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.

Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy have improved progression-free survival, primarily following autologous stem-cell transplantation. A beneficial effect of lenalidomide maintenance therapy on overall survival in this setting has been inconsistent between individual studies. Minimal data are available on the effect of maintenance lenalidomide in more aggressive disease states, such as patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance versus observation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including cytogenetic risk and transplantation status subgroup analyses. METHODS: The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial with three randomisation stages done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (allocation by transplantation eligibility status); intensification treatment (allocation by response to induction therapy); and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to maintenance treatment. Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol and had achieved at least a minimal response to protocol treatment, including lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 from Jan 13, 2011, to Jun 27, 2013, and 2:1 from Jun 28, 2013, to Aug 11, 2017) to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation, and stratified by allocated induction and intensification treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 11, 2017, 1917 patients were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial. 1137 patients were assigned to lenalidomide maintenance and 834 patients to observation. After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 18-50), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 36-42) with lenalidomide and 20 months (18-22) with observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·41-0·53]; p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 78·6% (95% Cl 75·6-81·6) in the lenalidomide group and 75·8% (72·4-79·2) in the observation group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·73-1·05]; p=0·15). Progression-free survival was improved with lenalidomide compared with observation across all prespecified subgroups. On prespecified subgroup analyses by transplantation status, 3-year overall survival in transplantation-eligible patients was 87·5% (95% Cl 84·3-90·7) in the lenalidomide group and 80·2% (76·0-84·4) in the observation group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·93]; p=0·014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66·8% (61·6-72·1) in the lenalidomide group and 69·8% (64·4-75·2) in the observation group (1·02 [0·80-1·29]; p=0·88). By cytogenetic risk group, in standard-risk patients, 3-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 80·0-90·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 81·3% (74·2-86·7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65·8-81·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 63·7% (52·8-72·7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62·9% (46·0-75·8) compared with 43·5% (22·2-63·1). Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking lenalidomide were haematological, including neutropenia (362 [33%] patients), thrombocytopenia (72 [7%] patients), and anaemia (42 [4%] patients). Serious adverse events were reported in 494 (45%) of 1097 patients receiving lenalidomide compared with 150 (17%) of 874 patients on observation. The most common serious adverse events were infections in both the lenalidomide group and the observation group. 460 deaths occurred during maintenance treatment, 234 (21%) in the lenalidomide group and 226 (27%) in the observation group, and no deaths in the lenalidomide group were deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma compared with observation, but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial population. The manageable safety profile of this drug and the encouraging results in subgroup analyses of patients across all cytogenetic risk groups support further investigation of maintenance lenalidomide in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, and Myeloma UK.