Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P = 0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.).

Daratumumab with lenalidomide as maintenance after transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the AURIGA study.

No randomized trial has directly compared daratumumab and lenalidomide (D-R) maintenance therapy versus standard-of-care lenalidomide (R) alone post-transplant. Here, we report the primary results of the phase 3 AURIGA study evaluating D-R versus R maintenance in NDMM patients who were in ≥very good partial response, minimal residual disease (MRD; threshold 10-5) positive, and anti-CD38 naïve post-transplant. Patients were randomized 1:1 to D-R or R maintenance for up to 36 cycles. Two hundred patients were randomized (D-R, n=99; R, n=101). The primary endpoint, MRD-negative (10-5) conversion rate by 12 months from start of maintenance, was significantly higher for D-R versus R (50.5% vs 18.8%; odds ratio [OR], 4.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.37-8.57; P<0.0001). MRD-negative (10-6) conversion rate was similarly higher with D-R (23.2% vs 5.0%; OR, 5.97; 95% CI, 2.15-16.58; P=0.0002). At 32.3 months' median follow-up, D-R achieved a higher overall MRD-negative (10-5) conversion rate (D-R, 60.6% vs R, 27.7%; OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.26-7.52; P<0.0001) and ≥complete response rate (75.8% vs 61.4%; OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.08-3.69; P=0.0255) versus R alone. Progression-free survival (PFS) favored D-R versus R (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97); estimated 30-month PFS rates were 82.7% for D-R and 66.4% for R. Incidences of grade 3/4 cytopenias (54.2% vs 46.9%) and infections (18.8% vs 13.3%) were slightly higher with D-R versus R. In conclusion, D-R maintenance achieved a higher MRD-negative conversion rate and improved PFS post-transplant versus R alone, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov: #NCT03901963.

Daratumumab in Pediatric Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia or Lymphoblastic Lymphoma: DELPHINUS Study.

Patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) have poor outcomes compared with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients. The phase 2, open-label DELPHINUS study evaluated daratumumab (16 mg/kg intravenously) plus backbone chemotherapy in children with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL (n=7) after ≥2 relapses and children and young adults with T-cell ALL (children, n=24; young adults, n=5) or LL (n=10) after first relapse. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) in the B-cell ALL (end of Cycle 2) and T-cell ALL (end of Cycle 1) cohorts, after which patients could proceed off study to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Seven patients with advanced B-cell ALL received daratumumab with no CRs achieved; this cohort was closed due to futility. For the childhood T-cell ALL, young adult T-cell ALL, and T-cell LL cohorts, the CR (end of Cycle 1) rates were 41.7%, 60.0%, and 30.0%, respectively; overall response rates (any time point) were 83.3% (CR+CR with incomplete count recovery [CRi]), 80.0% (CR+CRi), and 50.0% (CR+partial response); minimal residual disease-negativity (<0.01%) rates were 45.8%, 20.0%, and 50.0%; observed 24-month event-free survival rates were 36.1%, 20.0%, and 20.0%; observed 24-month overall survival rates were 41.3%, 25.0%, and 20.0%; and allogeneic HSCT rates were 75.0%, 60.0%, and 30.0%. No new safety concerns with daratumumab were observed. In conclusion, daratumumab was safely combined with backbone chemotherapy in children and young adults with T-cell ALL/LL and contributed to successful bridging to HSCT. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03384654.

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.

Daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone alone in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the phase 3 OCTANS Study.

The superiority and tolerability of daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) was previously described in the global phase 3 ALCYONE study. The primary analysis of the phase 3 OCTANS study further demonstrated the superiority and tolerability of D-VMP (n = 144) versus VMP (n = 71) in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with NDMM. The current analysis describes the final efficacy and safety outcomes for D-VMP versus VMP in OCTANS, with a follow-up of > 3 years. D-VMP demonstrated a benefit versus VMP with regard to the rate of very good partial response or better (80.1% vs. 47.3%), median progression-free survival (38.7 vs. 19.2 months), median time to next treatment (46.8 vs. 20.6 months), rate of complete response or better (46.6% vs. 18.9%), median duration of response (41.3 vs. 18.5 months), achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (40.4% vs. 10.8%), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥ 12 months (24.7% vs. 1.4%) and ≥ 18 months (15.1% vs. 1.4%). Median progression-free survival was longer among patients who achieved MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity. The progression-free survival benefit observed with D-VMP was preserved across most clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetics. No new safety concerns were identified with extended follow-up. This final analysis of OCTANS continues to demonstrate a clinical benefit for D-VMP versus VMP in transplant-ineligible Asian patients with NDMM, consistent with the global ALCYONE study, and supports the use of daratumumab combinations in this population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03217812 submitted July 13, 2017.

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analyses of daratumumab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

AIM: A population pharmacokinetic (PPK) model was developed to characterize pharmacokinetics (PK) of subcutaneous or intravenous daratumumab administration in a new indication (i.e., combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone [D-Pd] in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma [RRMM]). Analyses were conducted to explore exposure-response (E-R) relationships for efficacy and select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). METHODS: The PPK analysis included pooled data from the D-Pd cohorts of the phase 3 APOLLO and phase 1b EQUULEUS studies. Covariates were evaluated in the PPK model. Model-predicted exposures to daratumumab were compared between covariate subgroups of interest and used to investigate relationships between daratumumab exposure and efficacy and safety in APOLLO. RESULTS: The PPK analysis included 1146 daratumumab PK samples from 239 patients (APOLLO, n = 140; EQUULEUS, n = 99). Observed concentration-time data of daratumumab were well described by a two-compartment PPK model with first-order absorption and parallel linear and nonlinear elimination pathways. Treatment with D-Pd provided similar daratumumab PK characteristics versus historical daratumumab monotherapy. The E-R dataset contained data from 290 APOLLO patients (D-Pd, n = 140; Pd, n = 150). The PK-efficacy relationship of daratumumab supported improved progression-free survival for patients in the D-Pd group vs. the Pd group. Additionally, TEAEs did not increase with increasing PK exposure in the D-Pd group. CONCLUSIONS: The PPK and E-R analyses support the daratumumab subcutaneous 1800 mg dosing regimen in combination with Pd for treatment of patients with RRMM. No dose adjustment is recommended in this indication for any of the investigated factors, none of which had clinically relevant effects on daratumumab PK.

Current Health State Affected Patient Preferences More Than Disease Status: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Multiple Myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how disease status and current health state influence treatment preferences of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: Participants with MM from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom completed a web-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and EQ-5D assessment. The DCE elicited preferences for 8 attributes: increased life expectancy, increased time to relapse, pain, fatigue, risk of infection, administration (route and duration), frequency of administration, and monitoring. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze DCE preference data and to calculate life expectancy trade-offs. RESULTS: Three hundred participants with MM (newly diagnosed, transplant eligible, n = 108; newly diagnosed, transplant ineligible, n = 105; relapsed-refractory, n = 87) completed the survey. The most valued attributes were pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. Participants would want an additional 2.7 years of life expectancy (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-3.1 years) to tolerate extreme pain and an additional 2.0 years of life expectancy (95% CI 1.6-2.3 years) to tolerate constant fatigue. Participants in a better health state (third EQ-5D score quartile [0.897]) required less additional life expectancy than participants with a worse health state (first EQ-5D score quartile [0.662]) to tolerate extreme pain (2.3 years [95% CI 1.9-2.6 years] vs 3.0 years [95% CI 2.6-3.4 years]; P = .007). There was little difference in treatment preferences between newly diagnosed and relapsed-refractory patients for pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Current health state influenced treatment preferences of patients with MM more than disease status and should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Switching to daratumumab SC from IV is safe and preferred by patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Two phase 3 studies demonstrated superior efficacy of intravenous daratumumab (DARA IV) plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (ALCYONE) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd; MAIA) versus standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In these studies, patients could switch from DARA IV to subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) while receiving daratumumab monotherapy in ALCYONE (as of Cycle 11) or daratumumab plus Rd in MAIA. The phase 3 COLUMBA study demonstrated noninferiority of DARA SC to DARA IV. DARA SC reduced administration time, allowing patients to spend less time in healthcare settings, a relevant practical consideration for patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic/settings of limited healthcare resources. METHODS: DARA SC 1800 mg was administered every 4 weeks, per approved dosing schedules. We evaluated safety and patient-reported experience (ALCYONE only) among patients who switched from DARA IV to DARA SC. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in ALCYONE and 135 in MAIA switched to DARA SC. Three (2.2%; MAIA) patients reported injection-site reactions, all of which were mild. No infusion-related reactions occurred with DARA SC. In ALCYONE, >80% of patients preferred DARA SC over DARA IV. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 5.3% of patients in ALCYONE and 25.9% in MAIA; one (0.7%; MAIA) patient experienced a TEAE with an outcome of death. CONCLUSION: For transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, DARA SC (monotherapy/with Rd) was safe and preferred over DARA IV. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479/NCT02252172.

Health-related quality of life in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone ± subcutaneous daratumumab: Patient-reported outcomes from the APOLLO trial.

In the phase 3 APOLLO trial, daratumumab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Pd) significantly reduced the rate of disease progression or death by 37% relative to Pd alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from APOLLO. Median treatment duration was 11.5 months with D-Pd and 6.6 months with Pd. PRO compliance rates were high and similar in both groups. No changes from baseline were observed for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores in either group, while physical and emotional functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment remained at baseline levels with D-Pd but worsened with Pd. Reductions (p < 0.05) in pain and fatigue were seen at several time points with D-Pd versus Pd. Overall, these results suggest patients' health-related quality of life remained stable when daratumumab was added to Pd, with several results favoring D-Pd versus Pd. These findings complement the significant clinical improvements observed with D-Pd and support its use in patients with RRMM.

Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1-21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4-20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3-19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5-9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47-0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. FUNDING: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.

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

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

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.

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 .).

Preclinical efficacy of daratumumab in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

As a consequence of acquired or intrinsic disease resistance, the prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) is dismal. Novel, less toxic drugs are clearly needed. One of the most promising emerging therapeutic strategies for cancer treatment is targeted immunotherapy. Immune therapies have improved outcomes for patients with other hematologic malignancies including B-cell ALL; however no immune therapy has been successfully developed for T-ALL. We hypothesize targeting CD38 will be effective against T-ALL. We demonstrate that blasts from patients with T-ALL have robust surface CD38 surface expression and that this expression remains stable after exposure to multiagent chemotherapy. CD38 is expressed at very low levels on normal lymphoid and myeloid cells and on a few tissues of nonhematopoietic origin, suggesting that CD38 may be an ideal target. Daratumumab is a human immunoglobulin G1κ monoclonal antibody that binds CD38, and has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. We tested daratumumab in a large panel of T-ALL patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and found striking efficacy in 14 of 15 different PDX. These data suggest that daratumumab is a promising novel therapy for pediatric T-ALL patients.

Daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in East Asian patients with non-transplant multiple myeloma: subanalysis of the randomized phase 3 ALCYONE trial.

In the ALCYONE trial, daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 50% versus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report a subanalysis of East Asian patients from ALCYONE. After a median follow-up of 17.1 and 15.9 months for Japanese (n = 50) and Korean (n = 41) patients, respectively, median progression-free survival for D-VMP versus VMP was not reached (NR) versus 20.7 months in Japanese patients and NR versus 14.0 months in Korean patients. The overall response rate for D-VMP versus VMP was 96% versus 92% in Japanese patients and 91% versus 61% in Korean patients. Using next-generation sequencing, minimal residual disease negativity at 10-5 sensitivity for D-VMP versus VMP was 33% versus 8% among Japanese patients and 17% versus 0% among Korean patients. Rates of any grade and grade 3/4 pneumonia were consistent with the rates observed for the global safety population. Similar efficacy and safety findings were observed in the combined Japanese and Korean subgroup and ≥ 75 years of age subgroup. In conclusion, D-VMP was safe and efficacious in East Asian patients, consistent with the global ALCYONE population.

A plain language summary of the PERSEUS study of daratumumab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for treating newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

What is this summary about? This summary describes the first analysis of the PERSEUS study, which looked at adults with multiple myeloma that had never been treated before, also called newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a type of cancer in the blood, specifically in plasma cells within the soft, spongy tissue in the center of most bones, called the bone marrow. Researchers wanted to see if adding daratumumab (D) to a standard treatment of three other medicines called VRd, which stands for bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (d), could stop the multiple myeloma from getting worse and help participants live longer without multiple myeloma.Half of the participants were assigned to the treatment plan with daratumumab; they received D-VRd during initial treatment phases (induction and consolidation), followed by daratumumab as well as lenalidomide (D-R) in the maintenance phase. The other half of participants received treatment without daratumumab; they received VRd induction and consolidation followed by lenalidomide alone (R) maintenance. In addition, all participants were able to receive an autologous stem cell transplant, a procedure used to further help reduce multiple myeloma.What were the results? At the time of this analysis of PERSEUS, about 4 years after participants started the study, participants who received D-VRd treatment followed by D-R maintenance had a better response to treatment (as measured by specific markers of multiple myeloma) and were more likely to be alive and free from their multiple myeloma getting worse in comparison to participants who received VRd followed by R maintenance. Side effects (unwanted or undesirable effects of treatment) in both treatment groups were in line with the known side effects of daratumumab and VRd.What do the results mean? The results of the PERSEUS study showed that including daratumumab in D-VRd induction/consolidation and D-R maintenance was better for treating multiple myeloma than the current standard VRd treatment followed by R maintenance alone in adults with a new diagnosis of multiple myeloma who were also able to receive an autologous stem cell transplant. Of importance, there were no unexpected side effects in either group.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02874742 (GRIFFIN) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Daratumumab for patients with myeloma with early or late relapse after initial therapy: subgroup analysis of CASTOR and POLLUX.

ABSTRACT: High-risk multiple myeloma (MM) is often defined based on cytogenetic abnormalities, but patients who relapse early after initial therapy are considered a functional high-risk group. In the phase 3 CASTOR and POLLUX studies, daratumumab plus bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-Vd) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), regardless of cytogenetic risk, and achieved higher rates of complete response or better (≥CR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity vs that with Vd/Rd alone in relapsed/refractory MM. Post hoc analyses of CASTOR and POLLUX evaluated patient subgroups with 1 prior line of therapy based on timing of progression/relapse (early or late) after initiation of first line of therapy. PFS consistently favored the daratumumab-containing regimens across subgroups using both a 24- and 18-month early-relapse cutoff. In the CASTOR/POLLUX pooled data set, daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 65% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48; P < .0001) in the early-relapse (<24 months) subgroup and by 65% (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47; P < .0001) in the late-relapse (≥24 months) subgroup. OS also favored the daratumumab-containing regimens in both the early-relapse (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; P = .0036) and late-relapse (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.93; P = .0183) subgroups in the pooled population using a 24-month cutoff. Rates of ≥CR and MRD negativity (10-5) were higher with daratumumab vs control, regardless of progression/relapse timing. Although daratumumab is unable to fully overcome the adverse prognosis of early relapse, our results support the use of daratumumab for patients with 1 prior line of therapy, including for those who progress/relapse early after initial therapy and are considered to have functional high-risk MM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02136134 (CASTOR) and #NCT02076009 (POLLUX).

Subcutaneous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (APOLLO): extended follow up of an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the APOLLO trial, done after a median follow-up of 16·9 months, showed that daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Here, we report the final overall survival and updated safety results from APOLLO. METHODS: APOLLO was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 countries in Europe, that included adults aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had an ECOG performance status score of 0-2, had received at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if they had received only one previous line of therapy. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) to receive daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone or pomalidomide and dexamethasone; patients were stratified by the number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. Oral pomalidomide (4 mg once daily; days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once daily; days 1, 8, 15, and 22) were given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival, which has previously been reported, and the pre-planned secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03180736) and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients were randomly assigned: 151 to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and 153 to the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. The median age was 67 years (IQR 60-72); 143 (47%) patients were female and 161 (53%) were male, and 272 (89%) were White. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 37·1-43·7), median overall survival was 34·4 months (95% CI 23·7-40·3) in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 23·7 months (19·6-29·4) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·61-1·11]; p=0·20). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (103 [69%] of 149 with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone vs 76 [51%] of 150 with pomalidomide and dexamethasone), anaemia (27 [18%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (27 [18%] vs 28 [19%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 80 (54%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 60 (40%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, the most common of which was pneumonia (23 [15%] of 149 vs 13 [9%] of 150). Treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in death occurred in 13 (9%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 13 (9%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, with 4 (3%) of 151 adverse events leading to death within 30 days of the last treatment dose thought to be related to study treatment in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (septic shock [n=1]; sepsis [n=1]; bone marrow failure, campylobacter infection, and liver disorder [n=1]; and pneumonia [n=1]) and none in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: Although the difference in overall survival observed between treatment groups was not significant, the safety profile results with long-term follow-up reported here continue to support the use of daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research & Development.

Overall Survival With Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (CASTOR): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: At the primary analysis of CASTOR (median follow-up, 7.4 months), daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the final analysis for overall survival (OS). METHODS: CASTOR was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned to Vd (up to eight cycles) with or without daratumumab (until disease progression). After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Vd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression. RESULTS: At a median (range) follow-up of 72.6 months (0.0-79.8), significant OS benefit was observed with D-Vd (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92; P = .0075). Median OS was 49.6 months with D-Vd versus 38.5 months with Vd. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated an OS advantage with D-Vd versus Vd for most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one or two prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and prior bortezomib treatment. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Vd versus Vd were thrombocytopenia (46.1% v 32.9%), anemia (16.0% v 16.0%), neutropenia (13.6% v 4.6%), lymphopenia (10.3% v 2.5%), and pneumonia (10.7% v 10.1%). CONCLUSION: D-Vd significantly prolonged OS in patients with RRMM, with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients with one prior line of therapy. To our knowledge, our results, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the phase III POLLUX study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136134 [CASTOR]).