An open-label phase 2 study treating patients with first or second relapse of multiple myeloma with carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd): SELECT study.

Once-weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg/m2 plus immunomodulatory drugs and dexamethasone has shown efficacy and tolerability treating early relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The phase 2 SELECT study (NCT04191616) evaluated efficacy/safety of weekly carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) in early RRMM patients refractory to lenalidomide. All 52 treated patients were refractory to prior treatment, and 19 (37%) were triple-class refractory. Overall response rate (ORR; primary endpoint) was 58% (35% ≥ very good partial response, 6% ≥ complete response); median response duration was 20.3 months. Minimal residual disease negativity (10-5) was achieved in 10% of patients. Median progression-free survival was 11.1 months; median overall survival was 18.8 months. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the known safety profile including grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs reported in 67% of patients. Although the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, KPd showed meaningful clinical benefits in lenalidomide-refractory RRMM patients, including those who were daratumumab-refractory and/or triple-class refractory.

Efficacy and safety of daratumumab with ixazomib and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients after one prior line of therapy: Final results of the phase 2 study DARIA.

The use of lenalidomide in frontline therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) has increased the number of those who become refractory to lenalidomide at second line. In this context, we assessed the efficacy of daratumumab in combination with ixazomib and dexamethasone (Dara-Ixa-dex) in the prospective phase 2 study DARIA. Eligible patients had relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) after one prior line with a lenalidomide-based regimen. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, safety and changes in biomarkers of bone metabolism. Overall, 50 patients were enrolled (median age 69 years, 56% males). 32 (64%) patients were refractory to lenalidomide, and 17 (34%) had undergone autologous transplant. The ORR was 64% (n = 32); whereas 17 (34%) had a very good partial response or better. The median time to first response was 1.0 month. After a median follow-up of 23.4 months, the median PFS and OS were 8.1 and 39.2 months, respectively. Furthermore, significant changes in markers of bone metabolism became evident as early as at 6 months on treatment. Regarding safety, 21 (42%) patients had ≥1 grade 3/4 adverse event (AE); the most common was thrombocytopenia (n = 9, 18%). 14 (28%) patients had ≥1 serious AE (SAE), the most common being acute kidney injury and pneumonia (n = 2, each). Four patients died due to infections. In conclusion, second-line treatment with Dara-Ixa-dex in patients with RRMM pre-treated with a lenalidomide-based regimen resulted in rapid responses along with a favorable effect on bone metabolism.

Does the Simultaneous Introduction of Several Pharmaceuticals in the Post-Lenalidomide Era Translate to Better Outcomes in Relapse Refractory Multiple Myeloma? Findings from the Real-World Innovation in Multiple Myeloma (REAL IMM) Study.

Newer methodologies are needed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of a "generation" of pharmaceutical innovation versus the prior standard of care. This chart review study aimed to first evaluate the cumulative clinical benefits of pharmaceutical innovation in everyday relapse/refractory multiple myeloma before analyzing findings in the context of respective real-world outcomes from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. Study endpoints included the 52-week PFS rate in second and third line of therapy (LOT), mPFS-2 across the first and second LOT, the ORR, reasons for discontinuation, and the treatment duration per therapeutic algorithm. Data from 107 patients were collected. The median follow-up was 2.0 years. Of the subjects who met the selection criteria for the second LOT, 72.2% maintained the PFS at 52 weeks. In the third-line setting, the PFS rate at 52 weeks was 63.5%. The mPFS across the first and second, the second, and the third LOTs were 26, 17, and 15 months, respectively. The ORR was 76.1% in the second and 69.7% in the third LOT. After non-response or progression, the main reason for drug discontinuation was treatment intolerability. The second-line ORR and the 52-week PFS rate were similar to previous real-world findings from the bortezomib/lenalidomide era. The cumulative mPFS across the second and third LOTs was higher than the respective mPFS across the first and second LOTs. Despite its limitations, the methodology and findings from this study may be used in future clinical and economic evaluations across all hematological malignancies.

Efficacy and safety of single-agent belantamab mafodotin versus pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma remains incurable, and heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory disease have few good treatment options. Belantamab mafodotin showed promising results in a phase 2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at second or later relapse and a manageable adverse event profile. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In the DREAMM-3 open-label phase 3 study, conducted at 108 sites across 18 countries, adult patients were enrolled who had confirmed multiple myeloma (International Myeloma Working Group criteria), ECOG performance status of 0-2, had received two or more previous lines of therapy, including two or more consecutive cycles of both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and progressed on, or within, 60 days of completion of the previous treatment. Participants were randomly allocated using a central interactive response technology system (2:1) to receive belantamab mafodotin 2·5 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days, or oral pomalidomide 4·0 mg daily (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40·0 mg (20·0 mg if >75 years) weekly in a 28-day cycle. Randomisation was stratified by previous anti-CD38 therapy, International Staging System stage, and number of previous therapies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients who were randomly allocated. The safety population included all randomly allocated patients who received one or more doses of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04162210, and is ongoing. Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 12, 2022. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between April 2, 2020, and April 18, 2022. As of September, 2022, 325 patients were randomly allocated (218 to the belantamab mafodotin group and 107 to the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group); 184 (57%) of 325 were male and 141 (43%) of 325 were female, 246 (78%) of 316 were White. Median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). Median follow-up was 11·5 months (5·5-17·6) for belantamab mafodotin and 10·8 months (5·6-17·1) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median progression-free survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 6·4-14·5) for belantamab mafodotin and 7·0 months (4·6-10·6) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 1·03 [0·72-1·47]; p=0·56). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (49 [23%] of 217) and anaemia (35 [16%]) for belantamab mafodotin, and neutropenia (34 [33%] of 102) and anaemia (18[18%]) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Serious adverse events occurred in 94 (43%) of 217 and 40 (39%) of 102 patients, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the belantamab mafodotin group and one (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group due to sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Belantamab mafodotin was not associated with statistically improved progression-free survival compared with standard-of-care, but there were no new safety signals associated with its use. Belantamab mafodotin is being tested in combination regimens for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: GSK (study number 207495).

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.

Association of Selinexor Dose Reductions With Clinical Outcomes in the BOSTON Study.

BACKGROUND: Dose modifications in response to adverse events (AEs) can maintain tumor response and improve therapy tolerability. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy and safety of reduced selinexor doses in the BOSTON trial (NCT03110562). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in 195 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma randomized to once-weekly (QW) selinexor (100 mg), QW subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2), and twice-weekly dexamethasone (20 mg) were compared between patients with dose reductions and those without. RESULTS: In total, 126 patients (65%) had selinexor dose reductions (median dose 71.4 mg/wk). In patients with dose reductions versus those without median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% CI 12.9-not evaluable [NE]) versus 9.2 months [95% CI 6.8-15.5]), overall response rate was 81.7% (95% CI 73.9-88.1%) versus 66.7% (95% CI 54.3-77.6%), ≥very good partial response was (51.6% [95% CI 42.5-60.6%] vs. 31.9% [95% CI 21.2-44.2]), median duration of response was not reached (95% CI 13.8-NE) versus 12.0 months (95% CI 8.3-NE), and time to next treatment was 22.6 months (95% CI 14.6-NE) versus 10.5 months (95% CI 6.3-18.2). Mean best change from baseline on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL scale was 10.0 ± 20.5 versus 4.0 ± 20.9. Duration-adjusted AE rates that were lower after selinexor dose reduction included thrombocytopenia (62.5% before vs. 47.6% after), nausea (31.6% vs. 7.3%), fatigue (28.1% vs. 9.9%), decreased appetite (21.5% vs. 6.4%), anemia (17.9% vs. 10.3%), and diarrhea (12.9% vs. 5.2%). CONCLUSION: Appropriate dose reductions in response to AEs of the 100 mg selinexor starting dose in the BOSTON study were associated with improved efficacy, reduced AE rates and improved QoL.

Improved survival of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia with VRd or daratumumab-based quadruplets: A multicenter study by the Greek myeloma study group.

We evaluated the efficacy and prognostic impact of bortezomib-lenalidomide triplet (VRd) or daratumumab-based quadruplets (DBQ) versus previous anti-myeloma therapies, that is, bortezomib standard combinations (BSC) or conventional chemotherapy (CT), in a large cohort of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL), including those fulfilling the revised diagnostic criteria, that is, circulating plasma cells (cPCS): ≥5%; 110 pPCL patients (M/F: 51/59; median age 65 years, range: 44-86) out of 3324 myeloma patients (3%), registered in our database between 2001 and 2021, were studied; 37% had cPCS 5%-19%; 89% received novel combinations including DBQ (21%), VRd (16%) and BSC (52%); 35% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. 83% achieved objective responses. Treatment with VRd/DBQ strongly correlated with a higher complete response rate (41% vs. 17%; p = .008). After a median follow-up of 51 months (95% CI: 45-56), 67 patients died. Early mortality was 3.5%. Progression-free survival was 16 months (95% CI: 12-19.8), significantly longer in patients treated with VRd/DBQ versus BSC/CT (25 months, 95% CI: 13.5-36.5 vs. 13 months 95% CI: 9-16.8; p = .03). Median overall survival (OS) was 29 months (95% CI: 19.6-38.3), significantly longer in patients treated with VRd/DBQ versus BSC/CT (not reached vs. 20 months, 95% CI: 14-26; 3-year OS: 70% vs. 32%, respectively; p < .001; HzR: 3.88). In the multivariate analysis VRd/DBQ therapy, del17p(+) and PLT <100.000/µL, independently predicted OS (p < .05). Our study has demonstrated that in the real-world setting, treatment with VRd/DBQ induces deep and durable responses and is a strong prognostic factor for OS representing currently the best therapeutic option for pPCL.

Daratumumab Improves Bone Turnover in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma; Phase 2 Study "REBUILD".

Biomarkers of bone turnover in serum are suggestive of bone dynamics during treatment in multiple myeloma (MM). We evaluated the role of daratumumab on bone remodeling among patients with relapsed/refractory MM in the prospective, open-label, phase 2 study REBUILD. Daratumumab was administered according to the approved indication. A total of 33 out of 57 enrolled patients completed 4 months of treatment. The median percent change from baseline to 4 months in C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) (primary endpoint) was 3.9%, with 13 (39.4%) and 11 (33.3%) patients showing at least 20% and 30% reduction in CTX levels, respectively. The median percent decrease from baseline to 4 months in tartrate resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) levels (co-primary endpoint) was 2.6%, with 10 (30.3%) and 6 (18.2%) patients showing at least 20% and 30% reduction in TRACP-5b levels, respectively. However, the changes in these markers of bone catabolism were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the levels of osteocalcin, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and procollagen type-I N-pro-peptide (bone formation markers) increased from baseline to 4 months (secondary endpoints) by 18.4%, 92.6% and 10.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the median levels of dickkopf-1 and C-C motif ligand-3 showed a significant decrease at 4 months by 17.5% and 16.0%, respectively. In conclusion, daratumumab improved bone turnover by inducing bone formation and reducing osteoblast inhibition.

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.

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

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.

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.

Subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

Treatment benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains suboptimal. The phase 3 ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338) showed that isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolongs median progression-free survival (mPFS) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM compared the benefit of isatuximab in high-risk [defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)] versus standard-risk patients. The efficacy of isatuximab in patients with gain(1q21) abnormality was also assessed in a retrospective subgroup analysis. In ICARIA-MM, 307 patients received isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, and every other week thereafter. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved mPFS (7·5 vs 3·7 months; HR, 0·66; 95% CI, 0·33-1·28) and overall response rate (ORR, 50·0% vs 16·7%) in high-risk patients. In patients with isolated gain(1q21), isatuximab addition improved mPFS (11·2 vs 4·6 months; HR, 0·50; 95% CI, 0·28-0·88) and ORR (53·6% vs 27·6%). More grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in high-risk patients receiving isatuximab (95·7%) versus the control group (67·6%); however, isatuximab did not increase events leading to discontinuation or treatment-related mortality. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone provides a consistent benefit over pomalidomide-dexamethasone treatment in RRMM patients regardless of cytogenetic risk.

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562 .