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.

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.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Daratumumab, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Standard of Care in Patients with Difficult-to-Treat Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 APOLLO study demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical responses with daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Pd) versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). On the basis of these results and those from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial, D-Pd was approved in this patient population. In the absence of head-to-head data comparing D-Pd with further standard of care (SOC) therapies, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can provide important information to help optimize treatment selection. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare PFS improvement with D-Pd versus daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) and D-Pd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with RRMM. METHODS: Patient-level data were from APOLLO, EQUULEUS, and CASTOR. Three methods of adjusting imbalances in baseline characteristics including stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), cardinality matching (CM), and propensity score matching (PSM) were initially considered. CM offers mathematically guaranteed largest matched sample meeting pre-specified maximum standardized mean difference criteria for matching covariates. sIPTW and PSM were based on propensity scores derived from logistic regression. Feasibility assessment of the PSM method returned too low effective sample size to support a meaningful comparison. CM was chosen as the base case and sIPTW as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: After harmonized eligibility criteria were applied, 253, 104, and 122 patients from the D-Pd, D-Vd, and Vd cohorts, respectively, were included in the ITC analyses. Some imbalances in baseline characteristics were identified between D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts that remained after adjustment. PFS hazard ratios showed significant improvement for D-Pd over D-Vd and Vd for CM and sIPTW analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed consistent PFS benefit for D-Pd versus D-Vd and Vd regardless of the adjustment technique used. These findings support the use of D-Pd versus D-Vd or Vd in patients with difficult-to-treat RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03180736; NCT02136134, NCT01998971.

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.

Molecular Signature of 18F-FDG PET Biomarkers in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Genome-Wide Transcriptome Analysis from the CASSIOPET Study.

The International Myeloma Working Group recently fully incorporated 18F-FDG PET into multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosis and response evaluation. Moreover, a few studies demonstrated the prognostic value of several biomarkers extracted from this imaging at baseline. Before these 18F-FDG PET biomarkers could be fully endorsed as risk classifiers by the hematologist community, further characterization of underlying molecular aspects was necessary. Methods: Reported prognostic biomarkers (18F-FDG avidity, SUVmax, number of focal lesions, presence of paramedullary disease [PMD] or extramedullary disease) were extracted from 18F-FDG PET imaging at baseline in a group of 139 patients from CASSIOPET, a companion study of the CASSIOPEIA cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02541383). Transcriptomic analyses using RNA sequencing were realized on sorted bone marrow plasma cells from the same patients. An association with a high-risk gene expression signature (IFM15), molecular classification, progression-free survival, a stringent clinical response, and minimal residual disease negativity were explored. Results:18F-FDG PET results were positive in 79.4% of patients; 14% and 11% of them had PMD and extramedullary disease, respectively. Negative 18F-FDG PET results were associated with lower levels of expression of hexokinase 2 (HK2) (fold change, 2.1; adjusted P = 0.04) and showed enrichment for a subgroup of patients with a low level of bone disease. Positive 18F-FDG PET results displayed 2 distinct signatures: either high levels of expression of proliferation genes or high levels of expression of GLUT5 and lymphocyte antigens. PMD and IFM15 were independently associated with a lower level of progression-free survival, and the presence of both biomarkers defined a group of "double-positive" patients at very high risk of progression. PMD and IFM15 were related neither to minimal residual disease assessment nor to a stringent clinical response. Conclusion: Our study confirmed and extended the association between imaging biomarkers and transcriptomic programs in MM. The combined prognostic value of PMD and a high-risk IFM15 signature may help define MM patients with a very high risk of progression.

Maintenance with daratumumab or observation following treatment with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.

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.

A systematic review of noninferiority margins in oncology clinical trials.

Aim: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and characterize noninferiority margins for relevant end points in oncology clinical trials. Materials & methods: Randomized, controlled, noninferiority trials of patients with cancer were identified in PubMed and Embase. Results: Of 2284 publications identified, 285 oncology noninferiority clinical trials were analyzed. The median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.29 (mean: 1.32; range: 1.05-2.05) for studies that reported time-to-event end points (n = 192). The median noninferiority margin was 13.0% (mean: 12.7%; range: 5.0-20.0%) for studies that reported response end points as absolute rate differences (n = 31). Conclusion: Although there was consistency in the noninferiority margins' scale, variability was evident in noninferiority margins across trials. Increased transparency may improve consistency in noninferiority margin application in oncology clinical trials.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) without and with daratumumab (D-VTd) in CASSIOPEIA versus VTd in PETHEMA/GEM in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, using propensity score matching.

Background: Traditional bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) regimens for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) include doses of thalidomide up to 200 mg/day (VTd-label). Clinical practice has evolved to use a lower dose (100 mg/day) to reduce toxicity (VTd-mod), which was evaluated in the phase III CASSIOPEIA study, without or with daratumumab (D-VTd; an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). We used propensity score matching to compare efficacy and safety for VTd-mod and D-VTd with VTd-label. Methods: Patient-level data for VTd-mod and D-VTd from CASSIOPEIA (NCT02541383) and data for VTd-label from the PETHEMA/GEM study (NCT00461747) were analyzed. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and nearest-neighbor matching procedure was used. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), postinduction and posttransplant responses, as well as rate of treatment discontinuation and grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy. Results: VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for OS, PFS, TTP, postinduction very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and overall response rate (ORR). VTd-mod was significantly better for posttransplant ≥VGPR and ORR versus VTd-label. VTd-mod safety was not superior to VTd-label despite the lower thalidomide dose. D-VTd was significantly better than VTd-label for OS, PFS, TTP, postinduction and posttransplant ≥VGPR and ORR, and was noninferior to VTd-label for safety outcomes. Conclusions: In transplant-eligible patients with NDMM, D-VTd had superior efficacy compared with VTd-label. Despite a lower dose of thalidomide, VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for safety and was significantly better for posttransplant ≥VGPR/ORR. These data further support the first-line use of daratumumab plus VTd.

Front-line daratumumab-VTd versus standard-of-care in ASCT-eligible multiple myeloma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare daratumumab plus standard-of-care (SoC; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone [VTd]) and VTd alone with other SoC for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients & methods: We conducted an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison of progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) with D-VTd/VTd versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCd) and bortezomib/dexamethasone (Vd). Results: After matching adjustment, significant improvements in PFS were estimated for D-VTd versus VRd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.33-0.69]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.21-0.58]) and Vd (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28-0.63]). OS was significantly longer with D-VTd versus VRd (HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.16-0.57]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.14-0.86]) and Vd (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.18-0.77]). No significant PFS/OS differences were seen for VTd versus other SoC. Conclusion: This analysis supports front-line daratumumab for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): health-related quality of life outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In part 1 of the two-part CASSIOPEIA study, treatment before and after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) significantly improved rates of stringent complete response and progression-free survival versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is an ongoing randomised, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 111 academic and community practice centres in Europe. Transplantation-eligible adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned (1:1) to D-VTd or VTd. Treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of induction therapy before autologous HSCT and two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy after. In this prespecified secondary analysis, patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organization 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 at baseline, after induction (cycle 4, day 28), and after consolidation (day 100 after autologous HSCT). The analysis was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population with a baseline and at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02541383). FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542). Questionnaire completion rates were high at baseline (511 [94%] of 543 in the D-VTd group vs 510 [94%] of 542 in the VTd group). Compliance rates (calculated from the number of completed surveys as a proportion of the predicted number of participants still on study treatment) were high at post-induction (431 [84%] of 513 vs 405 [80%] of 509) and post-consolidation (414 [90%] of 460 vs 386 [88%] of 438) assessments and were similar between treatment groups. Mean changes in global health status scores from baseline to post-induction were not different between the D-VTd group (3·8 [95% CI 1·6 to 6·0]) and VTd group (2·9 [0·7 to 5·1]; p=0·43), or from baseline to post-consolidation between the two groups (D-VTd group, 9·7 (95% CI 7·4 to 11·9) vs VTd group, 8·7 (6·5 to 11·0; p=0·45). Improvements from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale scores were observed in post-consolidation scores in both groups. Post-consolidation scores showed significantly greater mean decreases in pain (-23·3 [95% CI -26·6 to -20·0] in the D-VTd group vs -19·7 [-23·0 to -16·3] in the VTd group; p=0·042), significantly smaller reductions in cognitive functioning (-5·0 [-7·6 to -2·4] vs -7·9 [-10·6 to -5·3]; p=0·036), and significantly greater improvements in emotional functioning (13·0 [10·4 to 15·5] vs 9·5 [6·9 to 12·1]; p=0·013) and in constipation (-3·2 [-7·3 to 0·9] vs 1·8 [-2·4 to 6·0]; p=0·025) with D-VTd versus VTd. Between-group differences in change from baseline for all other scales were not significant. INTERPRETATION: D-VTd and VTd were associated with on-treatment health-related quality of life improvements from baseline in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The significantly greater reductions in pain, less deterioration of cognitive functioning, and greater emotional functioning improvements complement the clinical benefits observed with D-VTd versus VTd, and support the addition of daratumumab to standard regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research and Development.

Comparative Efficacy of Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone (VMP) With or Without Daratumumab Versus VMP Alone in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Propensity Score Matching of ALCYONE and VISTA Phase III Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) is the standard of care for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The phase III VISTA trial established the bortezomib dosing schedule for VMP. To mitigate bortezomib-associated toxicity, the phase III ALCYONE study of daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP) versus VMP used modified bortezomib dosing. D-VMP demonstrated improved progression-free survival and overall response rate. Propensity score matching enables indirect comparisons by controlling for differences in baseline covariates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy and safety of both arms of ALCYONE were compared with VISTA VMP using propensity score matching. ALCYONE D-VMP and VMP patients were matched on selected baseline characteristics to VISTA VMP patients, reducing or eliminating systematic differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: After matching, median progression-free survival and overall response rate were comparable for ALCYONE VMP and VISTA VMP, and were significantly improved with ALCYONE D-VMP versus VISTA VMP. Rates of grade 3/4 peripheral sensory neuropathy were significantly lower for both arms of ALCYONE versus VISTA VMP, with or without matching. CONCLUSION: This propensity score matching analysis demonstrates significant improvements in efficacy with ALCYONE D-VMP versus VISTA VMP and a significantly lower incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy in both arms of ALCYONE versus VISTA VMP, although safety improvements may be due to different bortezomib administration routes (ALCYONE, subcutaneous; VISTA, intravenous).

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as per label compared with modified VTd dosing schedules in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant eligible.

Background: The combination of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) is a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Although approved labeling for VTd includes an escalating thalidomide dose up to 200 mg daily (VTd-label), a lower fixed dose of thalidomide (100 mg daily; VTd-mod) has become commonplace in clinical practice. To date, no clinical trials comparing VTd-mod with VTd-label have been performed. Here, we compared outcomes for VTd-mod with VTd-label using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: VTd-mod data were from NCT02541383 (CASSIOPEIA; phase III) and NCT00531453 (phase II); VTd-label data were from NCT00461747 (PETHEMA/GEM; phase III). To adjust for heterogeneity, baseline characteristics from VTd-label were weighted to match VTd-mod. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), postinduction and posttransplant responses, and safety. Results: VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for OS, postinduction overall response rate (ORR), and very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). VTd-mod was significantly better than VTd-label for PFS, posttransplant ORR, and ≥VGPR. VTd-mod was noninferior to VTd-label for safety outcomes, and inferior to VTd-label for postinduction and posttransplant complete response or better. Conclusions: Our analysis supports the continued use of VTd-mod in clinical practice in transplant-eligible NDMM patients.

A rare case of chronic lymphocytic leukemia with hypercalcemia induced by elevated parathyroid hormone-related peptides.

Hypercalcemia in malignancies is a frequent complication, mostly affecting patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Calcium elevation is induced by direct bone infiltration of a tumor mass or through calcium liberation from the skeleton by a humoral mediator. The latter mechanism is referred to as humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy (HHM). Frequent mediators of HHM are parathyroid hormone-related peptides (PTHrP). We report a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and hypercalcemia induced by PTHrP. In contrast to solid tumors and myeloma, PTHrP-induced HHM is very rare in low-grad lymphoma including chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Therapeutical approaches consist of cytoreductive treatment and calcium-lowering therapy with bisphosphonates.