Daratumumab With Cetrelimab, an Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody, in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab is approved for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) as monotherapy or in combination regimens. We evaluated daratumumab plus cetrelimab, a programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor, in RRMM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, multiphase study enrolled adults with RRMM with ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. Part 1 was a safety run-in phase examining dose-limiting toxicities of daratumumab (16 mg/kg intravenously weekly for cycles 1-2, biweekly for cycles 3-6, and monthly thereafter) plus cetrelimab (240 mg intravenously biweekly, all cycles). In Parts 2 and 3, patients were to be randomized to daratumumab with or without cetrelimab (same schedule as Part 1). Endpoints included safety, overall response rate, pharmacokinetics, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Nine patients received daratumumab plus cetrelimab in the safety run-in, and 1 received daratumumab in Part 2 before administrative study termination following a data monitoring committee's global recommendation to stop any trial including daratumumab combined with inhibitors of programmed death receptor-1 or its ligand (programmed death-ligand 1). The median follow-up times were 6.7 months (safety run-in) and 0.3 months (Part 2). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. All 10 patients had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event; 7 patients had grade 3 to 4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and none led to treatment discontinuation or death. In the safety run-in, 7 (77.7%) patients had ≥ 1 infusion-related reaction (most grade 1-2), and 1 had a grade 2 immune-mediated reaction. Among safety run-in patients, the overall response rate was 44.4%. CONCLUSIONS: No new safety concerns were identified for daratumumab plus cetrelimab in RRMM. The short study duration and small population limit complete analysis of this combination.

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.

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 .).

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response of trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma.

PURPOSE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics of oral trametinib, a first in class MEK inhibitor, identify covariates, and describe the relationship between exposure and clinical effects in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Trametinib concentrations obtained in three clinical studies were included in the population pharmacokinetic analysis. Trametinib 2 mg once daily was administered in the Phase 2 and 3 studies. The impact of exposure [trough (C min) or average concentration] on response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) was examined. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations (n = 3120) obtained in 493 patients were described using a two-compartment model. Trametinib oral clearance was lower in women relative to men (1.26-fold) and increased with body weight. There was no significant effect of age, mild or moderate renal impairment, or mild hepatic impairment on oral clearance. Between-subject variability was low (24 %). The number of responders was consistent across median exposure range, although tended to be lower at trough concentration <10 ng/mL. Disease stage was found to be a significant predictor of response with a lower response rate in patients with disease stage of M1c. Lactate dehydrogenase was significant in the analysis of PFS. Patients with observed C min above the median had longer PFS than those below median based on Phase 2 study (median 10.6 ng/mL), while the effect of exposure was not statistically significant in the Phase 3 study (median 13.6 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: No dosage adjustments are required with any of the covariates tested. Clinical efficacy was associated with trametinib trough concentrations greater than 10 ng/mL.

Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib.

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).