Daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with tandem transplant for high-risk newly diagnosed myeloma.

ABSTRACT: High-risk (HR) cytogenetics are associated with poor outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and dedicated studies should address this difficult-to-treat population. The phase 2 study 2018-04 from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome evaluated feasibility of an intensive strategy with quadruplet induction and consolidation plus tandem transplant in HR transplant-eligible (TE) NDMM. HR cytogenetics were defined by presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). Treatment consisted of daratumumab-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (D-KRd) induction, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), D-KRd consolidation, second ASCT, and daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance. The primary end point was feasibility. Fifty patients with previously untreated NDMM were included. Median age was 57. Del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were found in 40%, 52%, and 20% of patients, respectively. At data cutoff, the study met the primary end point with 36 patients completing second transplant. Twenty patients discontinued the study due to stem cell collection failure (n = 8), disease progression (n = 7), adverse event (n = 4), or consent withdrawal (n = 1). Grade 3 to 4 D-KRd induction/consolidation-related adverse events (>5% of patients) were neutropenia (39%), anemia (12%), thrombocytopenia (7%), and infection (6%). The overall response rate was 100% for patients completing second transplant, including 81% complete response. Premaintenance minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (10-6) was 94%. After a median follow-up of 33 months, the 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 80% and 91%, respectively. In conclusion, D-KRd with tandem transplant is feasible in patients with HR TE-NDMM and resulted in high response rates and PFS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03606577.

INSURE: a pooled analysis of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma in routine practice.

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports.

In the era of Bortezomib-based Induction, intensification of Melphalan-based conditioning with Bortezomib does not improve Survival Outcomes in newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: a study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.

Bortezomib (Vel)- Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200) (Vel-Mel) has been utilised to intensify conditioning in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). This EBMT registry-based study compared Vel-Mel with Mel200 during upfront AHCT. Between 2010 and 2017, MM patients who received Vel-Mel (n = 292) conditioning were compared with 4,096 Mel200 patients in the same 58 centres. Pre-AHCT, compared to Mel200 patients, Vel-Mel patients had similar International Staging System (ISS) scores and cytogenetic risk profiles; a similar proportion had received bortezomib-based induction (85% and 87.3%, respectively) though they were younger with a better performance status. Vel-Mel patients were more likely to achieve CR post-induction (40.6% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001) and by day 100 of AHCT (CR/VGPR: 70.2 % vs. 57.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in 3-year PFS (49% vs 46%, p = 0.06) or early post-AHCT mortality. In multivariable analysis, Vel-Mel associated with inferior PFS (HR: 1.69 (1.27-2.25, p < 0.001) and OS (HR:1.46 (1.14-1.86,p = 0.002), similar to negative effects on PFS of advanced ISS (HR:1.56 (1.33-1.83, p < 0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR:1.43(1.18-1.74, p < 0.001) and poor post-induction response(<=PR)(HR: 1.43(1.25-1.62, p < 0.001) Overall, despite superior pre- and post-AHCT responses, there was no improvement in PFS or OS following Vel-Mel. This data supports the findings of the smaller prospective IFM study.

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.).

Evolution of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for rheumatic diseases: data from the MAJIK-SFR registry.

OBJECTIVE: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is common, but there are scarce data regarding the effect of DMARDs on this premalignant condition. We aimed to evaluate the impact of JAK inhibitors (JAKis) on MGUS when initiated for an active rheumatic disease. METHODS: Patients with monoclonal abnormality prior to JAKi initiation for an active rheumatic disease were identified through the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a French multicentre prospective study. Clinical and biological data were collected using a standardized case report form. RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified with a mean age of 65 years and a diagnosis of RA (n = 15), PsA (n = 3), and axial SpA (n = 2). The JAKi prescribed was baricitinib (n = 9), tofacitinib (n = 6) or upadacitinib (n = 5), with a mean duration of 15.5 months. Seventeen patients had individualized serum monoclonal protein (IgG kappa n = 9; IgG lambda n = 4; IgM kappa n = 3; IgA lambda n = 1) ranging from 0.16 to 2.3 g/dl, and three patients did not have an initial measurable spike but they had a positive serum immunofixation. With a follow-up of 4-28 months, the serum monoclonal protein level decreased in 8 of 17 patients (47%), remained stable in 8 patients (47%) and increased in 1 patient (6%). The maximal decrease observed was an initial IgG kappa of 2.3 g/dl, decreasing to 0.2 g/dl at month 14. CONCLUSION: This study provides reassuring and promising data on MGUS evolution in patients treated with JAKis for rheumatic diseases, which may guide the choice of treatment in patients with both conditions.

Integrated analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone or bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone induction in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Objective: Providing the most efficacious frontline treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is critical for patient outcomes. No direct comparisons have been made between bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone (VTD) induction regimens in transplant-eligible NDMM. Methods: An integrated analysis was performed using patient data from four trials meeting prespecified eligibility criteria: two using VRD (PETHEMA GEM2012 and IFM 2009) and two using VTD (PETHEMA GEM2005 and IFM 2013-04). Results: The primary endpoint was met, with VRD demonstrating a noninferior rate of at least very good partial response (≥ VGPR) after induction vs VTD. GEM comparison demonstrated improvement in the ≥ VGPR rate after induction for VRD vs VTD (66.3% vs 51.2%; P = .00281) that increased after transplant (74.4% vs 53.5%). Undetectable minimal residual disease rates post induction (46.7% vs 34.9%) and post transplant (62.4% vs 47.3%) support the benefit of VRD vs VTD. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study and/or treatment discontinuation were less frequent with VRD (3%, GEM2012; 6%, IFM 2009) vs VTD (11%, IFM 2013-04). Conclusion: These results supported the benefit of VRD over VTD for induction in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. The trials included are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01916252, NCT01191060, NCT00461747, and NCT01971658).

Predictors of Lenalidomide Refractory Relapse Timing With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A FIRST Trial Subanalysis.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered an incurable cancer. Patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) are at risk for relapse within 1 year of frontline therapy. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Rd) may be used as treatment for NDMM or relapsed MM, including in patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. PATIENTS: This subanalysis of the phase III FIRST trial characterized patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM who experienced relapse while receiving Rd therapy by relapse timing (early [<12 months] versus late [≥12 months]) and type (CRAB vs. non-CRAB). METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate time-to-event endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Factors associated with the odds of late relapse were identified by logistic regression with univariate and multivariate analyses using a binary outcome (relapse at <12 vs. ≥12 months) in patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific baseline variables. RESULTS: Patients with early refractory relapse had functionally high-risk disease and inferior outcomes. In patients with early relapse versus those with late relapse, median OS (95% CI) was 26.8 months (21.9-32.8) versus 63.9 months (57.0-78.0), median OS from disease progression to death was 19.9 months (16.0-25.5) versus 36.4 months (27.9-47.0), and median PFS from randomization to second progression was 19.1 months (17.3-22.5) versus 42.1 months (37.4-44.9). Lactate dehydrogenase, baseline ß2 microglobulin, and myeloma subtype were shown to predict time to relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians could use these factors to consider more aggressive treatment regimens for those at highest risk of early relapse.

An early post-transplant relapse prediction score in multiple myeloma: a large cohort study from the chronic malignancies working party of EBMT.

Early relapse (ER) following Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AHCT) confers a poor prognosis. We therefore developed a novel scoring system to predict ER. A total of 14,367 AHCT-1 patients were transplanted between 2014 and 2019, and were conditioned with Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200) (n = 7228; 2014-2017) (training cohort); Mel200 (n = 5616; 2018-2019) or Mel140 (n = 1523; 2018-2019) (validation cohorts). PFS-12 and the Cumulative Incidence of Relapse at 12 months were 84.1% and 14.7% (training Mel200), 87.2% and 11.6% (validation Mel200), and 80.3% and 16.9% (validation Mel140), respectively. The points in the risk score were: 0, 1,2 for ISS stages I, II, and III; Disease status: 0 (CR/VGPR); 1 (PR); 2 (SD/MR); 4 (Relapse/Progression); and 1 for Karnofsky ≤ 70. The distribution of scores: 0 (24%), 1 (33.9%), 2 (29.6 %), 3 (9.5%), and ≥4 (2.7%). The score separated PFS-12, with the lowest risk group (n = 1752) having a PFS-12 of 91.7% and the highest risk group (n = 195) 57.1%. This also applied in cytogenetically high-risk patients. If the pre-score baseline risks are 15% (standard risk) and 25% (high-risk), a score of ≥4 confers calculated risks of 38% and 54%, respectively. This novel EBMT ER score, therefore, allows for the identification of five discrete prognostic groups.

Plain language summary of the MAIA study of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a clinical trial called MAIA. The trial tested 2 combinations of cancer drugs (daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) in people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. None of the participants who took part in the study had been treated before or were eligible to receive stem-cell transplants. HOW WAS THE STUDY IN THIS SUMMARY CONDUCTED?: A total of 737 participants took part. Half of the participants took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, while the other half of the participants took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Once participants started taking the drugs, the cancer was monitored for improvement (response to treatment), worsening (disease progression), or no change. Participants' blood and urine were tested for myeloma protein to measure response to the treatment. Participants were also monitored for side effects. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: After approximately 56 months of follow-up, more participants who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone were alive and had decreased myeloma protein levels (indicating improvement of cancer) than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The most common side effects were abnormally low white and red blood cell counts and increased lung infections. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In the MAIA study, participants with multiple myeloma who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone lived longer and had decreased myeloma protein levels than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone, indicating survival could be more likely with daratumumab added. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02252172 (Phase 3 MAIA study).

Real-world study of the efficacy and safety of belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma based on data from the nominative ATU in France: the IFM 2020-04 study.

Belantamab mafodotin (BM) is an anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate (GSK2857916) that represents an alternative option in multiple myeloma. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of BM in a real-world setting in patients who benefited from an early access program. We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Eligibility criteria were treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in monotherapy in adult patients who have received at least three lines of therapy previously, including at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and whose disease progressed during the last treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the overall survival (OS). Between November 2019 and December 2020, 106 patients were treated with BM; 97 were eligible for the efficacy evaluation and 104 for safety. The median age was 66 (range, 37-82) years. High-risk cytogenetics were identified in 40.9% of patients. Fifty-five (56.7%) patients were triple-class refractory and 11 (11.3%) were penta-class refractory. The median number of prior lines of treatment was five (range, 3-12). The median number of BM cycles administered was three (range, 1-22). The overall response rate at best response was 38.1% (37/97). The median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9-15.3), and median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI: 1.9-4.7). The median duration of response was 9 months (range, 4.65-10.4). Treatment was delayed for 55 (52.9%) patients including 36.5% for treatment-related toxicity. Ophthalmic adverse events, mainly grade ≤2, were the most common toxicity (48%). The occurrence of keratopathy was 37.5%. Overall, our data are concordant with the results from DREAMM-2 in terms of efficacy and safety on a non-biased population.

Pomalidomide and dexamethasone until progression after first salvage therapy in multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide maintenance in myeloma is well established. Nevertheless, pomalidomide could provide an alternative. Myeloma patients in first relapse, initially treated in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial, and subsequently in the IFM 2013-01 phase 2 trial, received four cycles of salvage therapy with pomalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (PCD) with transplantation plus 2 PCD consolidation or without transplantation but with 5 PCD and for all patients pomalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance therapy. This consisted of 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly until progression. The primary endpoint was an improved response to treatment. A total of 75/100 patients reached therapy. The median follow-up time was 73 months. The median duration of treatment was 23.7 months. One third of patients improved their response from the initiation of treatment: 11%, 19% and 4% to a very good partial response, complete response or stringent complete response respectively. The median progression-free survival time was 33.2 months and the median overall survival time was not reached. Among the 75 patients, the reasons for pomalidomide discontinuation were progressive disease (54%), adverse events (AEs) (30%), investigator discretion (11%) and consent withdrawal (5%). Grade (G) 3/4 haematological AEs included neutropenia (51%) and lymphopenia (35%); G3/4 drug-related non-haematological AEs (>5%) comprised 13% infections. Long-term administration of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is feasible and one third of the patients improved their response.

Non-interventional Study Evaluating the Mobilization of Stem Cells by Plerixafor Before Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (IFM-2015-03).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the implementation of new therapeutic agents, management of relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenge. Salvage autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) remains a valid therapeutic option for eligible patients who achieve prolonged response after a first AHCT. However, a second graft is not always available, and these patients may need a second mobilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study aimed to collect data on the feasibility of salvage AHCT using a plerixafor-based hematopoietic cell mobilization in relapsed MM, according to the plerixafor label in France. Adult patients with relapsed MM eligible for a second AHCT and mobilized using granulocyte- colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor were included. RESULTS: Of the 23 patients, 17 achieved a successful hematopoietic cell mobilization and 13 were able to proceed to a second AHCT. Median age was 62.9 years (min-max 51-71). Ten patients (77%) were male. Eleven (85%) received AHCT as a third-line treatment or more. Median time between first and second AHCT was 5.4 years (range, 2.6-16.3). Among 18 evaluable patients, mobilization was successful for 17 (94%) of them [95% CI 84-100], with no reported side effects. Among the 13 patients who underwent salvage AHCT, the median time to engraftment was 14 days (min-max 11-29). One-year progression-free and overall survival were 88.9% [95% CI 43.3-98.4] and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that plerixafor allows safe and efficient mobilization in relapsed MM patients who are candidates for a salvage AHCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02439476 Registered 8 May 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02439476 .

Biallelic deletion of 1p32 defines ultra-high-risk myeloma, but monoallelic del(1p32) remains a strong prognostic factor.

Cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are known to be the preponderant prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Our team has recently developed a prognostic score based on 6 CAs, with which del(1p32) appears to be the second worst abnormality after del(17p). This study aimed to confirm the adverse effect of 1p32 deletion in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Among 2551 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 11% were harboring del(1p32). Their overall survival (OS) was significantly inferior compared with patients without del(1p32) (median OS: 49 months vs 124 months). Likewise, progression-free survival was significantly shorter. More importantly, biallelic del(1p32) conferred a dramatically poorer prognosis than a monoallelic del(1p32) (median OS: 25 months vs 60 months). As expected, the OS of patients with del(1p32) significantly decreased when this abnormality was associated with other high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), or gain(1q)]. In the multivariate analysis, del(1p32) appeared as a negative prognostic factor; after adjustment for age and treatment, the risk of progression was 1.3 times higher among patients harboring del(1p32), and the risk of death was 1.9 times higher. At the dawn of risk-adapted treatment strategies, we have confirmed the adverse effect of del(1p32) in multiple myeloma and the relevance of its assessment at diagnosis.

Phase 1 Study of the Combination of Escalated Total Marrow Irradiation Using Helical Tomotherapy and Fixed High-Dose Melphalan (140 mg/m²) Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation at First Relapse in Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: A second intensification is an option at first relapse in multiple myeloma (MM) after more than 36 months of initial remission. Many conditioning regimens have been tested, with or without total body irradiation (TBI). Recently, it was found that TBI could be replaced by total marrow irradiation (TMI) using helical tomotherapy, with promising results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study was a prospective multicenter phase 1 trial that aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TMI administered in association with melphalan 140 mg/m², followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as consolidation at first relapse in MM. Four dose levels were explored: 8 Gy, 10 Gy, 12 Gy, and 14 Gy. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 4 neutropenia >15 days, grade 4 thrombopenia >28 days, and all other grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects except nausea, vomiting, alopecia, mucositis, and reaction to autologous stem cell infusion. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included; only 1 DLT at the third escalated dose level (12 Gy) was observed, whereas 1 patient was treated at 14 Gy with no adverse events. The MTD was not reached. The rate of acute toxicity was low: 38% of grade 3-4 diarrhea, mucositis, or unexplained fever. Regarding the lungs, the mean dose administered was systematically less than 8 Gy. After a median follow-up of 55 months, 70% of participants were alive. Of these 13 patients, 38.5% were in very good partial response and 30.8% were in complete response. Three of them were progression-free. Six patients were long survivors, still alive after 55 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Total marrow irradiation provides good results with a good tolerance profile at first relapse in MM and makes it possible to increase the dose delivered to the planning target volume while sparing organs at risk. This technique could be discussed for all regimens before auto- or allo-stem cell rescue when TBI is required.

Iberdomide plus dexamethasone in heavily pretreated late-line relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CC-220-MM-001): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Iberdomide is a novel cereblon E3 ligase modulator with enhanced tumouricidal and immune-stimulatory effects compared with immunomodulatory drugs. In preclinical myeloma models, iberdomide has shown synergy with dexamethasone, proteasome inhibitors, and CD38 monoclonal antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of iberdomide plus dexamethasone in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: We conducted a multicohort, open-label, phase 1/2 trial (CC-220-MM-001) at 42 treatment centres in Europe, Canada, and the USA. Patients aged 18 years or older with multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of therapy, including lenalidomide or pomalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, were enrolled into the dose-escalation cohort. Patients received escalating doses of oral iberdomide (0·3-1·6 mg on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral dexamethasone (40 mg [20 mg if age >75 years] once per week). A dose-expansion cohort at the recommended phase 2 dose was planned for patients who had received at least three previous lines of therapy and had triple-class refractory disease (refractory to immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and CD38 antibodies). Treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcomes were the recommended phase 2 dose (in the dose-escalation cohort, phase 1) and overall response rate (defined as complete response or partial response; in the dose-expansion cohort, phase 2) in the full analysis set. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02773030. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2016, and Dec 16, 2020, 460 patients were assessed for eligibility across all cohorts and 197 were enrolled and treated with iberdomide plus dexamethasone (90 patients in the dose-escalation cohort and 107 in the dose-expansion cohort). In the dose-escalation cohort, 47 (52%) patients were female and 43 (48%) were male, 70 (78%) were White, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was 5 (IQR 4-8). In the dose-expansion cohort, 47 (44%) were female and 60 (56%) were male, 84 (79%) were White, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was 6 (IQR 5-8). At data cutoff (June 2, 2021), median follow-up was 5·8 months (IQR 3·0-13·7) in the dose-escalation cohort and 7·7 months (5·3-11·4) in the dose-expansion cohort. Two dose-limiting toxicities (both infections, at 1·2 mg and 1·3 mg) were observed in the dose-escalation cohort, and 1·6 mg was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose. In the dose-escalation cohort, the overall response rate was 32% (95% CI 23-43; 29 of 90 patients) across all doses, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In the dose-expansion cohort, the overall response rate was 26% (95% CI 18-36; 28 of 107 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (48 [45%] of 107 patients), anaemia (30 [28%]), infection (29 [27%]), and thrombocytopenia (23 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 57 (53%) patients. There was one (1%) treatment-related death (sepsis) and five (5%) patients discontinued iberdomide due to adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Iberdomide plus dexamethasone was generally safe and showed meaningful clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, including in disease that was refractory to immunomodulatory drugs. These data suggest that further evaluation of iberdomide plus dexamethasone or other standard antimyeloma therapies is warranted. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

High-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221.