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

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

Daratumumab, 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.).

Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer with and without Prior Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of apalutamide before or after treatment with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Experimental Design: Two cohorts were studied: AAP-naïve and post-AAP patients who had received ≥6 months of AAP. Patients had progressive mCRPC per rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or imaging, without prior chemotherapy exposure. All received apalutamide 240 mg/day. Primary endpoint was ≥50% decline in 12-week PSA according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression and time on treatment.Results: Forty-six patients enrolled in the AAP-naïve (n = 25) and post-AAP (n = 21) cohorts. The 12-week PSA response rate was 88% (22/25) and 22% (4/18), median time to PSA progression was 18.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.3 months-not reached) and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6 months), and median time on treatment 21 months (range, 2.6-37.5) and 4.9 months (range, 1.3-23.2), for the AAP-naïve and post-AAP cohorts, respectively. Eighty percent (95% CI, 59-93) and 64% (95% CI, 43-82) of AAP-naïve and 43% (95% CI, 22-66) and 10% (95% CI, 1-30) of post-AAP patients remained on treatment for 6+ and 12+ months, respectively. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both cohorts were grade 1 or 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain.Conclusions: Apalutamide was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated clinical activity in mCRPC, with 80% of AAP-naïve and 43% of post-AAP patients, remaining on treatment for 6 months or longer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3544-51. ©2017 AACR.

Phase 2 Study of the Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509), a Potent Androgen Receptor Antagonist, in the High-risk Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is a potent androgen receptor (AR) antagonist that targets the AR ligand-binding domain and prevents AR nuclear translocation, DNA binding, and transcription of AR gene targets. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the activity and safety of apalutamide in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter phase 2 study of nmCRPC patients with a high risk for progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥8 ng/ml or PSA doubling time [PSA DT] ≤10 mo). INTERVENTION: Patients received 240mg/d apalutamide while continuing on androgen-deprivation therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was 12-wk PSA response (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria). Secondary end points included safety, time to PSA progression (TTPP), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled; four patients with metastatic disease were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Patient characteristics included median age, 71 yr; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (76%); Gleason score ≤7 (57%); median PSA 10.7 ng/ml; and PSA DT ≤10 mo (45%). At median follow-up of 28.0 mo, 18 patients (35%) remained in the study. Overall, 89% of patients had ≥50% PSA decline at 12 wk. Median TTPP was 24.0 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.3 mo-not reached [NR]); median MFS was NR (95% CI, 33.4 mo-NR). Most of the patients discontinued study treatment (n=33) due to disease progression (n=11 [22%]) or adverse events (AEs) (n=9 [18%]). The most common AE was fatigue (any grade, n=31 [61%]) although grade ≥3 fatigue was uncommon (n=2 [4%]). These represent the first apalutamide nmCRPC patient clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk nmCRPC patients, apalutamide was safe with robust activity based on durable PSA responses and disease control. PATIENT SUMMARY: Antitumor activity and the safety of apalutamide in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer support continued development in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01171898.

An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase I/II Study of JNJ-40346527, a CSF-1R Inhibitor, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: This phase I/II study investigated JNJ-40346527, a selective inhibitor of the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) tyrosine kinase as treatment for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients ≥18 years with histopathologically confirmed initial diagnosis of cHL that had relapsed or was refractory after ≥1 appropriate therapies were assigned to sequential cohorts of oral daily doses of JNJ-40346527 (150, 300, 450, 600 mg every day, and 150 mg twice a day). For the dose-escalation phase, the primary endpoint was to establish the recommended phase II dose. Secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients [(150 mg: 3; 300 mg: 5; 450 mg: 3, 600 mg: 3) every day, and 150 mg twice a day: 7] were enrolled, 10 men, median age 40 (range, 19-75) years, median number of prior systemic therapies 6 (range, 3-14). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed; maximum-tolerated dose was not established. Best overall response was complete remission in 1 patient (duration, +352 days) and stable disease in 11 patients: (duration, 1.5-8 months). Median number of cycles: 4 (range, 1-16). Most common (≥20% patients) possibly drug-related adverse events (per investigator assessment) were nausea (n = 6), headache, and pyrexia (n = 5 each). JNJ-40346527 exposure increased in near dose-proportional manner over a dose range of 150 to 450 mg every day, but plateaued at 600 mg every day. Target engagement was confirmed (>80% inhibition of CSF-1R phosphorylation, 4 hours after dosing). CONCLUSIONS: JNJ-40346527, a selective inhibitor of CSF-1R was well tolerated, and preliminary antitumor results suggested limited activity in monotherapy for the treatment of cHL.

Carlumab, an anti-C-C chemokine ligand 2 monoclonal antibody, in combination with four chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of patients with solid tumors: an open-label, multicenter phase 1b study.

C-C chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2) stimulates tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis. Carlumab, a human IgG1κ anti-CCL2 mAb, has shown antitumor activity in preclinical and clinical trials. We conducted a first-in-human phase 1b study of carlumab with one of four chemotherapy regimens (docetaxel, gemcitabine, paclitaxel + carboplatin, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl [PLD]). Patients had advanced solid tumors for which ≥1 of these regimens was considered standard of care or for whom no other treatment options existed. Dose-limiting toxicities included one grade 4 febrile neutropenia (docetaxel arm) and one grade 3 neutropenia (gemcitabine arm). Combination treatment with carlumab had no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic effect on docetaxel (n = 15), gemcitabine (n = 12), paclitaxel or carboplatin (n = 12), or PLD (n = 14). Total serum CCL2 concentrations increased post-treatment with carlumab alone, consistent with carlumab-CCL2 binding, and continued increase in the presence of all chemotherapy regimens. Free CCL2 declined immediately post-treatment with carlumab but increased with further chemotherapy administrations in all arms, suggesting that carlumab could sequester CCL2 for only a short time. Neither antibodies against carlumab nor consistent changes in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating endothelial cells (CECs) enumeration were observed. Three of 19 evaluable patients showed a 30 % decrease from baseline urinary cross-linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (uNTx). One partial response and 18 (38 %) stable disease responses were observed. The most common drug-related grade ≥3 adverse events were docetaxel arm-neutropenia (6/15) and febrile neutropenia (4/15); gemcitabine arm-neutropenia (2/12); paclitaxel + carboplatin arm-neutropenia, thrombocytopenia (4/12 each), and anemia (2/12); and PLD arm-anemia (3/14) and stomatitis (2/14). Carlumab could be safely administered at 10 or 15 mg/kg in combination with standard-of-care chemotherapy and was well-tolerated, although no long-term suppression of serum CCL2 or significant tumor responses were observed.