Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group. CONCLUSIONS: Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-00434-21.).

Isatuximab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. METHODS: In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

MRD dynamics during maintenance for improved prognostication of 1280 patients with myeloma in the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 trials.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS], 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD- vs MRD+ patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD- status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD- status vs those converting from MRD- to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD-. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single-time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD- status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD- status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258.

Efficacy and safety of melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from the randomized, open-label, phase III LIGHTHOUSE study.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis.

The primary and prespecified updated analyses of ICARIA-MM (clinicaltrial gov. Identifier: NCT02990338) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a benefit in overall survival (OS) was reported with the addition of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the final OS analysis. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study included patients who had received and failed ≥2 previous therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Between January 10, 2017, and February 2, 2018, 307 patients were randomized (1:1) to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; N=154) or Pd (N=153), stratified based on age (<75 vs. ≥75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2-3 vs. >3). At data cutoff for the final OS analysis after 220 OS events (January 27, 2022), median follow-up duration was 52.4 months. Median OS was 24.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.3) with Isa-Pd and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.4- 26.2) with Pd (hazard ratio=0.78; 95% CI: 0.59-1.02; 1-sided P=0.0319). Despite subsequent daratumumab use in the Pd group and its potential benefit on PFS in the first subsequent therapy line, median PFS2 was significantly longer with Isa-Pd versus Pd (17.5 vs. 12.9 months; log-rank 1-sided P=0.0091). In this analysis, Isa-Pd continued to be efficacious and well tolerated after follow-up of approximately 52 months, contributing to a clinically meaningful, 6.9-month improvement in median OS in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone in 1q21+ patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Long-term outcomes in the Phase 3 IKEMA study.

Gain/amplification of 1q21 (≥3 copies), a chromosomal abnormality frequently observed in multiple myeloma, can negatively affect prognosis, due to its involvement in resistance to anti-myeloma therapy and disease progression. In this updated subgroup analysis of the randomized, Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), we evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and depth of response with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) versus Kd, in 1q21+ patients and related subgroups, at long-term follow-up (44.2 months). Our analysis included patients with 1q21+ (≥3 copies, with/without high-risk chromosomal abnormality [HRCA]), isolated 1q21+ (≥3 copies, without HRCA), gain(1q21) (3 copies, with/without HRCA), and amp(1q21) (≥4 copies, with/without HRCA). PFS benefit was achieved with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+ (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92), with isolated 1q21+ (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.92), with gain(1q21), or amp(1q21), consistent with the overall population and prior interim 1q21+ subgroup analyses. Median PFS with Isa-Kd versus Kd was 25.8 versus 16.2 months in 1q21+ patients and 38.2 versus 16.2 months in patients with isolated 1q21+. Clinically meaningful, higher rates of very good partial response or better, complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and MRD negativity and ≥CR were reached with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+, isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), or amp(1q21). In Isa-Kd and Kd, the MRD negativity and ≥CR rate was 29.3% versus 15.4% in 1q21+ patients, 36.2% versus 12.9% in patients with isolated 1q21+, 27.9% versus 13.5% in patients with gain(1q21), and 31.3% versus 20.0% in patients with amp(1q21), respectively. In conclusion, addition of Isa to Kd in triplet combination therapy has shown PFS benefit and deeper responses, compared with Kd, in 1q21+ patients at higher risk of progression, including patients with isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), and amp(1q21), thus supporting Isa-Kd an effective treatment option for patients with RRMM.

Daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients - real world evidence analysis.

We performed real world evidence (RWE) analysis of daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM). In total, 240 RRMM patients were treated with Dara-Rd from 2016 to 2022 outside of clinical trials in all major Czech hematology centers. As a reference, 531 RRMM patients treated with Rd were evaluated. Patients' data were recorded in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Partial response (PR) or better response (ORR) was achieved in significantly more patients in Dara-Rd than in Rd group (91.2% vs. 69.9%; p < 0.001). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 26.9 months in the Dara-Rd and 12.8 months in the Rd group (p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the Dara-Rd compared to 27.2 months in the Rd group (p = 0.023). In patients with 1-3 previous treatment lines, there was significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd compared to Rd (median PFS not reached vs. 13.2 months; p < 0.001). In patients with > 3 previous treatment lines, there was no significant PFS benefit of Dara-Rd treatment (7.8 months vs. 9.9 months; p = 0.874), similarly in patients refractory to PI + IMIDs (11.5 months vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.376). In RWE conditions, the median PFS in RRMM patients treated with Dara-Rd is shorter when compared to clinical trials. In heavily pretreated RRMM patients, efficacy of Dara-Rd treatment is limited; best possible outcomes of Dara-Rd are achieved in minimally pretreated patients.

Switching to daratumumab SC from IV is safe and preferred by patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Two phase 3 studies demonstrated superior efficacy of intravenous daratumumab (DARA IV) plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (ALCYONE) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd; MAIA) versus standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In these studies, patients could switch from DARA IV to subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) while receiving daratumumab monotherapy in ALCYONE (as of Cycle 11) or daratumumab plus Rd in MAIA. The phase 3 COLUMBA study demonstrated noninferiority of DARA SC to DARA IV. DARA SC reduced administration time, allowing patients to spend less time in healthcare settings, a relevant practical consideration for patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic/settings of limited healthcare resources. METHODS: DARA SC 1800 mg was administered every 4 weeks, per approved dosing schedules. We evaluated safety and patient-reported experience (ALCYONE only) among patients who switched from DARA IV to DARA SC. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in ALCYONE and 135 in MAIA switched to DARA SC. Three (2.2%; MAIA) patients reported injection-site reactions, all of which were mild. No infusion-related reactions occurred with DARA SC. In ALCYONE, >80% of patients preferred DARA SC over DARA IV. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 5.3% of patients in ALCYONE and 25.9% in MAIA; one (0.7%; MAIA) patient experienced a TEAE with an outcome of death. CONCLUSION: For transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, DARA SC (monotherapy/with Rd) was safe and preferred over DARA IV. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479/NCT02252172.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): follow-up analysis of a randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the ICARIA-MM study showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report a prespecified updated overall survival analysis at 24 months after the primary analysis. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 102 hospitals in 24 countries across Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Patients were excluded if they had anti-CD38 refractory disease or previously received pomalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive response technology with permuted blocked randomisation (block size of four) and stratified by number of previous treatment lines (2-3 vs >3) and aged (<75 vs ≥75 years), to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, intravenous isatuximab 10 mg/kg was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 4-week cycle, and then on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle, and weekly oral or intravenous dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged ≥75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Here' we report a prespecified second interim analysis of overall survival (time from randomisation to any-cause death), a key secondary endpoint, in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who provided informed consent and allocated a randomisation number) at 24 months after the primary analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose or part dose of study treatment. The prespecified stopping boundary for the overall survival analysis was when the derived p value was equal to or less than 0·0181. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02990338, and is active, but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, 387 patients were screened and 307 randomly assigned to either the isatuximab (n=154) or control group (n=153). Median follow-up at data cutoff (Oct 1, 2020) was 35·3 months (IQR 33·5-37·4). Median overall survival was 24·6 months (95% CI 20·3-31·3) in the isatuximab group and 17·7 months (14·4-26·2) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·57-1·01]; one-sided log-rank p=0·028, not crossing prespecified stopping boundary). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events in the isatuximab group versus the control group were neutropenia (76 [50%] of 152 patients vs 52 [35%] of 149 patients), pneumonia (35 [23%] vs 31 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [13%] vs 18 [12%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 111 (73%) patients in the isatuximab group and 90 (60%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the isatuximab group (one due to sepsis and one due to cerebellar infarction) and two (1%) occurred in the control group (one due to pneumonia and one due to urinary tract infection). INTERPRETATION: Addition of isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone resulted in a 6·9-month difference in median overall survival compared with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and is a new standard of care for lenalidomide-refractory and proteasome inhibitor-refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Final overall survival analysis follow-up is ongoing. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Identification of patients at high risk of secondary extramedullary multiple myeloma development.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by malignant plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. In extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMD), a subclone of these cells migrates out of the bone marrow. Out of 4 985 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 in the Czech Republic, we analyzed 234 secondary EMD patients to clarify risk factors of secondary EMD development. We found younger age [<65 years; odds ratio (OR) 4·38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·46-7·80, P < 0·0001], high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (>5 µkat/l; OR 2·07, 95% CI: 1·51-2·84, P < 0·0001), extensive osteolytic activity (OR 2·21, 95% CI: 1·54-3·15, P < 0·001), and immunoglobulin A (IgA; OR 1·53, 95% CI: 1·11-2·11, P = 0·009) or the non-secretory type of MM (OR 2·83; 95% CI: 1·32-6·04, P = 0·007) at the time of MM diagnosis to be the main risk factors for secondary EMD development. Newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients with subsequent EMD had inferior median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival when compared to NDMM patients without future EMD [mPFS: 13·8 months (95% CI: 11·4-16·3) vs 18·8 months (95% CI: 17·7-19·9), P = 0·006; mOS: 26·7 months (95% CI: 18·1-35·4) vs 58·7 months (95% CI: 54·8-62·6), P < 0·001]. We found that NDMM patients with specific risk factors associated with secondary EMD development have a more aggressive disease course before secondary EMD develops.

Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved in combination with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and carfilzomib-dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. This phase 3, open-label study compared the efficacy of isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study done at 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged at least 18 years who had received one to three previous lines of therapy and had measurable serum or urine M-protein were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). Patients in the isatuximab group received isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. Both groups received the approved schedule of intravenous carfilzomib and oral or intravenous dexamethasone. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population according to assigned treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose according to treatment received. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients with a median of two previous lines of therapy were enrolled. 179 were randomly assigned to the isatuximab group and 123 to the control group. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the isatuximab group compared with 19·15 months (95% CI 15·77-not reached) in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0·53 (99% CI 0·32-0·89; one-sided p=0·0007). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of grade 3 or worse occurred in 136 (77%) of 177 patients in the isatuximab group versus 82 (67%) of 122 in the control group, serious TEAEs occurred in 105 (59%) versus 70 (57%) patients, and TEAEs led to discontinuation in 15 (8%) versus 17 (14%) patients. Fatal TEAEs during study treatment occurred in six (3%) versus four (3%) patients. INTERPRETATION: The addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival and depth of response in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, representing a new standard of care for this patient population. FUNDING: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Final analysis of the phase III non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) µg/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) µg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in elderly patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: IKEMA subgroup analysis.

In this subgroup analysis of the randomized, Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285), we evaluated efficacy and safety of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) versus Kd in older (≥70 years of age, n = 86) and younger (<70 years, n = 216) patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received Isa 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks in the Isa-Kd arm, and approved schedule of carfilzomib (twice weekly) and dexamethasone in both study arms. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary efficacy endpoints included rates of overall response (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-), and complete response (CR). Addition of Isa to Kd resulted in improved PFS in elderly patients (hazard ratio, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.18-0.75]) consistent with the significant PFS improvement observed in the overall IKEMA population. Treatment with Isa-Kd improved depth of response versus Kd, with higher rates of ≥VGPR (73.1% vs. 55.9%), MRD- (23.1% vs. 11.8%), and CR (38.5% vs. 23.5%). Although the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher in Isa-Kd, the incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between arms. Fewer elderly patients definitively discontinued treatment due to TEAEs in Isa-Kd than Kd: 11.8% versus 23.5%. In conclusion, Isa-Kd provides a consistent benefit versus Kd in elderly patients, with a manageable safety profile, and represents a new treatment option for patients with relapsed MM, independent of age.

Anti-CD38 antibody therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: differential mechanisms of action and recent clinical trial outcomes.

CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein that functions both as a receptor and an ectoenzyme, playing key roles in the regulation of calcium signaling and migration of immune cells to tumor microenvironments. High expression on multiple myeloma (MM) cells and limited expression on normal cells makes CD38 an ideal target for the treatment of MM patients. Two monoclonal antibodies directed at CD38, isatuximab and daratumumab, are available for use in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM); daratumumab is also approved in newly diagnosed MM and light-chain amyloidosis. Clinical experience has shown that anti-CD38 antibody therapy is transforming treatment of MM owing to its anti-myeloma efficacy and manageable safety profile. Isatuximab and daratumumab possess similarities and differences in their mechanisms of action, likely imparted by their binding to distinct, non-overlapping epitopes on the CD38 molecule. In this review, we present the mechanistic properties of these two antibodies and outline available evidence on their abilities to induce adaptive immune responses and modulate the bone marrow niche in MM. Further, we discuss differences in regulatory labeling between these two agents and analyze recent key clinical trial results, including evidence in patients with underlying renal impairment and other poor prognostic factors. Finally, we describe the limited existing evidence for the use of isatuximab or daratumumab after disease progression on prior anti-CD38 mono- or combination therapy, highlighting the need for additional clinical evaluations to define optimal anti-CD38 antibody therapy selection and sequencing in RRMM.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics: IKEMA subgroup analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of high-risk chromosomal abnormalities [t(4;14), del(17p), and t(14;16)] has been linked with inferior outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). A prespecified interim analysis of the Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) + carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (d; Isa-Kd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus Kd in patients with relapsed MM. This prespecified subgroup analysis of IKEMA examined efficacy and safety in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. METHODS: High-risk cytogenetics was assessed by central laboratory and patients were classified as high risk if abnormalities were present in ≥1 of the following: del(17p): 50% cutoff; t(4;14), and/or t(14;16): 30% cutoff. RESULTS: Of the randomized patients, 23.5% (Isa-Kd) and 25.2% (Kd) had ≥1 high-risk chromosomal abnormality. A PFS benefit was seen in favor of Isa-Kd for patients with standard-risk (HR 0.440; 95% CI 0.266-0.728) and high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.724; 95% CI 0.361-1.451). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common with Isa-Kd (85.7%) versus Kd (63.3%) in patients with high-risk cytogenetics; however, the incidence of serious TEAEs (64.3% vs. 66.7%) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Isa-Kd is a new treatment option for the difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients with relapsed MM and high-risk cytogenetics.

Real-world evidence of efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: Czech registry data.

We assessed the outcomes of pomalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy. We analyzed the data of all RRMM patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone at nine Czech centers between 2013 and 2018. The source of the data was the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies of the Czech Republic. Primary endpoints included response rates based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria and survival measures, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were toxicities and previous treatment patterns, including refractory to lenalidomide, and their impact on final outcomes. The overall response rate was 51.8% and the clinical benefit rate (including patients with minimal response) was 67.1%, with 0.6% of complete responses, 8.5% of very good partial responses, and 42.1% of partial responses (PR). Overall, 16.5% of patients had a minimal response, and 32.3% had stable disease /progression. Median PFS was 8.8 months and the median OS was 14.2 months. In patients who achieved ≥PR, the median PFS and OS were significantly longer compared to non-responders (median PFS (12.1 vs. 4.5 months, p≤0.001 respectively), median OS (22.1 vs. 7.7 months, p≤0.001, respectively). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (29.9%) and anemia (18.9%), non-hematological AEs included infections (14.6%) and fatigue (7.3%). Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in a real-world setting. This therapy achieved reasonable outcomes comparable to the data from clinical trials even though this was an unbiased cohort of patients.

Efficacy and safety of oral panobinostat plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (PANORAMA 3): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication. METHODS: PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654990. FINDINGS: Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8-24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8-72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8-75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4-61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio.

Health-related quality of life maintained over time in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone: results from the phase III CASTOR trial.

In the phase III CASTOR trial, daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly extended progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the CASTOR trial. PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system questionnaire. Treatment effects through Cycle 8 were measured by a repeated measures mixed-effects model. After Cycle 8, PROs were only collected for patients in the D-Vd group who continued on daratumumab monotherapy. Compliance rates for PRO assessments were high and similar between treatment groups. Mean changes from baseline were generally similar between treatment groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS), functioning and symptoms, and did not exceed 10 points for either treatment group. Subgroup analyses were consistent with the results observed in the overall population. There was no change in patients' health-related quality of life for the first eight cycles of therapy; thereafter, patients treated with daratumumab over the long-term reported improvements in GHS and pain. These results complement the significant clinical benefits observed with D-Vd in patients with RRMM and support its use in this patient population.

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. FINDINGS: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. INTERPRETATION: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. FUNDING: Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Survival benefit of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient's characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1-3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.