A CD38/CD3xCD28 trispecific T-cell engager as a potentially active agent in multiple myeloma patients relapsed and/or refractory to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.

There is accumulating evidence of BCMA and GPRC5D loss after treatment with T-cell redirecting therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). While complete CD38 loss is not observed upon relapses after treatment with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAb), there is downregulation of surface CD38 expression and decreased number and function of NK cells, which renders these patients resistant to retreatment with anti-CD38 mAb. Here, we provide preclinical evidence that RRMM patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 mAb could benefit from T-cell-based immunotherapy that depend less on CD38 antigen density and NK-cell activity, such as the novel CD38/CD3xCD28 trispecific T-cell engager, SAR442257.

SAR442085, a novel anti-CD38 antibody with enhanced antitumor activity against multiple myeloma.

Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a breakthrough in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), yet some patients fail to respond or progress quickly with this therapy, highlighting the need for novel approaches. In this study we compared the preclinical efficacy of SAR442085, a next-generation anti-CD38 mAb with enhanced affinity for activating Fcγ receptors (FcγR), with first-generation anti-CD38 mAb daratumumab and isatuximab. In surface plasmon resonance and cellular binding assays, we found that SAR442085 had higher binding affinity than daratumumab and isatuximab for FcγRIIa (CD32a) and FcγRIIIa (CD16a). SAR442085 also exhibited better in vitro antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) against a panel of MM cells expressing variable CD38 receptor densities including MM patients' primary plasma cells. The enhanced ADCC of SAR442085 was confirmed using NK-92 cells bearing low and high affinity FcγRIIIa (CD16a)-158F/V variants. Using MM patients' primary bone marrow cells, we confirmed that SAR442085 had an increased ability to engage FcγRIIIa, resulting in higher natural killer (NK) cell activation and degranulation against primary plasma cells than preexisting Fc wild-type anti-CD38 mAbs. Finally, using huFcgR transgenic mice that express human Fcγ receptors under the control of their human regulatory elements, we demonstrated that SAR442085 had higher NK cell-dependent in vivo antitumor efficacy and better survival than daratumumab and isatuximab against EL4 thymoma or VK*MYC myeloma cells overexpressing human CD38. These results highlight the preclinical efficacy of SAR442085 and support the current evaluation of this next-generation anti-CD38 antibody in phase I clinical development in patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

An open-label, first-in-human, single agent, dose escalation study for the evaluation of safety and efficacy of SAR442085 in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Cluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) is a key target on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This multi-centre, Phase 1, single-agent study (NCT04000282) investigated SAR442085, a novel fragment crystallisable (Fc)-modified anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), with enhanced affinity towards Fc-gamma receptor on effector cells in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM. METHODS: This study comprised two parts: Part-A (dose-escalation involving anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated and naïve patients) and Part-B (dose expansion). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS: Thirty-seven heavily pre-treated patients were treated in Part A. Part-B (dose-expansion) was not studied. Seven dose-limiting toxicities were reported at DL3, DL5, DL6, and DL7. RP2D was determined to be 5-7·5 mg/kg. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion-related reactions in 70·3% (26/37) patients. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was reported in 48·6% (18/37). Overall response rate was 70% in anti-CD38 mAb naïve and 4% in anti-CD38 pre-treated patients, with a median progression-free survival of 7·62 (95%CI: 2·858; not calculable) months and 2·79 (95%CI: 1·150; 4·172) months and, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of SAR442085 was promising in anti-CD38 mAb naïve patients but did not extend to the larger cohort of anti-CD38 mAb pre-treated patients. This observation, along with transient high-grade thrombocytopenia, could potentially limit its clinical use.

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.

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.

Joint modelling and simulation of M-protein dynamics and progression-free survival for alternative isatuximab dosing with pomalidomide/dexamethasone.

AIMS: Addition of isatuximab (Isa) to pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We aimed to characterize the relationship between serum M-protein kinetics and PFS in the phase 3 ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338), and to evaluate an alternative dosing regimen of Isa by simulation. METHODS: Data from the ICARIA-MM trial comparing Isa 10 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks (QW-Q2W) in combination with Pd versus Pd in 256 evaluable RRMM patients were used. A joint model of serum M-protein dynamics and PFS was developed. Trial simulations were then performed to evaluate whether efficacy is maintained after switching to a monthly dosing regimen. RESULTS: The model identified instantaneous changes (slope) in serum M-protein as the best on-treatment predictor for PFS and baseline patient characteristics impacting serum M-protein kinetics (albumin and ß2-microglobulin on baseline levels, non-IgG type on growth rate) and PFS (presence of plasmacytomas). Trial simulations demonstrated that switching to a monthly Isa regimen at 6 months would shorten median PFS by 2.3 weeks and induce 42.3% patients to progress earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Trial simulations supported selection of the approved Isa 10 mg/kg QW-Q2W regimen and showed that switching to a monthly regimen after 6 months may reduce clinical benefit in the overall population. However, patients with good prognostic characteristics and with a stable, very good partial response may switch to a monthly regimen after 6 months without compromising the risk of disease progression. This hypothesis will be tested in a prospective clinical trial.

Subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

Treatment benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains suboptimal. The phase 3 ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338) showed that isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolongs median progression-free survival (mPFS) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM compared the benefit of isatuximab in high-risk [defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)] versus standard-risk patients. The efficacy of isatuximab in patients with gain(1q21) abnormality was also assessed in a retrospective subgroup analysis. In ICARIA-MM, 307 patients received isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, and every other week thereafter. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved mPFS (7·5 vs 3·7 months; HR, 0·66; 95% CI, 0·33-1·28) and overall response rate (ORR, 50·0% vs 16·7%) in high-risk patients. In patients with isolated gain(1q21), isatuximab addition improved mPFS (11·2 vs 4·6 months; HR, 0·50; 95% CI, 0·28-0·88) and ORR (53·6% vs 27·6%). More grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in high-risk patients receiving isatuximab (95·7%) versus the control group (67·6%); however, isatuximab did not increase events leading to discontinuation or treatment-related mortality. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone provides a consistent benefit over pomalidomide-dexamethasone treatment in RRMM patients regardless of cytogenetic risk.

c-MYC expression and maturity phenotypes are associated with outcome benefit from addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide-dexamethasone in myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: In the TOURMALINE-MM1 phase 3 trial in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) showed different magnitudes of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs placebo-Rd according to number and type of prior therapies, with greater benefit seen in patients with >1 prior line of therapy or 1 prior line of therapy without stem cell transplantation (SCT). METHODS: RNA sequencing data were used to investigate the basis of these differences. RESULTS: The PFS benefit of IRd vs placebo-Rd was greater in patients with tumors expressing high c-MYC levels (median not reached vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.66; P < .001) compared with in those expressing low c-MYC levels (median 20.6 vs 16.6 months; HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42, 1.2). Expression of c-MYC in tumors varied based on the number and type of prior therapy received, with the lowest levels observed in tumors of patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy including SCT. These tumors also had higher expression levels of CD19 and CD81. CONCLUSIONS: PFS analyses suggest that lenalidomide and ixazomib target tumors with different levels of c-MYC, CD19, and CD81 expression, thus providing a potential rationale for the differential benefits observed in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as: NCT01564537.

Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is currently being studied for the treatment of multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 722 patients who had relapsed, refractory, or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib group) or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 14.7 months (median progression-free survival, 20.6 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the ixazomib group, 0.74; P=0.01); a benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed with the ixazomib regimen, as compared with the placebo regimen, in all prespecified patient subgroups, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. The overall rates of response were 78% in the ixazomib group and 72% in the placebo group, and the corresponding rates of complete response plus very good partial response were 48% and 39%. The median time to response was 1.1 months in the ixazomib group and 1.9 months in the placebo group, and the corresponding median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15.0 months. At a median follow-up of approximately 23 months, the median overall survival has not been reached in either study group, and follow-up is ongoing. The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups (47% in the ixazomib group and 49% in the placebo group), as were the rates of death during the study period (4% and 6%, respectively); adverse events of at least grade 3 severity occurred in 74% and 69% of the patients, respectively. Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 and grade 4 severity occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group (12% and 7% of the patients, respectively) than in the placebo group (5% and 4% of the patients, respectively). Rash occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group (36% vs. 23% of the patients), as did gastrointestinal adverse events, which were predominantly low grade. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy was 27% in the ixazomib group and 22% in the placebo group (grade 3 events occurred in 2% of the patients in each study group). Patient-reported quality of life was similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ixazomib to a regimen of lenalidomide and dexamethasone was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival; the additional toxic effects with this all-oral regimen were limited. (Funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals; TOURMALINE-MM1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01564537.).

Ixazomib significantly prolongs progression-free survival in high-risk relapsed/refractory myeloma patients.

Certain cytogenetic abnormalities are known to adversely impact outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) compared with placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo-Rd). This preplanned analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd according to cytogenetic risk, as assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16); additionally, patients were assessed for 1q21 amplification. Of 722 randomized patients, 552 had cytogenetic results; 137 (25%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and 172 (32%) had 1q21 amplification alone. PFS was improved with IRd vs placebo-Rd in both high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.321-0.918; P = .021), with median PFS of 21.4 vs 9.7 months; in standard-risk patients, HR was 0.640 (95% CI, 0.462-0.888; P = .007), with median PFS of 20.6 vs 15.6 months. This PFS benefit was consistent across subgroups with individual high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including patients with del(17p) (HR, 0.596; 95% CI, 0.286-1.243). PFS was also longer with IRd vs placebo-Rd in patients with 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.492-1.240), and in the "expanded high-risk" group, defined as those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.664; 95% CI, 0.474-0.928). IRd demonstrated substantial benefit compared with placebo-Rd in relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics, and improves the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537.

Ixazomib maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An integrated analysis of four phase I/II studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation. METHODS: Data were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice-weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice-weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug-related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Ixazomib maintenance following ixazomib-based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma. We investigated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) could improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 487 adults with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantation to receive six to eight 21-day cycles of R-CHOP intravenously on day 1 (with prednisone administered orally on days 1 to 5) or VR-CAP (R-CHOP regimen, but replacing vincristine with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (according to independent radiologic review) was 14.4 months in the R-CHOP group versus 24.7 months in the VR-CAP group (hazard ratio favoring the VR-CAP group, 0.63; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 59%. On the basis of investigator assessment, the median durations of progression-free survival were 16.1 months and 30.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.51; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 96%. Secondary end points were consistently improved in the VR-CAP group, including the complete response rate (42% vs. 53%), the median duration of complete response (18.0 months vs. 42.1 months), the median treatment-free interval (20.5 months vs. 40.6 months), and the 4-year overall survival rate (54% vs. 64%). Rates of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were higher in the VR-CAP group. CONCLUSIONS: VR-CAP was more effective than R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma but at the cost of increased hematologic toxicity. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals; LYM-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00722137.).

Phase I trial of bortezomib daily dose: safety, pharmacokinetic profile, biological effects and early clinical evaluation in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose This phase I study investigated bortezomib in solid tumors used as a daily subcutaneous regimen. Previous regimens showed only modest activity in solid tumors which was potentially related to sub-optimal tumor penetration. We aimed at exploring if daily low dose administration of bortezomib may allow a greater and tolerable pharmacokinetic exposure which might be required for antitumor activity in solid tumors. Patients and methods This 3 + 3 design, dose escalation, monocentric study aimed at defining the maximum tolerated dose of daily low dose schedule of bortezomib. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antitumor activity, biomarkers for proteasome inhibition, pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies were also evaluated. Results A total of eighteen patients were dosed in 3 bortezomib cohorts (0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 mg/m2), with 3, 11 and 4 patients respectively. Three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: Grade (G) 3 Sweet's syndrome (at 0.6 mg/m2), G3 asthenia and anorexia or ataxia (2 patients at 0.7 mg/m2). The most common study drug-related adverse events (all grades) were thrombocytopenia (72%), fatigue (56%), neuropathy (50%), anorexia (44%) and rash (39%). Dose 0.6 mg/m2 of bortezomib was considered as the recommended phase II dose. A significant tumor shrinkage (-36% according to WHO criteria) was observed in one patient with heavily pre-treated GIST, and 2 minor responses (-20%) were recorded in two patients with melanoma and mesothelioma. Conclusion This daily subcutaneous regimen of bortezomib showed a dose dependent plasma exposure, evidence of target inhibition and preliminary signs of clinical activity. However, cumulative neurological toxicity of this dose-dense daily regimen might preclude its further clinical development.

A phase I/II dose-escalation study investigating all-oral ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone induction followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

This phase I/II dose-escalation study investigated the all-oral ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone regimen, followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, in elderly, transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Primary phase I objectives were to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone. The primary phase II objective was to determine the complete plus very good partial response rate. In phase I, patients were enrolled to 4 arms investigating weekly or twice-weekly ixazomib (13 28-day cycles or nine 42-day cycles) plus melphalan-prednisone. In phase II, an expansion cohort was enrolled at the recommended phase II ixazomib dose. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 26 received the recommended phase II dose (ixazomib 4.0 mg [days 1, 8, 15] plus melphalan-prednisone 60 mg/m2 [days 1-4], 28-day cycles). Of the 61 enrolled patients, 36 (13 of 26 in the recommended phase II dose cohort) received single-agent ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15; 28-day cycles). In phase I, 10/38 patients reported dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1, including grade 3 and/or 4 neutropenia (n=6) and thrombocytopenia (n=4). Complete plus very good partial response rate was 48% (48% at recommended phase II dose), including 28% (22%) complete response or better; responses deepened during maintenance in 34% (33%) of evaluable patients. After median follow up of 43.6 months, median progression-free survival was 22.1 months. Adverse events were mainly hematologic events, gastrointestinal events, and peripheral neuropathy. This study demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and activity of ixazomib-melphalan-prednisone induction and single-agent ixazomib maintenance in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. clinicaltrials.gov identifier 01335685.

Bortezomib-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in real-world medical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in clinical trials may differ from the oncology practice experience. The electronic VELCADE® OBservational Study was designed to prospectively evaluate bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) in real-world medical practice. METHOD: Patients scheduled to receive intravenous bortezomib for MM were eligible. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes, including response, time to response, time to next therapy, treatment-free interval, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included safety and healthcare resource utilization. RESULTS: In total, 873 patients with a median of two therapy lines prior to initiating bortezomib were included. The overall response rate (≥partial response) was 69%, including 37% complete response/near-complete response. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median time to next therapy was 9.7 months, and median treatment-free interval was 7.9 months. After 22.6 months' median follow-up, median PFS was 12.0 months and median OS was 36.1 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) were neuropathy not otherwise specified (19%), diarrhea NOS, and thrombocytopenia (each 17%); 230 (26%) patients discontinued bortezomib due to AEs. Of 689 (79%) patients without baseline peripheral neuropathy (PN), the rate of new-onset any-grade PN increased to 51% (12% grade 3/4) by cycle 8. Overall, 244 (28%) patients were hospitalized, 372 (43%) attended an outpatient visit, and 341 (39%) underwent a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure during bortezomib treatment. CONCLUSION: These prospective real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for RRMM and confirm high response rates and long OS for this population.

A retrospective analysis of 3954 patients in phase 2/3 trials of bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma: towards providing a benchmark for the cardiac safety profile of proteasome inhibition in multiple myeloma.

This retrospective analysis aimed to establish the overall cardiac safety profile of bortezomib using patient-level data from one phase 2 and seven phase 3 studies in previously untreated and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Seven clinically relevant primary [congestive heart failure (CHF), arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), cardiac death] and secondary (hypertension, dyspnoea, oedema) cardiac endpoints were defined based on MedDRA v16.0 preferred terms. 2509 bortezomib-treated patients and 1445 patients in non-bortezomib-based control arms were included. The incidence of grade ≥3 CHF was 1·3-4·0% in studies in relapsed/refractory MM and 1·2-4·7% in previously untreated MM (2·0-7·6% all grades), with no significant differences between bortezomib- and non-bortezomib-based arms in comparative studies. Incidences of arrhythmias (1·3-5·9% grade ≥2; 0·6-4·1% grade ≥3), IHD (1·2-2·9% all grades; 0·4-2·7% grade ≥3) and cardiac death (0-1·4%) were low, with no differences between bortezomib-based and non-bortezomib-based arms. Higher rates of oedema (mostly grade 1/2) were seen in bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based arms in one study and a pooled transplant study analysis. Logistic regression analyses of comparative studies showed no impact on cardiac risk with bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based treatment. Bortezomib-based treatment was associated with low incidences of cardiac events.

Frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) for non-GCB DLBCL.

This phase 2 study evaluated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy could improve efficacy in non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (non-GCB DLBCL), centrally confirmed by immunohistochemistry (Hans method). In total, 164 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), and doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), all IV day 1, prednisone 100 mg/m(2) orally days 1-5, plus either bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib [VR-CAP]; n = 84) or vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) (maximum 2 mg) IV day 1 (R-CHOP; n = 80). There were no significant differences between VR-CAP and R-CHOP in complete response rate (64.5%, 66.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.91; P = .80), overall response rate (93.4%, 98.6%; OR, 0.21; P = .11), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P = .76), or overall survival (HR, 0.89; P = .75). Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 88%, 89%), serious AEs (38%, 34%), discontinuations due to AEs (7%, 3%), and deaths due to AEs (2%, 5%) were similar with VR-CAP and R-CHOP. Grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy rates were 6% and 3%, respectively. VR-CAP did not improve efficacy vs R-CHOP in non-GCB DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01040871.

Impact of prior therapy on the efficacy and safety of oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in TOURMALINE-MM1.

Prior treatment exposure in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma may affect outcomes with subsequent therapies. We analyzed efficacy and safety according to prior treatment in the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd. Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma received ixazomib-Rd or placebo-Rd. Efficacy and safety were evaluated in subgroups defined according to type (proteasome inhibitor [PI] and immunomodulatory drug) and number (1 vs. 2 or 3) of prior therapies received. Of 722 patients, 503 (70%) had received a prior PI, and 397 (55%) prior lenalidomide/thalidomide; 425 patients had received 1 prior therapy, and 297 received 2 or 3 prior therapies. At a median follow up of ~15 months, PFS was prolonged with ixazomib-Rd vs. placebo-Rd regardless of type of prior therapy received; HR 0.739 and 0.749 in PI-exposed and -naïve patients, HR 0.744 and 0.700 in immunomodulatory-drug-exposed and -naïve patients, respectively. PFS benefit with ixazomib-Rd vs. placebo-Rd appeared greater in patients with 2 or 3 prior therapies (HR 0.58) and in those with 1 prior therapy without prior transplant (HR 0.60) versus those with 1 prior therapy and transplant (HR 1.23). Across all subgroups, toxicity was consistent with that seen in the intent-to-treat population. In patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib-Rd was associated with a consistent clinical benefit vs. placebo-Rd regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib or immunomodulatory drugs. Patients with 2 or 3 prior therapies, or 1 prior therapy without transplant seemed to have greater benefit than patients with 1 prior therapy and transplant. TOURMALINE-MM1 registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01564537.

Association between quality of response and outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma receiving VR-CAP versus R-CHOP in the phase 3 LYM-3002 study.

In the phase 3 LYM-3002 study comparing intravenous VR-CAP with R-CHOP in patients with newly-diagnosed, measurable stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, not considered or ineligible for transplant, the median progression-free survival was significantly improved with VR-CAP (24.7 versus 14.4 months with R-CHOP; P<0.001). This post-hoc analysis evaluated the association between the improved outcomes and quality of responses achieved with VR-CAP versus R-CHOP in LYM-3002. Patients were randomized to six to eight 21-day cycles of VR-CAP or R-CHOP. Outcomes included progression-free survival, duration of response (both assessed by an independent review committee), and time to next anti-lymphoma treatment, evaluated by response (complete response/unconfirmed complete response and partial response), MIPI risk status, and maximum reduction of lymph-node measurements expressed as the sum of the product of the diameters. Within each response category, the median progression-free survival was longer for patients given VR-CAP than for those given R-CHOP (complete response/unconfirmed complete response: 40.9 versus 19.8 months; partial response: 17.1 versus 11.7 months, respectively); similarly, the median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was longer among the patients given VR-CAP than among those treated with R-CHOP (complete response/unconfirmed complete response: not evaluable versus 26.6 months; partial response: 35.3 versus 24.3 months). Within the complete/unconfirmed complete and partial response categories, improvements in progression-free survival, duration of response and time to next anti-lymphoma treatment were more pronounced in patients with low-and intermediate-risk MIPI treated with VR-CAP than with R-CHOP. In each response category, more VR-CAP than R-CHOP patients had a sum of the product of the diameters nadir of 0 during serial radiological assessments. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest a greater duration and quality of response in patients treated with VR-CAP in comparison with those treated with R-CHOP, with the improvements being more evident in patients with low- and intermediate-risk MIPI. LYM-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00722137.