Search

8033 Background: As multiple myeloma (MM) negatively affects patients’ (pts) health-related quality of life (HRQoL), assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in addition to clinical outcomes is important. Teclistamab (tec; JNJ-64007957) is an off-the-shelf bispecific antibody that redirects CD3+ T cells to mediate T-cell activation and subsequent lysis of BCMA-expressing MM cells. Initial results from the pivotal cohort of the phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study demonstrated that tec was well tolerated with encouraging efficacy in pts who received ≥3 prior lines of treatment (LOT; including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 antibody). Here we report PROs from this cohort. Methods: Pts (aged ≥18 years) had documented RRMM (International Myeloma Working Group criteria), progressive/measurable disease, and had previously received ≥3 prior LOT; prior anti-BCMA treatment (tx) was not allowed. Pts received weekly subcutaneous tec at the recommended phase 2 dose (1.5 mg/kg with step-up doses of 0.06 and 0.3 mg/kg). PROs were assessed at screening and every even cycle (cycles 2–8 reported here) using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (range: 0–100; higher scores indicate better global health status [GHS] but greater symptom severity [symptom scales]) and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system (visual analog scale [VAS] range: 0 [worst imaginable health state] to 100 [best imaginable]). Tx effect was assessed by a mixed-effects model with repeated measures; the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement was defined as a change ≥10 points. Time to worsening was determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Results: A total of 110 pts were included (median follow-up: 7.8 mos). Overall PRO compliance rates were high (baseline [BL]: 85–90%; cycles 2–8: 80–94%). Tec improved overall HRQoL as evidenced by improvements in GHS scores (cycles 2–8) and reduction in pain (-4.2 [cycle 2] to -15.1 [cycle 8]; Table), with no overall change in physical functioning and fatigue. The proportions of pts with meaningful improvements from BL at cycle 8 were GHS: 50%; physical functioning: 35%; pain: 65%; fatigue: 73%; 50% of pts reported meaningful improvement in their overall health (VAS). Median time to improvement from baseline was ̃1.5 months (with nausea/vomiting and fatigue taking longer to improve), while median time to worsening (all symptoms) ranged from 2 months to not estimable. Conclusions: Consistent with clinical outcomes, pts treated with tec reported rapid, clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT04557098. [Table: see text]

Additional file 1 Table 1. Patients with improvement, no change, or decline in HRQoL based on minimal clinically important differences defined by ≥ 10% of the instrument range. Table 1 describes the number and proportion of patients with improvement, no change, or decline in HRQoL based on the minimal clinically important difference threshold defined as ≥10% of the instrument range. Data are shown for the FACT-MM, FACT-G, FACT-MM TOI, and the MM domain at treatment cycle 2–6 and end of treatment.

Additional file 2. Provides a list of IECs and IRBs for the STORM trial.

Patients with multiple myeloma frequently present with substantial immune impairment and an increased risk for infections and infection-related mortality. The risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulting mortality is also increased, emphasising the importance of protecting patients by vaccination. Available data in patients with multiple myeloma suggest a suboptimal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response, meaning a proportion of patients are unprotected. Factors associated with poor response are uncontrolled disease, immunosuppression, concomitant therapy, more lines of therapy, and CD38 antibody-directed and B-cell maturation antigen-directed therapy. These facts suggest that monitoring the immune response to vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma might provide guidance for clinical management, such as administration of additional doses of the same or another vaccine, or even temporary treatment discontinuation, if possible. In those who do not exhibit a good response, prophylactic treatment with neutralising monoclonal antibody cocktails might be considered. In patients deficient of a SARS-CoV-2 immune response, adherence to measures for infection risk reduction is particularly recommended. This consensus was generated by members of the European Multiple Myeloma Network and some external experts. The panel members convened in virtual meetings and conducted an extensive literature research and evaluated recently published data and work presented at meetings, as well as findings from their own studies. The outcome of the discussions on establishing consensus recommendations for COVID-19 This study has been funded by the Austrian Forum against Cancer, which covered in part expenses for interaction between authors and for secretarial support.

Pomalidomide is a distinct oral IMiD immunomodulatory agent with direct antimyeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. The pivotal, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial MM-003 compared pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone vs high-dose dexamethasone in 455 patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after failure of bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment. Initial results demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival with an acceptable tolerability profile for pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone vs high-dose dexamethasone. This secondary analysis describes patient outcomes by treatment history and depth of response. Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone significantly prolonged progression-free survival and favored overall survival vs high-dose dexamethasone for all subgroups analyzed, regardless of prior treatments or refractory status. Both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that no variable relating to either the number (≤ or > 3) or type of prior treatment was a significant predictor of progression-free survival or overall survival. No cross-resistance with prior lenalidomide or thalidomide treatment was observed. Patients achieving a minimal response or better to pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone treatment experienced a survival benefit, which was even higher in those achieving at least a partial response (17.2 and 19.9 months, respectively, as compared with 7.5 months for patients with less than minimal response). These data suggest that pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone should be considered a standard of care in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01311687; EudraCT: 2010-019820-30. ispartof: Haematologica vol:100 issue:10 pages:1334-9 ispartof: location:Italy status: published

ispartof: HEMASPHERE vol:2 pages:117-117 status: published

et al. [Objectives]: The phase 3 VISTA study ( NCT00111319) in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients demonstrated superior efficacy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP; nine 6-wk cycles) vs. melphalan-prednisone (MP) but also increased toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; exploratory endpoint) was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The phase 3 VISTA study ( NCT00111319) in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients demonstrated superior efficacy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP; nine 6-wk cycles) vs. melphalan-prednisone (MP) but also increased toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; exploratory endpoint) was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). [Methods]: EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at screening, on day 1 of each cycle, at the end-of-treatment visit, and every 8 wk until progression. EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were evaluated among patients with a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline HRQoL assessment. [Results]: At baseline, domain scores were similar between arms. By cycle 4, mean differences were clinically meaningful for most domains, indicating poorer health status with VMP. From cycle 5 onwards, improvements relative to baseline/MP were observed for all domains with VMP. Mean scores were generally improved by the end-of-treatment assessment vs. baseline in both arms. Among responding patients, mean scores generally improved from time of response to end-of-treatment assessment, substantially driven by patients achieving complete response (CR). Multivariate analysis showed a significant impact of duration of response/CR on improving global health status, pain, and appetite loss scores. Analyses by bortezomib dose intensity indicated better HRQoL in patients receiving lower dose intensity. [Conclusions]: These findings demonstrate clinically meaningful, transitory HRQoL decrements with VMP and relatively lower HRQoL vs. MP during early treatment cycles, associated with the expected additional toxicities. However, HRQoL is not compromised in the long term, recovering by the end-of-treatment visit to be comparable vs. MP.

[Objectives]: Bone disease is a key presenting feature of myeloma. This post hoc analysis of the phase III VISTA trial of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs. MP in previously untreated myeloma patients assessed clinical bone disease events and changes in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), a marker for osteoblast activation, and serum Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), an inhibitor of osteoblast differentiation, during treatment. [Methods]: Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3mg/m2, days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9mg/m2 and prednisone 60mg/m2, days 1-4, cycles 1-9; N=344) or MP alone (N=338). [Results]: Rates of bisphosphonates use during treatment (73% vs. 82%), progression because of worsening bone disease (3% vs. 11%), and requirement for subsequent radiotherapy (3% vs. 8%) were lower with VMP vs. MP. Median maximum ALP increase was significantly higher with VMP vs. MP overall (49.7% vs. 30.3%, P=0.029), and higher by response group (complete response [CR]: 68.7% vs. 43.9%; partial response [PR]: 41.5% vs. 31.2%). Greater maximum ALP increase was strongly associated with achievement of CR (P≤0.0001) and CR/PR (P≤0.01). Median DKK-1 decreased with VMP by 694.4pg/mL and increased with MP by 1273.3pg/mL from baseline to day 4 (P=0.0069). Available radiologic data revealed evidence of bone healing in 6/11 VMP-treated patients, who achieved best responses of three CR, one PR, and two stable disease. [Conclusions]: These results suggest a positive effect of bortezomib on bone metabolism and potentially bone healing in myeloma. © 2011 John Wiley and Sons A/S.

e20028 Background: Tec is a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody being evaluated in MajesTEC-1 (NCT04557098), a single-arm, phase 1/2 study in pts with RRMM who were exposed to ≥3 lines of therapy (LOT), including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. While there is currently no standard of care for treatment of pts with TCE RRMM, sel-dex is a recently approved, novel therapeutic option. Given the absence of a control arm in MajesTEC-1, we used an unanchored MAIC to compare efficacy outcomes of pts who received tec in MajesTEC-1 vs pts treated with sel-dex in the single-arm, phase 2b STORM Part 2 trial (NCT02336815). Methods: An unanchored MAIC was performed with individual pt-level data (IPD) from pts treated with tec (1.5 mg/kg weekly) in MajesTEC-1 at a clinical cutoff of Sep 7, 2021 (N = 150) and published summary-level data from pts who received sel-dex in STORM Part 2 (N = 122). After applying the STORM Part 2 eligibility criteria (penta-exposed, triple-class refractory, and refractory to last LOT), IPD from pts in MajesTEC-1 (N = 69) were weighted to match the aggregated baseline pt characteristics from STORM Part 2. Baseline characteristics of prognostic significance (refractory status, cytogenetic profile, revised International Staging System stage, presence of extramedullary disease, and number of prior LOT) were adjusted for in the analysis. Comparative efficacy of tec vs sel-dex was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). For binary endpoints (ORR and ≥CR rate), the relative effects of tec vs sel-dex were estimated using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI derived from a weighted logistic regression. Time-to-event endpoints (PFS, OS, and DOR) were estimated using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: After adjustment, the effective sample size (ESS) of the MajesTEC-1 cohort was 37. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 cohorts. Pts treated with tec had improved ORR (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.48–6.69; P= 0.0029), ≥CR rate (OR 16.3; 95% CI 3.5–77.1; P= 0.0004), PFS (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30–1.11; P= 0.1007), DOR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.04; 95% CI 0.01–0.10; P< 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.28–0.95; P= 0.0344) compared with sel-dex. Despite a reduced ESS that reduced limited power to detect statistically significant differences, the majority of outcomes was statistically significant in favor of tec. Conclusions : In this MAIC, tec showed significantly improved efficacy over sel-dex for all outcomes except PFS, which was numerically in favor of tec, highlighting its potential as a highly effective treatment option for pts with TCE RRMM who received ≥3 prior LOT.

8035 Background: Pts with RRMM who are TCE to immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies have limited treatment options. While there is no standard of care for treatment of pts with TCE RRMM, belamaf is a recently approved, novel therapeutic option. MajesTEC-1 (NCT04557098) is a single-arm phase 1/2 study evaluating tec, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody in pts with TCE RRMM who received ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT). Given the absence of a control arm in MajesTEC-1, we compared efficacy outcomes of pts who received tec at the recommended phase 2 dose in MajesTEC-1 with those of pts treated with belamaf in the phase 2 DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678). Methods: An unanchored MAIC was performed using individual pt-level data (IPD) from MajesTEC-1 (tec 1.5 mg/kg weekly; N = 150) at a clinical cutoff of Sep 7, 2021, and published summary-level data from pts who received the approved dose of belamaf in DREAMM-2 (2.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks; N = 97). The DREAMM-2 eligibility criteria were applied to pts from the intent-to-treat population of MajesTEC-1. IPD from MajesTEC-1 were weighted to match the aggregated DREAMM-2 baseline pt characteristics. Baseline characteristics of prognostic significance (refractory status, cytogenetic profile, International Staging System stage, presence of extramedullary disease, and number of prior LOT) were adjusted for in the analysis. Comparative efficacy of tec vs belamaf was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR). For binary endpoints (ORR and ≥CR rate), the relative effects of tec vs belamaf were quantified using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI derived from a weighted logistic regression analysis, while time-to-event endpoints (DOR, PFS, OS) were estimated using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: After adjustment, the effective sample size (ESS) of the MajesTEC-1 cohort was 33 and baseline characteristics for the reweighted MajesTEC-1 population were balanced with the DREAMM-2 population. Pts treated with tec had an improved ORR (OR 2.05; 95% CI 0.92–4.57; P= 0.0786), ≥CR rate (OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.80–5.65; P= 0.1283), PFS (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.34–1.15; P= 0.1338), OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.47–1.92; P= 0.8897), and DOR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.19; 95% CI 0.05–0.73; P= 0.0149) compared with belamaf. The reduced ESS following adjustment may account for the lack of statistical significance for most outcomes. Conclusions: These analyses demonstrated statistically improved DOR for tec vs belamaf and numerically favorable results for other outcomes, highlighting its potential as a treatment for pts with TCE RRMM who received ≥3 prior LOT.

This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified ≥60 months' follow-up). Patients were randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and was similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an ≈30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vs MPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00689936 and EudraCT as 2007-004823-39.

Summary With increasing number of therapies available for the treatment of multiple myeloma, it is timely to examine the course of patients' journeys. We investigated patient characteristics, treatment durations and outcomes, and symptom burden across the treatment pathway in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. In total, 435 physicians retrospectively reviewed 4997 patient charts. Profiles of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma during the last 12 months were similar across countries; bone pain was the most common presentation. Median duration of first‐line therapy was 6 months, followed by a median treatment‐free interval of 10 months; both these decreased with increasing lines of therapy, as did time to progression. Depth of response, as assessed by the treating physician, also decreased with each additional line of therapy: 74% of patients achieved at least a very good partial response at first line, compared with only 11% at fifth line. Deeper responses were associated with longer time to progression, although these were physician‐judged. Toxicities and co‐morbidities increased with later treatment lines, and were more likely to have led to discontinuation of treatment. These real‐world data provide an insight into patient outcomes and treatment decisions being made in clinical practice.

Real-world data describing management of patients with multiple myeloma are limited. A European (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, UK) observational chart review was conducted to address this. Physicians completed questionnaires for every patient seen during a 2-4-week observation period, regardless of treatment status. A total of 435 physicians completed 7635 cross-sectional chart reviews. Overall, 47% of patients were undergoing anti-tumour drug treatment, 42% had previously received ≥1 line of treatment and 12% had never received anti-tumour drug treatment. Of the patients treated by oncologists, onco-haematologists or internists, 95% received, or were expected to receive, at least one line of anti-tumour drug treatment, 61% received ≥2 lines of therapy and 38% received ≥3 lines. Except in the UK, the most commonly used induction therapies contained bortezomib (48%); lenalidomide was the most commonly used first-line maintenance therapy (45%) and second- and third-line agent overall (60% and 52% of patients at those lines, respectively). Bortezomib retreatment was used in 47% of patients who received it first line. Treatment patterns became more diverse with subsequent treatment lines. This study provides insight into real-world treatment patterns in Europe. While treatment practices are broadly similar across countries, some notable differences in the agents used exist.