Search

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. © 2023 The American Society of Hematology

Longer-term outcomes with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) were evaluated in the randomized Phase 3 trial IKEMA (NCT03275285), in a prespecified, follow-up analysis of progression-free survival (PFS, primary study endpoint), final complete response (CR) using Hydrashift Isa immunofixation assay, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and safety. Enrolled patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (1–3 prior treatment lines). Isa 10 mg/kg was administered intravenously weekly in cycle 1 then biweekly. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intent-to-treat population (Isa-Kd: n = 179, Kd: n = 123) and safety evaluated in treated patients (Isa-Kd: n = 177, Kd: n = 122). Consistent with the primary interim analysis, the addition of Isa to Kd prolonged PFS (HR 0.58, 95.4% CI: 0.42–0.79; median PFS 35.7 [95% CI: 25.8–44.0] vs 19.2 [95% CI: 15.8–25.0] months). PFS benefit was observed with Isa-Kd across subgroups, including patients with poor prognosis. The stringent CR/CR rate was 44.1% vs 28.5% (odds-ratio: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.26–3.48), the MRD negativity rate 33.5% vs 15.4% (odds-ratio: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.55–4.99) and the MRD negativity CR rate 26.3% vs 12.2%, with Isa-Kd vs Kd. The safety profile of Isa-Kd was similar to that reported in the prior interim analysis. These findings further support Isa-Kd as a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285. © 2023, The Author(s).

Context: Anti-CD38 antibody Isa in combination with Kd is approved in various countries for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after ≥1 prior therapy based on primary interim analysis (IA) of the Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285). Objective: To report updated efficacy and safety results from IKEMA. Setting and Main Outcome Measures: This prespecified analysis (179 patients randomized to Isa-Kd, 123 to Kd) evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) (primary endpoint) at 159 PFS events, PFS2, minimal residual disease negativity (MRD–) rate, complete response (CR) rate, MRD– and CR rates in all patients, and safety. Interventions: Isa 10 mg/kg was given IV weekly for 4 weeks and then every 2 weeks; Kd (20/56 mg/m2, twice weekly, 3/4 weeks) was administered in both arms. Results: At cutoff (14-Jan-2022), with a 44-month median follow-up, 49 (27.4%) patients in Isa-Kd and 11 (8.9%) in Kd were still on treatment. Updated PFS, consistent with IA results, demonstrated significant benefit in favor of Isa-Kd (vs. Kd): HR=0.58 (95.4%CI=0.42–0.79; 35.7 vs. 19.2 months); PFS2 HR=0.68 (95%CI=0.50–0.94; 47.2 vs. 35.6 months). Primary PFS analysis, per FDA request/sensitivity analysis for other countries (censoring PFS events occurring >8 weeks after last valid assessment), was 41.7 versus 20.8 months (HR=0.59, 95%CI=0.42–0.83). With additional follow-up and using Hydrashift Isa immunofixation assay to rule out potential Isa interference in CR determination, final CR rate (Isa-Kd vs. Kd) was 44.1% versus 28.5% (OR=2.09, 95%CI=1.26–3.48); ORR was 86.6% versus 83.7%; MRD– was reached in 33.5% versus 15.4% patients (OR=2.78, 95%CI=1.55–4.99); and the rate of MRD– CR patients was 26.3% versus 12.2% (OR=2.57, 95%CI=1.35–4.88). Safety profiles in both arms remain consistent with prior IKEMA findings. Serious TEAEs were reported in 70.1% of Isa-Kd versus 59.8% Kd patients. The most common any-grade non-hematologic TEAEs in Isa-Kd were infusion reaction (45.8%), diarrhea (39.5%)

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown improved progression-free and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: ELOQUENT-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 185 hospitals, oncology practices, and research centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic myeloma and not candidates for high-dose therapy plus HSCT, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone using an interactive voice response system, stratified by the International Staging System (ISS; stage I-II vs III), age (<75 years vs ≥75 years), and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1-2). Patients in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group received elotuzumab administered intravenously at 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycles 1 and 2, days 1 and 15 during cycles 3-18, and then at 20 mg/kg on day 1 for subsequent cycles. In both treatment groups, patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally on days 1-21 of each cycle and 40 mg dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as per the primary definition from European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01335399 (completed). FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and June 19, 2014, 748 patients were randomly assigned (374 in each treatment group) and 742 patients received treatment (333 (90%) of 371 in the elotuzumab plus lenali

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally admi

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

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

PURPOSE Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization. RESULTS Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n 5 425) or placebo (n 5 281). TOURMALINEMM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4 v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801; P,.001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6 v 12.9 months; HR, 0.586; P,.001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade $ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8% v 8.0%), vomiting (24.2% v 4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2% v 12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2% v 6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%. CONCLUSION Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient populatio

A primary analysis of the ASPIRE study found that the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). This post hoc analysis examined outcomes from ASPIRE in patients categorised by age. In the carfilzomib group, 103/396 patients were ≥70 years old, and in the control group, 115/396 patients were ≥70 years old. Median PFS for patients <70 years old was 28·6 months for the carfilzomib group versus 17·6 months for the control group [hazard ratio (HR), 0·701]. Median PFS for patients ≥70 years old was 23·8 months for the carfilzomib group versus 16·0 months for the control group (HR, 0·753). For patients <70 years the overall response rate (ORR) was 86·0% (carfilzomib group) and 66·9% (control group); for patients ≥70 years old the ORR was 90·3% (carfilzomib group) and 66·1% (control group). Within the carfilzomib group, grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events occurred more frequently among patients ≥70 years old compared with patients <70 years old. Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone has a favourable benefit-risk profile for patients with RMM, including elderly patients ≥70 years old. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01080391. © 2017 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The presence of certain high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, such as translocations (4;14) and (14;16) and deletion (17p), are known to have a negative impact on survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (N = 792) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed MM. This preplanned subgroup analysis of ASPIRE was conducted to evaluate KRd vs Rd by baseline cytogenetics according to fluorescence in situ hybridization. Of 417 patients with known cytogenetic risk status, 100 patients (24%) were categorized with high-risk cytogenetics (KRd, n548; Rd, n552) and 317 (76%) were categorized with standard-risk cytogenetics (KRd, n = 147; Rd, n = 170). For patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of 23.1 months, a 9-month improvement relative to treatment with Rd. For patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd. The overall response rates for KRd vs Rd were 79.2% vs 59.6% (high-risk cytogenetics) and 91.2% vs 73.5% (standardrisk cytogenetics); approximately fivefold as many patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics achieved a complete response or better with KRd vs Rd (29.2% vs 5.8% and 38.1% vs 6.5%, respectively). KRd improved but did not abrogate the poor prognosis associated with high-risk cytogenetics. This regimen had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with relapsed MM, irrespective of cytogenetic risk status, and should be considered a standard of care in these patients. Copyright © 2011 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved.

We compared the safety and efficacy of siltuximab (S), an anti-interleukin-6 chimeric monoclonal antibody, plus bortezomib (B) with placebo (plc) + B in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a randomized phase 2 study. Siltuximab was given by 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks. On progression, B was discontinued and high-dose dexamethasone could be added to S/plc. Response and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed pre-dexamethasone by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. For the 281 randomized patients, median PFS for S + B and plc + B was 8.0 and 7.6 months (HR 0.869, P = 0.345), overall response rate was 55 versus 47% (P = 0.213), complete response rate was 11 versus 7%, and median overall survival (OS) was 30.8 versus 36.8 months (HR 1.353, P = 0.103). Sustained suppression of C-reactive protein, a marker reflective of inhibition of interleukin-6 activity, was seen with S + B. Siltuximab did not affect B pharmacokinetics. Siltuximab/placebo discontinuation (75 versus 66%), grade ≥3 neutropenia (49 versus 29%), thrombocytopenia (48 versus 34%), and all-grade infections (62 versus 49%) occurred more frequently with S + B. The addition of siltuximab to bortezomib did not appear to improve PFS or OS despite a numerical increase in response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.