Search

Abstract: Teclistamab and other B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have substantial activity in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM) but are associated with a high rate of infections. BCMA is also expressed on normal plasma cells and mature B cells, which are essential for the generation of a humoral immune response. The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of the impact of BCMA-targeting BsAbs on humoral immunity. The impact of teclistamab on polyclonal immunoglobulins and B cell counts was evaluated in patients with MM who received once-weekly teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously. Vaccination responses were assessed in a subset of patients. Teclistamabinduced rapid depletion of peripheral blood B cells in patients with MM and eliminated normal plasma cells in ex vivo assays. In addition, teclistamab reduced the levels of polyclonal immunoglobulins (immunoglobulin G [IgG], IgA, IgE, and IgM), without recovery over time while receiving teclistamab therapy. Furthermore, response to vaccines against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was severely impaired in patients treated with teclistamab compared with vaccination responses observed in patients with newly diagnosed MM or relapsed/refractory MM. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) use was associated with a significantly lower risk of serious infections among patients treated with teclistamab (cumulative incidence of infections at 6 months: 5.3% with IVIG vs 54.8% with observation only [P < .001]). In conclusion, our data show severe defects in humoral immunity induced by teclistamab, the impact of which can be mitigated by the use of immunoglobulin supplementation. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT04557098., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Here, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updates its clinical practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma-related renal impairment on the basis of data published until Dec 31, 2022. All patients with multiple myeloma and renal impairment should have serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and free light chains (FLCs) measurements together with 24-h urine total protein, electrophoresis, and immunofixation. If non-selective proteinuria (mainly albuminuria) or involved serum FLCs value less than 500 mg/L is detected, then a renal biopsy is needed. The IMWG criteria for the definition of renal response should be used. Supportive care and high-dose dexamethasone are required for all patients with myeloma-induced renal impairment. Mechanical approaches do not increase overall survival. Bortezomib-based regimens are the cornerstone of the management of patients with multiple myeloma and renal impairment at diagnosis. New quadruplet and triplet combinations, including proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, improve renal and survival outcomes in both newly diagnosed patients and those with relapsed or refractory disease. Conjugated antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, and T-cell engagers are well tolerated and effective in patients with moderate renal impairment., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MAD has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. FB holds consulting roles for Janssen, AstraZeneca, Attralus, and Prothena; and is part of the speakers’ bureau for GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi. NL has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Omeros and holds stocks in AbbVie. JM holds consulting roles for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. SJH holds consulting roles for and has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS-Celgene, GSK, HaemaLogiX, Janssen, Novartis, Roche-Genetec, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, EUSA Pharma, and Terumo; and research funding from Amgen, BMS-Celgene, GSK, HaemaLogiX, Janssen, and Roche-Genetec. EK has received honoraria and research funding from Amgen, Janssen, GSK, and Pfizer. LG has received honoraria from BMS-Celgene, Janssen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and GSK. AG has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, and Sanofi. NWCJvdD has received research support from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, and BMS, all paid to their institution; and serves in advisory boards for Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Novartis, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. KCW has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BMS-Celgene, BeiGene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and research support (paid to their institution) from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS-Celgene, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi. AZB has received research grants from Janssen, BMS, GSK, and Celgene. MB serves in advisory boards for Janssen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Menarini, and Pfizer; and is part of the speakers’ bureau for Janssen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. JH has received honoraria for serving in advisory boards from Amgen, Angitia, Axxess Network, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi; honoraria for talks from Amgen, BeiGene, Beijing Medical Award Foundation, Curio Science, Janssen, and Target Oncology; and is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Janssen. MM has received honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and research funding from Janssen and Sanofi. PJH is a member of advisory boards (without honorarium) for Antengene, Gilead Science, Janssen, and Pfizer. M-VM has received honoraria derived from lectures and participation in advisory boards from Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides. PR holds consulting roles for Oncopeptides, BMS-Celgene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, GSK, AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen; and has received research grants from Oncopeptides, BMS-Celgene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Takeda. JB has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen, Amgen, BMS-Celgene, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria from and serves in advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GSK. JS-M serves in advisory boards and provides consulting services, on behalf of their institution, for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, GSK, HaemaLogiX, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, and SecuraBio. SVR is a member of the board of directors for the International Myeloma Foundation and has received royalties for creating content from UpToDate. HL has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, BMS, Sanofi, AbbVie, Pfizer, and Seagen; and research support from Amgen and Sanofi. ET has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, GSK, Integris Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; research support (paid to their institution) from Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and travel grants from Amgen, EUSA Pharma, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, demonstrated an overall response rate of 63.0% in 165 heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a known manifestation of T-cell redirection, was observed in 119 of 165 patients (72.1%)., Methods: Patients received once-weekly teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously after two step-up doses (0.06 and 0.3 mg/kg). CRS was graded according to American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy criteria and managed according to the study protocol, including use of tocilizumab and/or steroids., Results: Most cases of CRS occurred during the step-up dosing schedule of teclistamab and were grade 1 (50.3% of patients) or grade 2 (21.2% of patients); a single case of grade 3 CRS was reported in a patient with concurrent grade 3 pneumonia. All CRS cases resolved and none led to treatment discontinuation. Overall, 33.3% of patients had >1 CRS event; CRS recurrence was reduced when tocilizumab was administered for the first CRS event compared with when it was not (20.0% vs. 62.2%, respectively). Baseline characteristics such as tumor burden and cytokine levels did not appear to predict CRS incidence or severity., Conclusions: Findings of this study support the need for preemptive planning and prompt management of CRS in patients treated with T-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies. Intervention with tocilizumab for CRS appears to decrease the likelihood of patients experiencing subsequent CRS events without compromising response to teclistamab., Plain Language Summary: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), observed in 72.1% of patients treated with teclistamab in the MajesTEC-1 study, was mostly grade 1 or 2 and manageable, without requiring treatment discontinuation. Most CRS occurred during the step-up schedule, requiring vigilance during treatment initiation. Ensure fever is resolved and patients have no signs of infection before initiating the teclistamab step-up schedule or administering the next teclistamab dose, to avoid exacerbating CRS. Tocilizumab reduced the risk of subsequent CRS in patients receiving it for their first CRS event (20.0% vs. 62.2% in those not receiving it), without affecting response to teclistamab. No baseline characteristics, including tumor burden or cytokine levels, appeared to clearly predict for CRS occurrence or severity., (© 2023 Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: Patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE-RRMM) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, was studied in patients with TCE-RRMM in the single-arm MajesTEC-1 study. To assess the relative effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC), adjusted comparisons were performed using individual patient data from MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion, a prospective study of patients with TCE-RRMM., Methods: An external control arm for MajesTEC-1 was created from patients in LocoMMotion (n = 248; clinical cut-off: November 2, 2021) and compared with treated patients (n = 165) from MajesTEC-1 (teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg weekly; clinical cut-off: March 16, 2022). Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates. For binary endpoints [overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, complete response or better (≥ CR)], relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC was estimated with an odds ratio and relative response rate and 95% confidence interval (CI), derived from weighted logistic regression. Weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for time-to-event endpoints [duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)]., Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced across cohorts. In adjusted comparisons, teclistamab-treated patients were 2.3-fold, 5.2-fold and 148.3-fold, more likely to reach ORR [response-rate ratio (RR) = 2.31, 95% CI 1.77-2.85, p < 0.0001], ≥ VGPR (RR = 5.19, 95% CI 3.26-7.12, p < 0.0001) and ≥ CR (RR = 148.25, 95% CI 20.63-1065.40, p < 0.0001), respectively, versus patients receiving RWPC. Following adjustment, DOR (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.54, p < 0.0001) and PFS (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35-0.65, p < 0.0001) were significantly longer with teclistamab versus RWPC. OS was numerically better with teclistamab versus RWPC [HR 0.77 (0.55-1.09), p = 0.1419]., Conclusion: Teclistamab demonstrated improved effectiveness versus RWPC, highlighting its clinical benefit as a novel and effective treatment for patients with TCE-RRMM., Trial Registration: Majest TEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04557098; LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Despite therapeutic advances and improved patient outcomes in recent years, multiple myeloma (MM) remains a mostly incurable hematologic malignancy. Patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), especially those with triple-class-refractory disease or poor-prognostic features, have substantially unmet needs for new therapies with novel mechanisms of action. Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is the first alkylating peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases to show efficacy and manageable safety, in combination with dexamethasone, in patients with RRMM who had received at least 4 prior lines of therapy, including at least 1 immunomodulatory drug, at least 1 proteasome inhibitor and at least 1 anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early 2021 for use in this patient population. Initial analyses of the phase III OCEAN study data led to melflufen being voluntarily withdrawn from the U.S. market in late 2021, but subsequent analyses have prompted the manufacturer to rescind its voluntary withdrawal to allow further discussions with the U.S. FDA and the regulatory review with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also ongoing. Here, we provide a review of the novel mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics of melflufen, as well as key efficacy and safety from clinical studies that supported its initial approval, and discuss the nuances of the OCEAN study data. Melflufen demonstrates the potential of novel peptide-drug conjugates to positively impact the treatment landscape in RRMM., (Copyright 2022 Clarivate.)

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CAJ reports personal fees from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Precision Biosciences, Nkarta, AbbVie, Bluebird Bio, Epizyme, Lonza, and Ipsen, outside the submitted work. DV reports personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Kite/Gilead, Kyowa Kirin, Sandoz Canada, Nanostring, Immunovaccine, Roche, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, and Lundbeck/Teva; and research funding (to his institution) from AstraZeneca and Roche, outside the submitted work. GV reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics; and grants from Breast Cancer Now, EORTC, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Pfizer, and IQVIA, outside the submitted work. JaG reports grants from Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Takeda, Servier, UCB, Amgen, Roche, Alnylam, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Biomarin, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Sobi, Gilead, and Bayer, outside the submitted work. JFS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support, and speakers bureau participation for AbbVie and Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from BMS; personal fees from Genentech, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Sunesis, and Takeda; and grants and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. JRW reports personal fees from Merck, Celgene, Cidara, ReViral, Shire, Ansun, Janssen, and Behring, outside the submitted work. KM reports grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. LN reports honoraria from ADC Therapeutics, Bayer, and Morphosys; grants and honoraria from BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech, Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and TG Therapeutics; and grants from Caribou Biosciences and IGM Biosciences, outside the submitted work. M-VM reports personal fees from Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Adaptive, GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from U24 CA076518 National Cancer Institute and grants from U24 HL138660 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, during the conduct of the study; grants from Amgen, Vor BioPharma, Gamida Cell, Medac, Magenta Therapeutics, Astellas, OncoImmune, and Genentech; and consulting fees from AlloVir, outside the submitted work. MJM reports personal fees from Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Immunovaccine Technology, and Takeda; consulting advisory roles for Merck, Juno Therapeutics, Teva, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from IGM Biosciences; and a consulting advisory role and research funding from Rocket Medical, outside the submitted work. PM reports personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, BMS, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. PS reports research support from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda; and honoraria and serving on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, BMS, and SkylineDx, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants and consulting fees from BMS, Janssen, and Magenta; grants from Allogene; and consulting fees from Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. TCE-G reports previous employment at Roche and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

We report the population pharmacokinetic (PK) and exposure-response analyses of a novel subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA) using data from 3 DARA subcutaneous monotherapy studies (PAVO Part 2, MMY1008, COLUMBA) and 1 combination therapy study (PLEIADES). Results were based on 5159 PK samples from 742 patients (DARA 1800 mg subcutaneously, n = 487 [monotherapy, n = 288; combination therapy, n = 199]; DARA 16 mg/kg intravenously, n = 255 [all monotherapy, in COLUMBA]; age, 33-92 years; weight, 28.6-147.6 kg). Subcutaneous and intravenous DARA monotherapies were administered once every week for cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter (1 cycle is 28 days). The subcutaneous DARA combination therapy was administered with the adaptation of corresponding standard-of-care regimens. PK samples were collected between cycle 1 and cycle 12. Among monotherapy studies, throughout the treatment period, subcutaneous DARA provided similar/slightly higher trough concentrations (C trough ) versus intravenous DARA, with lower maximum concentrations and smaller peak-to-trough fluctuations. The PK profile was consistent between subcutaneous DARA monotherapy and combination therapies. The exposure-response relationship between daratumumab PK and efficacy or safety end points was similar for subcutaneous and intravenous DARA. Although the ≤65-kg subgroup reported a higher incidence of neutropenia, no relationship was found between the incidence of neutropenia and exposure, which was attributed, in part, to the preexisting imbalance in neutropenia between subcutaneous DARA (45.5%) and intravenous DARA (19%) in patients ≤50 kg. A flat relationship was observed between body weight and any grade and at least grade 3 infections. The results support the DARA 1800-mg subcutaneous flat dose as an alternative to the approved intravenous DARA 16 mg/kg., (© 2020 Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the TOURMALINE-MM3 study, post-autologous stem cell transplantation maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib versus placebo significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), with a favorable safety profile. With ixazomib versus placebo maintenance, deepening responses occurred in 139/302 (46%) versus 60/187 (32%) patients with very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR) at study entry (relative risk 1.41, P = 0.004), and median time to best confirmed deepened response was 19.9 versus 30.8 months (24-month rate: 54.2 versus 41.4%; hazard ratio (HR): 1.384; P = 0.0342). Median PFS in patients with VGPR/PR at study entry was 26.2 versus 18.5 months (HR: 0.636, P < 0.001) with ixazomib versus placebo; in a pooled analysis across arms, in patients with versus without deepening responses, the median PFS was not reached versus 15.9 months (HR: 0.245, P < 0.001). In patients with deepening responses, 24-month PFS rate was 77.4 versus 68.3% with ixazomib versus placebo (HR: 0.831; P = 0.466); in patients without deepening responses, median PFS was 17.9 versus 14.1 months (HR: 0.741; P = 0.028). These analyses demonstrate the significantly higher rate of deepening responses with ixazomib versus placebo maintenance and the association between deepening response and prolonged PFS.

Background: Intravenous daratumumab for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma involves a lengthy infusion that affects quality of life, and infusion-related reactions are common. Subcutaneous daratumumab is thought to be easier to administer and to cause fewer administration-related reactions. In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous daratumumab., Methods: In this ongoing, multicentre (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) if they had confirmed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria; received at least three previous lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, or were double refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permuted blocks to receive daratumumab subcutaneously (subcutaneous group) or intravenously (intravenous group). Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bodyweight (≤65 kg, 66-85 kg, >85 kg), previous therapy lines (≤four vs >four), and myeloma type (IgG vs non-IgG). Patients received 1800 mg of subcutaneous daratumumab co-formulated with 2000 U/mL recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 or 16 mg/kg of intravenous daratumumab once weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter (28-day cycles) until progressive disease or toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were overall response and maximum trough concentration (C trough ; cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose). The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined using a 60% retention of the lower bound (20·8%) of the 95% CI of the SIRIUS trial. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population. The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received all eight weekly daratumumab doses in cycles 1 and 2 and provided a pre-dose pharmacokinetics blood sample on day 1 of cycle 3. The safety population included all patients who received at least one daratumumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03277105., Findings: Between Oct 31, 2017, and Dec 27, 2018, 655 patients were screened, of whom 522 were recruited and randomly assigned (subcutaneous group n=263; intravenous group n=259). Three patients in the subcutaneous group and one in the intravenous group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety. At a median follow-up of 7·5 months (IQR 6·5-9·3), overall response and C trough met the predefined non-inferiority criteria. An overall response was seen in 108 (41%) of 263 patients in the subcutaneous group and 96 (37%) of 259 in the intravenous group (relative risk 1·11, 95% CI 0·89-1·37). The geometric means ratio for C trough was 107·93% (90% CI 95·74-121·67), and the maximum C trough was 593 μg/mL (SD 306) in the subcutaneous group and 522 μg/mL (226) in the intravenous group. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [14%] of 258 patients in the intravenous group), neutropenia (34 [13%] and 20 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (36 [14%] and 35 [14%]). Pneumonia was the only serious adverse event in more than 2% of patients (seven [3%] in the subcutaneous group and 11 [4%] in the intravenous group). There was one death resulting from a treatment-related adverse event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (sepsis [n=2], hepatitis B reactivation [n=1], and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1])., Interpretation: Subcutaneous daratumumab was non-inferior to intravenous daratumumab in terms of efficacy and pharmacokinetics and had an improved safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These data could contribute to the approval of the subcutaneous daratumumab formulation by regulatory bodies., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Daratumumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved as monotherapy and in combination regimens for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, daratumumab is administered IV. The phase 1b PAVO (MMY1004) study evaluated subcutaneously administered daratumumab in combination with the recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 enzyme (rHuPH20) in patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Part 1 of the study, reported here, evaluated a mix-and-deliver (MD) formulation of daratumumab and rHuPH20 (DARA-MD) administered by subcutaneous infusion. Patients received subcutaneous daratumumab according to the approved IV monotherapy dosing schedule at 1200 mg (n = 8) or 1800 mg (n = 45). Primary end points were safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) variables. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DARA-MD 1200 mg were thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, insomnia, and decreased appetite (37.5% each). Anemia (33.3%), upper respiratory tract infection, pyrexia, and diarrhea (26.7% each) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DARA-MD 1800 mg. One patient in the 1200-mg dose group (12.5%) and 11 patients in the 1800-mg dose group (24.4%) experienced infusion-related reactions, which were generally grade 1/2 and typically occurred at the first infusion. The 1800 mg dose achieved similar or greater serum concentrations compared with the 16 mg/kg IV dose. Overall response rates of 25.0% and 42.2% were achieved with 1200-mg and 1800-mg DARA-MD, respectively. Subcutaneous administration of DARA-MD was well tolerated in patients with relapsed or refractory MM, with the 1800-mg dose exhibiting PK concentrations and responses consistent with IV daratumumab in a similar patient population. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02519452., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT., Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3-35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7-33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group., Interpretation: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: New treatment options are needed for patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. We assessed daratumumab, a novel CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial done in Canada, Spain, and the USA, patients (age ≥18 years) with multiple myeloma who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous daratumumab 8 mg/kg or 16 mg/kg in part 1 stage 1 of the study, to decide the dose for further assessment in part 2. Patients received 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 16 mg/kg per week for 8 weeks (cycles 1 and 2), then every 2 weeks for 16 weeks (cycles 3-6), and then every 4 weeks thereafter (cycle 7 and higher). The allocation schedule was computer-generated and randomisation, with permuted blocks, was done centrally with an interactive web response system. In part 1 stage 2 and part 2, patients received 16 mg/kg dosed as in part 1 stage 1. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (partial response [PR] + very good PR + complete response [CR] + stringent CR). All patients who received at least one dose of daratumumab were included in the analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01985126., Findings: The study is ongoing. In part 1 stage 1 of the study, 18 patients were randomly allocated to the 8 mg/kg group and 16 to the 16 mg/kg group. Findings are reported for the 106 patients who received daratumumab 16 mg/kg in parts 1 and 2. Patients received a median of five previous lines of therapy (range 2-14). 85 (80%) patients had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation, 101 (95%) were refractory to the most recent proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs used, and 103 (97%) were refractory to the last line of therapy. Overall responses were noted in 31 patients (29.2%, 95% CI 20.8-38.9)-three (2.8%, 0.6-8.0) had a stringent CR, ten (9.4%, 4.6-16.7) had a very good PR, and 18 (17.0%, 10.4-25.5) had a PR. The median time to first response was 1.0 month (range 0.9-5.6). Median duration of response was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.5-not estimable) and progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-4.6). The 12-month overall survival was 64.8% (95% CI 51.2-75.5) and, at a subsequent cutoff, median overall survival was 17.5 months (95% CI 13.7-not estimable). Daratumumab was well tolerated; fatigue (42 [40%] patients) and anaemia (35 [33%]) of any grade were the most common adverse events. No drug-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation., Interpretation: Daratumumab monotherapy showed encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated and refractory patients with multiple myeloma, with a favourable safety profile in this population of patients., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic clonal plasma cell disorder and bridges monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma (MM), based on higher levels of circulating monoclonal immunoglobulin and bone marrow plasmocytosis without end-organ damage. Until a Spanish study reported fewer MM-related events and better overall survival among patients with high-risk SMM treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, prior studies had failed to show improved survival with earlier intervention, although a reduction in skeletal-related events (without any impact on disease progression) has been described with bisphosphonate use. Risk factors have now been defined, and a subset of ultra-high-risk patients have been reclassified by the International Myeloma Working Group as MM, and thus will require optimal MM treatment, based on biomarkers that identify patients with a >80% risk of progression. The number of these redefined patients is small (∼10%), but important to unravel, because their risk of progression to overt MM is substantial (≥80% within 2 years). Patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile are not yet considered for early treatment, because groups are heterogeneous and risk factors other than cytogenetics are deemed to weight higher. Because patients with ultra-high-risk SMM are now considered as MM and may be treated as such, concerns exist that earlier therapy may increase the risk of selecting resistant clones and induce side effects and costs. Therefore, an even more accurate identification of patients who would benefit from interventions needs to be performed, and clinical judgment and careful discussion of pros and cons of treatment initiation need to be undertaken. For the majority of SMM patients, the standard of care remains observation until development of symptomatic MM occurs, encouraging participation in ongoing and upcoming SMM/early MM clinical trials, as well as consideration of bisphosphonate use in patients with early bone loss., (©AlphaMed Press.)

We conducted a pooled analysis of 869 individual newly diagnosed elderly patient data from 3 prospective trials. At diagnosis, a geriatric assessment had been performed. An additive scoring system (range 0-5), based on age, comorbidities, and cognitive and physical conditions, was developed to identify 3 groups: fit (score = 0, 39%), intermediate fitness (score = 1, 31%), and frail (score ≥2, 30%). The 3-year overall survival was 84% in fit, 76% in intermediate-fitness (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P = .042), and 57% in frail (HR, 3.57; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of grade ≥3 nonhematologic adverse events at 12 months was 22.2% in fit, 26.4% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.23; P = .217), and 34.0% in frail (HR, 1.74; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment discontinuation at 12 months was 16.5% in fit, 20.8% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.41; P = .052), and 31.2% in frail (HR, 2.21; P < .001) patients. Our frailty score predicts mortality and the risk of toxicity in elderly myeloma patients. The International Myeloma Working group proposes this score for the measurement of frailty in designing future clinical trials. These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093136 (EMN01), #NCT01190787 (26866138MMY2069), and #NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Introduction: Several novel proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory agents (IMIDs) with similar, but not exactly the same, mechanisms of action than their predecessors have been developed in the last years with three different aims: to increase the efficacy; to overcome the resistance and to exhibit a better toxicity profile., Areas Covered: This review summarizes the mechanism of action of novel PIs (carfilzomib, ONX-0912, MLN-9708, marizomib and CEP-18770) and IMIDs (pomalidomide), stressing the similarities and differences with their parental drugs. It also reviews their most updated clinical results. A search of the recent literature in published papers and abstracts from the most important oncology scientific meetings (ASCO and ASH) has been performed., Expert Opinion: Novel PIs and IMIDs show clinical activity as single agents and in combination with dexamethasone, with similar or even higher efficacy than their predecessors; moreover, they may even overcome resistance to their parental drugs, indicating that there are some differences in their mechanisms of action and resistance. The investigation of these mechanisms of resistance and ways to overcome it would allow the optimization of the sequential use of these agents, and the design of novel therapeutic strategies and more appropriate scientifically based combinations.

Melphalan-prednisone (MP) was introduced for the treatment of MM in late 1960s. In the subsequent 30 years, the treatment improvements remained stagnant, since more complex chemotherapy combinations, such as vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD), or with the addition of BCNU (VBAD) or melphalan and cyclophosphamide (VCMP), only led to small increases in the overall response rate but without differences in survival, as assessed in a large meta-analysis that included over 6000 patients. The next step forward was the use of high-dose melphalan followed by stem cell support (autologous stem cell transplant - ASCT) for young myeloma patients, which resulted in a significant improvement in disease free survival and overall survival. However, for elderly patients MP remained as the standard of care. From year 2000, a revolution in the treatment armamentarium of MM has emerged with the availability of new agents with singular mechanism of action such as thalidomide and lenalidomide (Revlimid®), both immunomodulatory drugs and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (Velcade®).

The current standard of care for elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is melphalan and prednisone (MP) in combination with either bortezomib (VMP) or thalidomide (MPT), with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone increasingly being employed. The addition of bortezomib or thalidomide to the established MP regimen significantly improves outcomes and prolongs survival in elderly and transplant-ineligible patients. However, these benefits are accompanied by increases in treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which may be particularly pronounced in older individuals. Patients receiving bortezomib as part of a VMP regimen commonly experience transient and cyclical thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, along with gastrointestinal AEs. Fortunately, these AEs can be managed with appropriate supportive care and, when necessary, adjustments in dose. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is the most important side effect of bortezomib, and although it is reversible in a high proportion of patients, it affects their quality of life. Furthermore, PN can require temporary or permanent withholding of bortezomib, which will reduce treatment efficacy. PN is also a common adverse effect of thalidomide; thromboembolic events are also a key concern, requiring thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving thalidomide in combination. For lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone, the most clinically important adverse effects are hematologic toxicity (particularly neutropenia) and thromboembolic events. Recent phase III studies in newly diagnosed elderly patients are providing further insight into the most appropriate treatment regimens to maximize outcomes and minimize toxicity in individual patients. Of note, once-weekly bortezomib dosing (in combination with MP±T) was shown to reduce the incidence of peripheral neuropathy and gastrointestinal events compared with twice-weekly dosing, while maintaining efficacy. Elderly patients may be less able to withstand the AEs associated with newer treatment regimens and combinations of multiple drugs, and may experience greater declines in quality of life and, subsequently, reduced treatment adherence. It is therefore critical that these patients are closely monitored and any emergent AEs promptly and appropriately managed. For very elderly, frail patients, tailored therapy, reduced intensity regimens, and adverse event management are necessary to encourage treatment adherence and reduce discontinuation. This article will provide practical guidance on the management of bortezomib-, thalidomide-, and lenalidomide-associated AEs, to maximize treatment feasibility and active drug delivered, and thus help minimize toxicity and maximize outcomes., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundTeclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.MethodsIn this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better).ResultsAmong 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2).ConclusionsTeclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).

Background: Twice a week carfilzomib at 27 mg/m2 is approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1, the first study exploring once-weekly carfilzomib dosing, established the maximum tolerated dose at 70 mg/m2 in combination with dexamethasone. We aimed to compare progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma given once weekly carfilzomib or twice weekly carfilzomib.Methods: In this prespecified interim analysis of the randomised, open-label, phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. trial, we recruited patients (aged 18 years and older) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with two or three treatments, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory agent, from hospital, clinic, oncology or medical centres. Key eligibility criteria were refractory to most recent therapy (including bortezomib or ixazomib) with measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive carfilzomib once a week (70 mg/m2) or twice a week (27 mg/m2). The randomisation sequence was generated using a validated randomisation software and implemented using an interactive response technology system that assigned patients to treatment sequentially based on the randomisation sequence as patients were enrolled at participating clinical sites. Patients were stratified by International Staging System stage at study entry or baseline, whether or not they were refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age (block size of 4). The once weekly group received carfilzomib (30 min intravenous infusion) on days 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 day 1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice weekly group received carfilzomib (10 min intravenous infusion) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (20 mg/m2 days 1 and 2 during cycle 1; 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All patients received dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 [all cycles] and 22 [cycles 1-9 only]). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival between groups in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analysis was done in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02412878, and is no longer enrolling patients.Findings: Between September, 2015, and August, 2016, 578 patients were recruited from 118 sites. 478 patients were randomly assigned and included in the efficacy analyses (240 to receive once weekly carfilzomib; 238 to receive twice weekly carfilzomib). Median progression-free survival was higher in the once weekly group than the twice weekly group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·6-13·0] vs 7·6 months [5·8-9·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·54-0·83; p=0·0029). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events was higher in the once weekly group than the twice weekly group (68% [n=161] vs 62% [n=145]); the most common events were anaemia, pneumonia, and thrombocytopenia (42 [18%] vs 42 [18%], 24 [10%] vs 16 [7%], and 17 [7%] vs 16 [7%], respectively for once weekly carfilzomib vs twice weekly carfilzomib). A lower proportion of patients had grade 3 or worse cardiac failure in the once weekly group (7 [3%]) than in the twice weekly group (10 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (2%) of 238 patients in the once weekly group (sepsis [n=1], death [n=1], acute lung injury [n=1], acute respiratory distress syndrome [n=1], and tumour lysis syndrome [n=1]) and in two (1%) of 235 patients in the twice weekly group (plasma cell myeloma [n=1] and congestive heart failure [n=1]). There were 58 deaths in the once weekly group and 68 deaths in the twice weekly group at the time of data cutoff.Interpretation: Once weekly carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus the twice weekly schedule. Overall safety was comparable between the groups. Once weekly carfilzomib appears safe and more effective with a convenient dosing regimen versus the twice weekly schedule for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.Funding: Amgen, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) is a standard-of-care for previously untreated, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (MM). Here, we compared outcomes between VMP regimens in the VISTA trial (9-cycle VMP schedule, including 4 cycles of twice weekly bortezomib) and the PETHEMA/GEM05 trial (less intensive 6-cycle VMP schedule with 1 cycle of twice weekly and 5 cycles of weekly bortezomib, then bortezomib-based maintenance). A total of 113 patient pairs matched by propensity score (estimated using logistic regression and incorporating eight exposure/outcome-related parameters) were included in this retrospective analysis. Median cumulative bortezomib dose was higher in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (49.6 vs 37.0 mg/m2); median dose intensity was lower (2.0 vs 5.1 mg/m2/month). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP) were significantly longer in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (PFS, 30.5 vs 20.0 months, p = 0.0265; TTP, 33.8 vs 24.2 months, p = 0.0049) after a median follow-up of 77.2 and 26.0 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was similar (61.3 vs 61.0 months, p = 0.6528; median follow-up, 77.6 vs 60.1 months). Post-induction complete response rate was lower in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (19 vs 31 %; p = 0.03318); on-study (including maintenance) rate was similar (30 vs 31 %; p = 0.89437). This analysis suggests that the less-intensive PETHEMA/GEM05 VMP regimen plus maintenance may improve PFS and TTP, but not OS, compared with the VISTA VMP regimen.Trial Registrations: NCT00111319, NCT00443235. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The role of high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) in the up-front treatment of poor-risk aggressive lymphoma is still unknown. We conducted a prospective multi-centre trial with dose-escalated CHOP (MegaCHOP) and tailored intensification prior to HDT/ASCT according to early response assessed by CT and gallium scan (Ga67S). Patients and methods: Eighty-six patients with newly diagnosed and Ga-67 avid aggressive B-cell lymphoma received MegaCHOP for three courses and were evaluated for response by CT and Ga67S. Patients with CT response and negative Ga67S received another MegaCHOP cycle followed by BEAM and ASCT. Those patients with positive Ga67S or without CT response received salvage treatment with two courses of ifosfamide and etoposide (IFE) followed, whenever response had been achieved, by BEAM and ASCT. Results: Response rate before HDT/ASCT was 85% and, with 34 months of median follow-up, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related mortality were 56%, 64% and 7%, respectively. For transplanted patients (81% of the whole series), PFS and OS were 67% and 74%, respectively. No different outcomes were observed between patients achieving an early negative Ga67S response treated with MegaCHOP and BEAM/ASCT and patients with mid-treatment positive Ga67S who received IFE prior BEAM/ASCT. Conclusions: This response-adapted strategy including early treatment modifications prior HDT/ASCT have yielded encouraging PFS and OS in patients with poor-risk B aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1-21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736.Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4-20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3-19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5-9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47-0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group.Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting.Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]