Search

Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA., Methods: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383., Findings: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM served on advisory boards for and received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Pfizer. CH received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, AbbVie, and Pfizer. AP served in a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Takeda. BA received research funding (paid to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb; received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and GSK; received travel funding from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi; and served on an advisory board for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda. KB has a direct financial relationship with Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. SZ received research support from Janssen and Takeda; and served on advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Amgen, and Takeda. MD received honoraria from and served in a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Stemline; and received research funding from Janssen. CS received consulting fees or honoraria from Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. MMo received honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi. LK received honoraria from, served on advisory boards for, or received travel funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. MMa received honoraria from and served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Sanofi, and Takeda; received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; and received travel, accommodations, or expenses from Janssen and Sanofi. FO-P served on boards for Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. MR served on an advisory board for Janssen and Pfizer; received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi; gave lectures for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed by Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. JMSdC served on an advisory board and received honoraria from Janssen, Sanofi, GSK, and AbbVie; and received accommodations from Pfizer and Amgen. NWCJvdD received research support from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and serves on advisory boards for Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Adaptive, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Servier (all paid to institution). AB served on advisory boards for Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. CT served on an advisory board for and received honoraria from Janssen. NM served on an advisory board for Janssen. M-CV received travel support from Janssen and Sanofi. M-DL received travel expenses from Janssen. WH is an employee of Cytel and is a contractor for Johnson & Johnson. JW, CdB, MR, VV, RC, and JV are employees of Janssen and hold stock in Johnson & Johnson. AT is an employee of Janssen. JC served on advisory boards for Sanofi and Bristol Myers Squibb; served as a consultant for Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Adaptive; received research support from Sanofi and Bristol Myers Squibb; and received travel support from Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. PS served on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Pfizer; and received research funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Karyopharm. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status., Results: At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P = 0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group., Conclusions: The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Survival is poor among patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, previously led to deep, durable responses in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this international, open-label, phase 3 trial involving adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously (including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and daratumumab) and who had disease refractory to the last regimen, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ide-cel (dose range, 150×10 6 to 450×10 6 CAR-positive T cells) or one of five standard regimens. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall response (partial response or better) and overall survival. Safety was assessed., Results: A total of 386 patients underwent randomization: 254 to ide-cel and 132 to a standard regimen. A total of 66% of the patients had triple-class-refractory disease, and 95% had daratumumab-refractory disease. At a median follow-up of 18.6 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.3 months in the ide-cel group, as compared with 4.4 months in the standard-regimen group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). A response occurred in 71% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 42% of those in the standard-regimen group (P<0.001); a complete response occurred in 39% and 5%, respectively. Data on overall survival were immature. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 93% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 75% of those in the standard-regimen group. Among the 225 patients who received ide-cel, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 88%, with 5% having an event of grade 3 or higher, and investigator-identified neurotoxic effects occurred in 15%, with 3% having an event of grade 3 or higher., Conclusions: Ide-cel therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response as compared with standard regimens in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously. The toxicity of ide-cel was consistent with previous reports. (Funded by 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company; KarMMa-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03651128.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only., Methods: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants., Findings: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment., Interpretation: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy., Funding: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM reports personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. CH reports personal fees from Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. AP reports personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. BA reports grants from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and Janssen, outside the submitted work; and advisory board participation from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. KB reports grants from Celgene outside the submitted work; personal fees from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, and Amgen, outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Celgene, AbbVie, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. SZ reports grants from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda, during the conduct of the study. MD reports grants from Celgene and Janssen during the conduct of the study; participation on an advisory board for Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. TD reports grants from Celgene and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees and advisory board participation from Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, and Amgen, outside of the submitted work. CD reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. TF reports personal fees from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. CS reports personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. MMo reports grants from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene; non-financial support from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene; and personal fees from Stemline, BMS, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, GSK, Sanofi, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. LK reports personal fees from Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and AbbVie, outside the submitted work. XL reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. MMa reports personal fees from and advisory board participation for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. A-MS reports personal fees from Celgene outside the submitted work. NWCJvdD reports grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Servier, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. AB reports personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CT reports personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitter work. MR reports grants from Janssen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and travel support from Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Takeda, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. M-DL reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees and advisory board participation from AbbVie, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. TA reports employment and equity ownership from Genmab. MK reports employment with Janssen. KZ reports employment with Janssen. CdB reports employment and equity ownership from Janssen. SV reports employment with Janssen. TK reports employment with Janssen. VV reports employment with Janssen. JV reports employment with Janssen. HA-L reports grants from Celgene and Janssen, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. PS reports personal fees from Celgene and Janssen, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Selinexor is an oral, selective nuclear export inhibitor. STORM was a phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial of selinexor with low dose dexamethasone in patients with penta-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that met its primary endpoint, with overall response of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19 to 35%). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). This study examines impact of selinexor treatment on HRQoL of patients treated in STORM and reports two approaches to calculate minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM., Methods: FACT-MM data were collected at baseline, on day 1 of each 4-week treatment cycle, and at end of treatment (EOT). Changes from baseline were analyzed for the FACT-MM total score, FACT-trial outcome index (TOI), FACT-General (FACT-G), and the MM-specific domain using mixed-effects regression models. Two approaches for evaluating minimal clinically important differences were explored: the first defined as 10% of the instrument range, and the second based on estimated mean baseline differences between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores. Post-hoc difference analysis compared change in scores from baseline to EOT for treatment responders and non-responders., Results: Eighty patients were included in the analysis; the mean number of prior therapies was 7.9 (standard deviation [SD] 3.1), and mean duration of myeloma was 7.6 years (SD 3.4). Each exploratory minimal clinically important difference threshold yielded consistent results whereby most patients did not experience HRQoL decline during the first six cycles of treatment (range: 53.9 to 75.7% for the first approach; range: 52.6 to 72.9% for the second). Treatment responders experienced less decline in HRQoL from baseline to EOT than non-responders, which was significant for the FACT-G, but not for other scores., Conclusion: The majority of patients did not experience decline in HRQoL based on minimal clinically important differences during early cycles of treatment with selinexor and dexamethasone in the STORM trial. An anchor-based approach utilizing patient-level data (ECOG PS score) to define minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM gave consistent results with a distribution-based approach., Trial Registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the trial-ID NCT02336815 on January 8, 2015., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

To understand the profile of best responders (complete response or better [≥CR]) to carfilzomib, we described the characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) data, and the safety of patients who achieved ≥CR to carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR. In post hoc analyses from ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, median PFS and OS were longer for ≥CR patients versus those who achieved a very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR). In the carfilzomib arm of ASPIRE, median PFS was 50.4 months for ≥CR versus 22.1 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was 67.0 versus 44.2 months, respectively. In the carfilzomib arm of ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 34.0 for ≥CR versus 20.4 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was non-estimable. Despite the longer treatment duration, fewer patients with ≥CR versus VGPR/PR experienced treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE or ENDEAVOR. Low serum lactate dehydrogenase was the only factor associated with achieving ≥CR vs patients not achieving CR in ASPIRE in multivariate regression analyses. No association was found between cytogenetic risk status and reaching ≥CR. Carfilzomib treatment may lead to rapid and deep responses, irrespective of most patient characteristics.

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study., Patients and Methods: PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs., Results: A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score., Conclusion: D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

Background: Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) and forces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibits nuclear factor κB, and reduces oncoprotein messenger RNA translation, is a potential novel treatment for myeloma that is refractory to current therapeutic options., Methods: We administered oral selinexor (80 mg) plus dexamethasone (20 mg) twice weekly to patients with myeloma who had previous exposure to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and an alkylating agent and had disease refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory agent, and daratumumab (triple-class refractory). The primary end point was overall response, defined as a partial response or better, with response assessed by an independent review committee. Clinical benefit, defined as a minimal response or better, was a secondary end point., Results: A total of 122 patients in the United States and Europe were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and 123 were included in the safety population. The median age was 65 years, and the median number of previous regimens was 7; a total of 53% of the patients had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A partial response or better was observed in 26% of patients (95% confidence interval, 19 to 35), including two stringent complete responses; 39% of patients had a minimal response or better. The median duration of response was 4.4 months, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.6 months. Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typically grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 events were noted in up to 25% of patients, and no grade 4 events were reported). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% of the patients (grade 3 in 25% and grade 4 in 33%). Thrombocytopenia led to bleeding events of grade 3 or higher in 6 patients., Conclusions: Selinexor-dexamethasone resulted in objective treatment responses in patients with myeloma refractory to currently available therapies. (Funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics; STORM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336815.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation is standard treatment in Europe for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We evaluated whether the addition of daratumumab to VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation would improve stringent complete response rate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: In this two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 CASSIOPEIA trial, we recruited transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at 111 European sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive four pre-transplant induction and two post-transplant consolidation cycles of VTd alone (VTd group) or in combination with daratumumab (D-VTd group). The primary endpoint of part 1 was stringent complete response assessed 100 days after transplantation. Part 2 (maintenance) is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02541383., Findings: Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled at 111 European sites and were randomly assigned to the D-VTd group (n=543) or the VTd group (n=542). At day 100 after transplantation, 157 (29%) of 543 patients in the D-VTd group and 110 (20%) of 542 patients in the VTd group in the intention-to-treat population had achieved a stringent complete response (odds ratio 1·60, 95% CI 1·21-2·12, p=0·0010). 211 (39%) patients in the D-VTd group versus 141 (26%) in the VTd group achieved a complete response or better, and 346 (64%) of 543 versus 236 (44%) of 542 achieved minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 sensitivity threshold, assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry; both p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival from first randomisation was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·33-0·67, p<0·0001). 46 deaths on study were observed (14 vs 32, 0·43, 95% CI 0·23-0·80). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (28% vs 15%), lymphopenia (17% vs 10%), and stomatitis (13% vs 16%)., Interpretation: D-VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation improved depth of response and progression-free survival with acceptable safety. CASSIOPEIA is the first study showing the clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard of care in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in clinical trials may differ from the oncology practice experience. The electronic VELCADE ® OBservational Study was designed to prospectively evaluate bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) in real-world medical practice., Method: Patients scheduled to receive intravenous bortezomib for MM were eligible. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes, including response, time to response, time to next therapy, treatment-free interval, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included safety and healthcare resource utilization., Results: In total, 873 patients with a median of two therapy lines prior to initiating bortezomib were included. The overall response rate (≥partial response) was 69%, including 37% complete response/near-complete response. Median time to response was 1.8 months, median time to next therapy was 9.7 months, and median treatment-free interval was 7.9 months. After 22.6 months' median follow-up, median PFS was 12.0 months and median OS was 36.1 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) were neuropathy not otherwise specified (19%), diarrhea NOS, and thrombocytopenia (each 17%); 230 (26%) patients discontinued bortezomib due to AEs. Of 689 (79%) patients without baseline peripheral neuropathy (PN), the rate of new-onset any-grade PN increased to 51% (12% grade 3/4) by cycle 8. Overall, 244 (28%) patients were hospitalized, 372 (43%) attended an outpatient visit, and 341 (39%) underwent a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure during bortezomib treatment., Conclusion: These prospective real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of bortezomib-based therapy for RRMM and confirm high response rates and long OS for this population., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma are susceptible to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Managing AEs are important to ensure patients continue therapy long enough to receive the best clinical benefit. Data from the MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 trials were pooled to further characterize the safety profile of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and AE management., Methods: This analysis included 1088 patients who received ≥ 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and progressed ≤ 60 days of last therapy. Patients received 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg/day on days 1-21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged > 75 years) weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thromboprophylaxis was required., Results: The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (56.2%), anemia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (25.8%), which occurred within the first few cycles of treatment. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 33.7% patients, of whom 13.9% had pneumonia, and 40.3% had neutropenia. Pomalidomide dose reductions or interruptions were reported in 24.2% and 66.0% of patients, respectively. AEs were managed by dose modifications and/or supportive care., Conclusions: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed an acceptable safety profile, and AEs were well managed according to study protocols and established guidelines., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The treatment of multiple myeloma is considered a continuously evolving paradigm as a result of the growing availability of new and highly effective drugs, including first- and second-generation proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal antibodies. Clinical trials advocate long-term rather than short-term treatment schedules with combinations of these new anti-myeloma drug classes. Although the overall toxicity profile of the recommended regimens can be considered favorable, their increasing complexity and prolonged use warrant a heightened vigilance for early and late side effects, a priori because real-life patients can be more frail or present with 1 or more comorbidities. The treatment decision process, at diagnosis and at relapse, therefore requires myeloma physicians to carefully balance efficacy and toxicity profiles for each individual patient. Early and/or unnecessary tapering or treatment discontinuation for drug-related adverse events may not only reduce patients' quality of life, but also negatively impact their outcome. Accurate knowledge in recognizing and managing the potential side effects of present-day treatment regimens is therefore a cornerstone in myeloma care. Using 5 case vignettes, we discuss how to prevent and manage the most common nonhematological adverse events of anti-myeloma treatment regimens containing proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies., (© 2017 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Renal impairment (RI) is a major comorbidity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Here we present the pooled safety and efficacy analysis of three clinical trials (MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010) of pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) in patients with moderate RI (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 to <60 mL/min) and without RI (≥ 60 mL/min). Trial protocols were approved by the institutional review board of each site involved. Patients with RI were older than patients without RI, although other baseline characteristics were similar. The dosing and safety profile of POM + LoDEX was similar across RI subgroups. Median overall response rate, progression-free survival, time to progression, and duration of response were not significantly different between RI subgroups. However, patients with vs. without RI had significantly shorter median overall survival (10.5 vs. 14.0 months, respectively; p = .004). This analysis demonstrates that POM + LoDEX is a safe and effective treatment for patients with moderate RI. The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00833833 (MM-002), NCT01311687 (MM-003), and NCT01712789 (MM-010) and at EudraCT as 2010-019820-30 (MM-003) and 2012-001888-78 (MM-010).

In the last decades, treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has greatly improved due to the introduction of novel agents, including proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs). Given their generalized use at diagnosis and at relapse and their proven benefit for the large cohort of MM patients, it is of pivotal importance to also critically evaluate any benefit of these agents in very elderly (>75years) and frail patients. This review gives an overview of the benefits and toxicities of the currently available treatments in very elderly MM patients with a focus on first-line treatment. In addition we discuss the role of geriatric assessment to optimize treatment efficacy in the more vulnerable cohort., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have poor prognosis. The STRATUS study assessed safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in the largest cohort to date of patients with RRMM. Patients who failed treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide and had adequate prior alkylator therapy were eligible. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles with low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was the primary end point; secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Among 682 patients enrolled, median age was 66 years, and median time since diagnosis was 5.3 years. Median number of prior regimens was 5. Most patients were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib (80.2%). Median follow-up was 16.8 months; median duration of treatment was 4.9 months. Most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hematologic (neutropenia [49.7%], anemia [33.0%], and thrombocytopenia [24.1%]). Most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities were pneumonia (10.9%) and fatigue (5.9%). Grade 3/4 venous thromboembolism and peripheral neuropathy were rare (1.6% each). The ORR was 32.6%, and the median DOR was 7.4 months. Median PFS and OS were 4.6 months and 11.9 months, respectively. We present the largest trial to date evaluating pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with RRMM, further confirming that this regimen offers clinically meaningful benefit and is generally well tolerated. www.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01712789., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated for refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after bortezomib and lenalidomide failure. The phase III trial MM-003 compared pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone. This subanalysis grouped patients by baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 30 - < 60 mL/min (n=93, pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone; n=56, high-dose dexamethasone) or ≥ 60 mL/min (n=205, pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone; n=93, high-dose dexamethasone). Median progression-free survival was similar for both subgroups and favored pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone: 4.0 versus 1.9 months in the group with baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 30 - < 60 mL/min (P<0.001) and 4.0 versus 2.0 months in the group with baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min (P<0.001). Median overall survival for pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone was 10.4 versus 4.9 months (P=0.030) and 15.5 versus 9.2 months (P=0.133), respectively. Improved renal function, defined as an increase in creatinine clearance from < 60 to ≥ 60 mL/min, was similar in pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone patients (42% and 47%, respectively). Improvement in progression-free and overall survival in these patients was comparable with that in patients without renal impairment. There was no increase in discontinuations of therapy, dose modifications, and adverse events in patients with moderate renal impairment. Pomalidomide at a starting dose of 4 mg + low-dose dexamethasone is well tolerated in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and of comparable efficacy if moderate renal impairment is present. This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov identifier 01311687 and EudraCT identifier 2010-019820-30., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Purpose: Continuous therapy (CT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death), but chemotherapy-resistant relapse may negatively impact overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death) may represent an additional tool to estimate outcome. This study evaluates the benefit of novel agent-based CT versus fixed duration of therapy (FDT) in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma., Methods: We included patients enrolled onto three phase III trials that randomly assigned patients to novel agent-based CT versus FDT. Primary analyses were restricted to the intent-to-treat population eligible for CT (patients progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment). Primary end points were PFS1, PFS2, and OS. All hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were adjusted for several potential confounders using Cox models., Results: In the pooled analysis of the three trials, 604 patients were randomly assigned to CT and 614 were assigned to FDT. Median follow-up was 52 months. In the intent-to-treat CT population, CT (n = 417), compared with FDT (n = 410), significantly improved PFS1 (median, 32 v 16 months, respectively; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.56; P < .001), PFS2 (median, 55 v 40 months, respectively; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75; P < .001), and OS (4-year OS, 69% v 60%, respectively; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; P = .003)., Conclusion: In this pooled analysis, CT significantly improved PFS1, PFS2, and OS. The improvement in PFS2 suggests that the benefit reported during first remission is not cancelled by a shorter second remission. PFS2 is a valuable end point to estimate long-term clinical benefit and should be included in future trials., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who no longer receive benefit from novel agents have limited treatment options and short expected survival. del(17p) and t(4;14) are correlated with shortened survival. The phase 3 MM-003 trial demonstrated significant progression-free and overall survival benefits from treatment with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone compared to high-dose dexamethasone among patients in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment had failed. At an updated median follow-up of 15.4 months, the progression-free survival was 4.0 versus 1.9 months (HR, 0.50; P<0.001), and median overall survival was 13.1 versus 8.1 months (HR, 0.72; P=0.009). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with high-dose dexamethasone, improved progression-free survival in patients with del(17p) (4.6 versus 1.1 months; HR, 0.34; P <0.001), t(4;14) (2.8 versus 1.9 months; HR, 0.49; P=0.028), and in standard-risk patients (4.2 versus 2.3 months; HR, 0.55; P<0.001). Although the majority of patients treated with high-dose dexamethasone took pomalidomide after discontinuation, the overall survival of patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone or high-dose dexamethasone was 12.6 versus 7.7 months (HR, 0.45; P=0.008) in patients with del(17p), 7.5 versus 4.9 months (HR, 1.12; P=0.761) in those with t(4;14), and 14.0 versus 9.0 months (HR, 0.85; P=0.380) in standard-risk subjects. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone than in those treated with high-dose dexamethasone both among standard-risk patients (35.2% versus 9.7%) and those with del(17p) (31.8% versus 4.3%), whereas it was similar in patients with t(4;14) (15.9% versus 13.3%). The safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was consistent with initial reports. In conclusion, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is efficacious in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and del(17p) and/or t(4;14). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01311687 and with EudraCT as 2010-019820-30., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

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., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

We compared the health-related quality-of-life of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged over 65 years or transplant-ineligible in the pivotal, phase III FIRST trial. Patients received: i) continuous lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression; ii) fixed cycles of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone for 18 months; or iii) fixed cycles of melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide for 18 months. Data were collected using the validated questionnaires (QLQ-MY20, QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D). The analysis focused on the EQ-5D utility value and six domains pre-selected for their perceived clinical relevance. Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone, and melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide improved patients' health-related quality-of-life from baseline over the duration of the study across all pre-selected domains of the QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D. In the QLQ-MY20, lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in the Disease Symptoms domain compared with melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide at Month 3, and significantly lower scores for QLQ-MY20 Side Effects of Treatment at all post-baseline assessments except Month 18. Linear mixed-model repeated-measures analyses confirmed the results observed in the cross-sectional analysis. Continuous lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone delays disease progression versus melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide and has been associated with a clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality-of-life. These results further establish continuous lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone as a new standard of care for initial therapy of myeloma by demonstrating superior health-related quality-of-life during treatment, compared with melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

In a prospective multicenter phase II study, we evaluated the effect of three courses of vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation on an intention-to-treat basis. Sixty-nine newly diagnosed patients with amyloid light chain amyloidosis were included between November 2000 and January 2006: 37 men and 32 women with a median age of 56 years, including 46% of patients with cardiac and 22% of patients with involvement of 3 or 4 organs. Initial results presented in 2008 showed a 4-year overall survival rate of 62% among all the patients, while the 4-year survival rate after transplantation was 78%. Here we report the long-term follow-up data after a median follow up of 115 months of the patients still alive. Median survival of all patients was 96 months from registration and for the transplanted patients ten years from the date of transplantation. Twelve (12%) patients died during induction therapy with vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone, including 8 patients (12%) due to treatment-related mortality. Two patients died within one month following high-dose melphalan. We conclude that vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone should not be applied as induction therapy for intensification in amyloid light chain amyloidosis. However, a 2-step approach consisting of a non-intensive less toxic induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation may result in extended survival in newly diagnosed patients with amyloid light chain amyloidosis (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01207094)., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

In the phase III MM-003 trial, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) improved overall survival (OS) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in 455 patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Here, a two-stage Weibull method was used to adjust for the crossover of patients in the HiDEX arm to pomalidomide-based therapy. The adjusted difference in median OS between patients in the POM+LoDEX and HiDEX arms was 7·0 months (12·7 vs. 5·7 months, respectively). These findings provide important evidence for understanding the clinical efficacy of pomalidomide on OS benefits seen in RRMM patients., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

High-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients have usually a less favorable outcome after intensive treatment compared with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. This may reflect different disease-related and patient-related factors. The purpose of this analysis is to identify disease-specific prognostic factors and to develop prognostic scores for both patient groups. A total of 692 patients in the EORTC/GIMEMA AML-10 study and 289 patients in the CRIANT study received identical remission-induction and consolidation treatment. Estimated 5-year survival rate was 34 % in the AML-10 versus 27 % in the CRIANT study, and estimated disease-free survival was 40 % versus 28 %, respectively. In multivariate analysis, cytogenetic characteristics, white blood count, and age appeared prognostic for survival in both studies. French-American-British (FAB) subtype and performance status were prognostic in the AML-10 study only, whereas number of cytopenias and duration of antecedent hematologic disorder >6 months were prognostic in the CRIANT study only. The prognostic scores distinguish three groups with a 5-year survival rate of 54, 38, and 19 % in the AML-10 study versus 69, 37, and 5 % in the CRIANT study. The prognostic value of these scores has been validated on two external series. The new scoring systems form a practical tool to predict the outcome of individual MDS and AML patients treated with intensive antileukemic therapy.

Background: The combination melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) is considered a standard therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. However, emerging data on the use of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone warrant a prospective comparison of the two approaches., Methods: We randomly assigned 1623 patients to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in 28-day cycles until disease progression (535 patients), to the same combination for 72 weeks (18 cycles; 541 patients), or to MPT for 72 weeks (547 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus MPT., Results: The median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 20.7 months with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 21.2 months with MPT (hazard ratio for the risk of progression or death, 0.72 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. MPT and 0.70 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was superior to MPT for all secondary efficacy end points, including overall survival (at the interim analysis). Overall survival at 4 years was 59% with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 56% with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 51% with MPT. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were somewhat less frequent with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone than with MPT (70% vs. 78%). As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with fewer hematologic and neurologic toxic events, a moderate increase in infections, and fewer second primary hematologic cancers., Conclusions: As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone given until disease progression was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with an overall survival benefit at the interim analysis, among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by Intergroupe, Francophone du Myélome and Celgene; FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00689936; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number, 2007-004823-39.).

In the MM-015 trial, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus melphalan-prednisone (MP) in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma aged ≥ 65 years. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a secondary endpoint of MM-015, was also improved with MPR-R. This sub-analysis evaluated the impact of individual predictive factors on HRQoL. Patients completed HRQoL questionnaires at baseline, every third cycle and at progressive disease (PD)/treatment discontinuation. In a mixed-effects model female gender, advanced age and PD negatively affected HRQoL while better treatment responses showed positive effects. Compared to PD, HRQoL during MPR-R treatment was statistically significantly better in two of six preselected domains both of which were also clinically meaningful. HRQoL scores at end of treatment were all either improved or not statistically significantly different versus baseline. In conclusion, continuous treatment with MPR-R, which delays PD, appears to be associated with clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL.

Background: Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients., Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1-21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30., Findings: The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2-13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6-4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9-2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39-0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group., Interpretation: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Celgene Corporation., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The MM-015 trial assessed the effect of lenalidomide-based therapy on health-related quality of life. Patients (n=459) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or over were randomized 1:1:1 to nine 4-week cycles of lenalidomide, melphalan, and prednisone, followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or lenalidomide, melphalan, and prednisone, or melphalan and prednisone, with no maintenance therapy. Patients completed health-related quality of life questionnaires at baseline, after every third treatment cycle, and at treatment end. Health-related quality of life improved in all treatment groups during induction therapy. Patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance had the most pronounced improvements, Global Health Status/Quality of Life (P<0.05), Physical Functioning (P<0.01), and Side Effects of Treatment (P<0.05) out of 6 pre-selected health-related quality of life domains. More patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance achieved minimal important differences (P<0.05 for Physical Functioning). Therefore, lenalidomide, melphalan, and prednisone, followed by lenalidomide maintenance, improves health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00405756).

Purpose: This final analysis of the phase III VISTA trial (Velcade As Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment With Melphalan and Prednisone) was conducted to determine whether the overall survival (OS) benefit with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan-prednisone (MP) in patients with myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation was maintained after 5 years of follow-up and to explore the risk of second primary malignancies., Patients and Methods: In all, 682 patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP or MP and were then observed every 12 weeks or less. Data on second primary malignancies were collected by individual patient inquiries at all sites from 655 patients., Results: After median follow-up of 60.1 months (range, 0 to 74 months), there was a 31% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.695; P < .001; median OS 56.4 v 43.1 months). OS benefit with VMP was seen across prespecified patient subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, stage III myeloma, creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min). Sixty-three percent of VMP patients and 73% of MP patients had received subsequent therapy. Time to next therapy (median, 30.7 v 20.5 months; HR, 0.557; P < .001) was longer with VMP than with MP. Among patients who received subsequent therapies, survival from start of subsequent therapy was similar following VMP (median, 28.1 months) or MP (median, 26.8 months; HR, 0.914). Following VMP/MP, incidence proportions of hematologic malignancies (1%/1%) and solid tumors (5%/3%) and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (0.017/0.013 per patient-year) were similar and were consistent with background rates., Conclusion: VMP resulted in a significant reduction in risk of death versus MP that was maintained after 5 years' follow-up and despite substantial use of novel-agent-based salvage therapies. There is no emerging safety signal for second primary malignancies following VMP.

Objectives: The phase 3 VISTA study (ClinicalTrials.gov 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 (ClinicalTrials.gov 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., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Lenalidomide has tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity against multiple myeloma. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized study compared melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or melphalan-prednisone (MP) followed by placebo in patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-week cycles of MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until a relapse or disease progression occurred [152 patients]) or to receive MPR (153 patients) or MP (154 patients) without maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with MPR-R (31 months) than with MPR (14 months; hazard ratio, 0.49; P<0.001) or MP (13 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Response rates were superior with MPR-R and MPR (77% and 68%, respectively, vs. 50% with MP; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively, for the comparison with MP). The progression-free survival benefit associated with MPR-R was noted in patients 65 to 75 years of age but not in those older than 75 years of age (P=0.001 for treatment-by-age interaction). After induction therapy, a landmark analysis showed a 66% reduction in the rate of progression with MPR-R (hazard ratio for the comparison with MPR, 0.34; P<0.001) that was age-independent. During induction therapy, the most frequent adverse events were hematologic; grade 4 neutropenia was reported in 35%, 32%, and 8% of the patients in the MPR-R, MPR, and MP groups, respectively. The 3-year rate of second primary tumors was 7% with MPR-R, 7% with MPR, and 3% with MP., Conclusions: MPR-R significantly prolonged progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefit observed in patients 65 to 75 years of age. (Funded by Celgene; MM-015 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405756.).

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 1.3 mg/m(2) , days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9mg/m(2) and prednisone 60mg/m(2) , 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 & Sons A/S.)

The arrival of the novel agents thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide has significantly changed our approach to the management of multiple myeloma and, importantly, patient outcomes have improved. These agents have been investigated intensively in different treatment settings, providing us with data to make evidence-based decisions regarding the optimal management of patients. This review is an update to a previous summary of European treatment practices that examines new data that have been published or presented at congresses up to the end of 2010 and assesses their impact on treatment practices.

The phase 3 trial HOVON-50 was designed to evaluate the effect of thalidomide during induction treatment and as maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who were transplant candidates. A total of 556 patients was randomly assigned to arm A: 3 cycles of vincristine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone, or to arm B: thalidomide 200 mg orally, days 1 to 28 plus adriamycin and dexamethasone. After induction therapy and stem cell mobilization, patients were to receive high-dose melphalan, 200 mg/m(2), followed by maintenance with alpha-interferon (arm A) or thalidomide 50 mg daily (arm B). Thalidomide significantly improved overall response rate as well as quality of the response before and after high dose melphalan. Best overall response rate on protocol was 88% and 79% (P = .005), at least very good partial remission 66% and 54% (P = .005), and complete remission 31% and 23% (P = .04), respectively, in favor of the thalidomide arm. Thalidomide also significantly improved event-free survival from median 22 months to 34 months (P < .001), and prolonged progression free from median 25 months to 34 months (P < .001). Median survival was longer in the thalidomide arm, 73 versus 60 months; however, this difference was not significant (P = .77). Patients randomized to thalidomide had strongly reduced survival after relapse. This trial was registered on www.controlled-trials.com as ISRCTN06413384.

PURPOSE To assess bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and melphalan and prednisone (MP) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) with renal impairment enrolled on the phase III VISTA study, and to evaluate renal impairment reversibility. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received nine 6-week cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), melphalan 9 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)) or MP. Patients with serum creatinine higher than 2 mg/dL were excluded. Results In the VMP/MP arms, 6%/4%, 27%/30%, and 67%/66% of patients had baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of < or = 30, 31 to 50, and higher than 50 mL/min, respectively. Response rates were higher and time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) longer with VMP versus MP across renal cohorts. Response rates with VMP and TTP in both arms did not appear significantly different between patients with GFR < or = 50 or higher than 50 mL/min; OS appeared somewhat longer in patients with normal renal function in both arms. Renal impairment reversal (baseline GFR < 50 improving to > 60 mL/min) was seen in 49 (44%) of 111 patients receiving VMP versus 40 (34%) of 116 patients receiving MP. By multivariate analysis, younger age (< 75 years; P = .006) and less severe impairment (GFR > or = 30 mL/min; P = .027) were associated with higher reversal rates. In addition, treatment with VMP approached significance (P = .07). In both arms, rates of grade 4 and 5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs appeared higher in patients with renal impairment; with VMP, rates of discontinuations/bortezomib dose reductions due to AEs did not appear affected. CONCLUSION VMP is a feasible, active, and well-tolerated treatment option for previously untreated patients with MM with moderate renal impairment, resulting in 44% renal impairment reversal.

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.).