Search

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 ) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM., (© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Due in part to racial disparities and underrepresentation in clinical studies, optimal therapies for Black patients with multiple myeloma remain undefined. This final analysis of GRIFFIN by race showed that the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) provides clinical benefit among both Black and White transplant-eligible newly diagnosed patients compared with RVd alone. However, Black patients were more likely to discontinue ≥1 drug due to treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, these findings suggest a benefit of D-RVd front-line therapy among Black and White patients and underscore the importance of equitable treatment access for all patients., (© 2024 Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777., Methods: Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd., Results: PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results., Conclusion: This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In the MASTER study (NCT03224507), daratumumab+carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) demonstrated promising efficacy in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In GRIFFIN (NCT02874742), daratumumab+lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved outcomes for transplant-eligible NDMM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs; del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], or gain/amp[1q21]). Among 123 D-KRd patients, 43.1%, 37.4%, and 19.5% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Among 120 D-RVd patients, 55.8%, 28.3%, and 10.8% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Rates of complete response or better (best on study) for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs were 90.6%, 89.1%, and 70.8% for D-KRd, and 90.9%, 78.8%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. At median follow-up (MASTER, 31.1 months; GRIFFIN, 49.6 months for randomized patients/59.5 months for safety run-in patients), MRD-negativity rates as assessed by next-generation sequencing (10 -5 ) were 80.0%, 86.4%, and 83.3% for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs for D-KRd, and 76.1%, 55.9%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. PFS was similar between studies and superior for 0 or 1 versus ≥2 HRCAs: 36-month PFS rates for D-KRd were 89.9%, 86.2%, and 52.4%, and 96.7%, 90.5%, and 53.5% for D-RVd. These data support the use of daratumumab-containing regimens for transplant-eligible NDMM with HCRAs; however, additional strategies are needed for ultra-high-risk disease (≥2 HRCAs). Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

CANDOR (NCT03158688) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) vs carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in adults with relapsed/refectory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with 1 to 3 prior therapies. The CANDOR study met its primary end point of progression-free survival (PFS) in the primary analysis. Here, we report the final analysis of the study, including secondary end points and subgroup analyses thereof. The median follow-up was 50 months. Patients treated with KdD had higher minimal residual disease-negative (MRD-) achievement rates (28% vs 9%; odds ratio [OR], 4.22; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.28-7.83) and MRD- complete response rates (22% vs 8%; OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.83-6.88) than those treated with Kd. Median PFS was 28.4 months for KdD vs 15.2 months for Kd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83). Median overall survival (OS) for KdD was 50.8 months vs 43.6 months for Kd (HR, 0.78 [0.60-1.03]; P = .042). Trends toward improved OS occurred in predefined subgroups, including patients refractory to lenalidomide (KdD, not reached vs Kd, 38.2 months; HR, 0.69 [0.43-1.11]) and refractory to proteasome inhibitor (KdD, 43.2 months vs Kd, 30.0 months; HR, 0.70 [0.45-1.09]), and there was significant improvement in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (KdD, 34.3 months vs Kd: 17.1 months; HR, 0.52 [0.29-0.94]). No new safety signals were identified. In summary, the final analysis of CANDOR confirmed the PFS benefit and showed a trend in OS benefit with KdD vs Kd. These findings reinforce KdD as a standard of care for RRMM, especially in clinically relevant patient subgroups. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03158688., (© 2023 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.)

CANDOR compared the safety/efficacy of carfilzomib with dexamethasone and daratumumab (KdD) to carfilzomib with dexamethasone (Kd) in adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This CANDOR subgroup analysis evaluated outcomes based on cytogenetic risk. Overall response rates (KdD vs. Kd) were 81% versus 56% in high-risk and 87% versus 79% in standard-risk groups. Median progression-free survival was 11.2 versus 7.4 months in high-risk (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34, 0.93]) and not reached versus 16.6 months in standard-risk groups (0.56 [95% CI, 0.39, 0.80]). These data support the efficacy of KdD in RRMM treatment, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetics., (© 2022 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10-5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE)., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Despite recent advances in therapeutic options, there remains an unmet need for treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, especially in those previously exposed or refractory to lenalidomide. This updated efficacy and safety analysis from the phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this updated analysis of the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 CANDOR study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, at least a partial response to between one and three previous therapies, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 102 medical centres globally and randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive voice or web response software to receive KdD or Kd. Participants were stratified by disease stage, previous proteasome inhibitor or anti-CD38 antibody exposure, and number of previous therapies. All patients received intravenous infusions of carfilzomib twice per week at 56 mg/m 2 (20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 during cycle 1) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients >75 years old). This analysis was a preplanned interim analysis for overall survival; however, at the time of data cutoff, overall survival data were not mature. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Here, we provide updated progression-free survival data, assessed centrally by Onyx Response Computer Algorithm in the intention-to-treat population, with 11 months additional follow-up. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of trial treatment. CANDOR is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688, and is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients were enrolled, of whom 312 received KdD and 154 received Kd. At data cutoff (June 15, 2020), median follow-up was 27·8 months (IQR 25·6-29·5) for KdD and 27·0 months (13·2-28·6) for Kd. Median progression-free survival was 28·6 months (95% CI 22·7-not estimable [NE]) in the KdD group and 15·2 months (11·1-19·9) in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·45-0·78], log-rank p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events in the safety population were consistent with the primary analysis. Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 268 (87%) patients in the KdD group and 116 (76%) in the Kd group; most commonly thrombocytopenia (76 [25%] vs 25 [16%], respectively), hypertension (65 [21%] vs 23 [15%]), pneumonia (54 [18%] vs 14 [9%]), and anaemia (53 [17%] vs 23 [15%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 194 (63%) patients with KdD and 76 (50%) with Kd. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 27 (9%) patients in the KdD group and seven (5%) in the Kd group; most commonly septic shock (five [2%] vs one (1%]) and pneumonia (four [1%] vs none). No new treatment-related deaths have occurred since the primary analysis., Interpretation: A clear, maintained progression-free survival benefit of KdD over Kd with longer follow-up was confirmed, making KdD an emerging standard-of-care for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Amgen and Janssen., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SZU reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Takeda, SkylineDX, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees from AbbVie, MundiPharma, and Oncopeptides; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pharmacyclics. HQ reports grants (to institution) from Celgene, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Karyopharm; consultancy or membership (or both) on an advisory committee from Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Celgene, and Janssen; membership on an advisory committee from Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; leadership or fiduciary role for GlaxoSmithKine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Amgen; and receipt of free drug for investigator-initiated study from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Amgen, and Karyopharm. M-VM reports consulting fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncopeptides, Adaptive, Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, and Bluebird-bio. OL reports honoraria or membership (or both) on the board of directors for Adaptive, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and membership on independent data monitoring committees for Merck and Theradex. XL reports honoraria from Sanofi, Takeda, Oncopeptide, Karyopharm, Amgen, Carsgen, Incyte, Novartis, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. DS reports honoraria fees and speakers' bureau fees for Novartis, Karyopharm, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, and Celgene; consulting fees and membership on the Board of Directors or advisory committees for Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Celularity, and Celgene; research funding from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, and Celgene. KW reports consultancy fees from Janssen, Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Takeda, Oncopeptides, Karyopharm, GlaxoSmithKline, and Celgene; honoraria for speakers' bureaus from Janssen, Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, and GlaxoSmithKline; and grants or contracts (to institution) from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, and Sanofi. AO reports consultancy fees from Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline; speakers bureau fees from Celgene and Amgen; and fees for participation on advisory boards for Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline. NR reports consulting fees from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, and Karyopharm; payment or honoraria for speakers' bureaus from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; travel support from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and participation on advisory boards for Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, and Karyopharm. AN reports consultancy or membership (or both) on an advisory committee for Bristol Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, Oncopep, Takeda, Karyopharm, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen. MQ reports employment with and stockholdings of Janssen R&D. MB reports advisory board or speakers bureau fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and Takeda. AJ reports honoraria for advisory board participation and consulting from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Sanofi-Aventis. BD made contributions to this publication while employed by Amgen. AZ-K and AY report employment with and equity ownership in Amgen. MD reports consulting fees from Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Beigene; payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus from Beigene, Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Takeda; and grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and Beigene. MG declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Part B of this phase 1b study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02283775) evaluated safety and efficacy of a fixed-volume infusion of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients. Isatuximab (10 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks, then every other week) was administered as a fixed-volume infusion of 250 mL (mL/h infusion rate) with standard doses of Pd on 28-day cycles. Patients (N = 47) had a median of three prior treatment lines (range, 1-8). Median duration of exposure was 36.9 weeks and median duration of first, second, and 3+ infusions were 3.7, 1.8, and 1.2 h, respectively. The most common non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (63.8%), infusion reactions (IRs), cough, and upper respiratory tract infection (40.4% each). IRs were all grade 2 and occurred only during the first infusion. The overall response rate was 53.2% in all patients (55.5% in response-evaluable population, 60.0% in daratumumab-naïve patients). Efficacy and safety findings were consistent with data from the isatuximab plus Pd infusion schedule in Part A of this study and also from the phase 3 ICARIA-MM study, and these new data confirm the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of fixed-volume infusion of isatuximab., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival., Methods: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172., Findings: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group., Interpretation: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TF received payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Roche, and Takeda. SKK received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen, Janssen, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Takeda, and TeneoBio; and consulted for or participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Antengene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche-Genentech, Secure Biotherapeutics, and Takeda. TP received consulting fees from Celgene and Janssen; received payment or honoraria for educational events from Janssen; received payment for expert testimony from CSL Behring, Oncopeptides, and Takeda; and holds stock or stock options in Novo Nordisk. RZO received support for the present manuscript from Janssen; received laboratory research funding from Asylia Therapeutics, BioTheryX, and Heidelberg Pharma; received clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; received royalties or licenses for, has patents planned, issued or pending for, and holds stock or stock options in Asylia Therapeutics; received consulting fees from EcoR1 Capital; and participated on an advisory board for Amgen, BioTheryX, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite, Neoleukin, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Takeda. PM received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. NB received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Pfizer; participated on an independent review committee for Janssen, Karyopharm, and Legend Biotech; received honoraria for educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen; and participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. HQ received grants or contracts from Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, and Sanofi; and had a leadership or fiduciary role in advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. HG received grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation, Janssen, Johns Hopkins University, and Sanofi; received consulting fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Incyte, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Molecular Partners, MundiPharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. MOD received consulting fees from Janssen; has several patents planned, issued, or pending relating to the use of natural killer cells and sialyltransferase inhibition in the treatment of cancer; participated on an advisory board for Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; serves as a director of ONK Therapeutics; and holds stock or stock options in ONK Therapeutics and Carrick Therapeutics. AP received grants or contracts from Sanofi and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for presentations and educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for a speakers bureau from Janssen and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen and Sanofi. CPV received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. KW received honoraria from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. NR served in an advisory role for Amgen, bluebird bio, Caribou, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immuneel. MM received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received travel accommodations from Janssen and Takeda. LF received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and received payment or honoraria for educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. TA is an employee of and holds equity in Genmab. JW and RVR are employees of Janssen. CMU, BT, MD, and JV are employees of Janssen; and hold equity in Johnson & Johnson. SZU received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda; and received personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, MundiPharma, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda. SB, HN, CH, JRM, MT, and XL declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combination therapy regimens containing a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and a steroid are an established standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) regardless of transplant eligibility. Triplet regimens that include lenalidomide/dexamethasone combined with daratumumab or carfilzomib are highly active in multiple myeloma, including NDMM. The aim of this open-label, phase 1b study was to evaluate daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-KRd) in patients with NDMM., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 22), regardless of transplant eligibility, received treatment with D-KRd for up to thirteen 28-day cycles or until autologous stem cell transplant. The first daratumumab dose was administered as a split infusion (8 mg/kg on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1). The primary end point was safety and tolerability., Results: A total of 10 patients discontinued treatment, most frequently because of elective autologous stem cell transplant (n = 8). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; grade 3/4) were diarrhea (68%; 18%), lymphopenia (64%; 59%), cough (59%; 5%), and upper respiratory tract infection (55%; 0%). Stem cell collection was successful in most patients (91%). Daratumumab infusion-related reactions occurred in 9 (41%) patients, primarily during the first infusion, and were mild in severity (no grade 3/4 events). The best overall response rate was 95%, including 86% with a very good partial response or better and 67% with a complete response or better., Conclusion: D-KRd was well tolerated, and encouraging efficacy results support further investigation of daratumumab-based quadruplet therapies for NDMM., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest A.J. served on an advisory board and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Juno, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. S.Z.U. served in a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, MundiPharma, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Takeda, and SkylineDx and received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pharmacyclics. A.K. served as a consultant for Janssen and Celgene; was a member of a speaker's bureau for Janssen, Sutro, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Celgene; and holds equity in Celgene. S.L. received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Amgen. R.L.C. received research funding from Takeda, Janssen, and Karyopharm and is a scientific advisor for Takeda, Prothena, Caelum, and Janssen. B.M.W. reports research funding from Janssen during the course of the study, current employment with Janssen Research & Development LLC, and equity ownership in Johnson & Johnson. J.W. is an employee of Janssen. C.d.B., W.D., and J.M.S. are employees of Janssen and have equity ownership in Johnson & Johnson. A.C. received research funding from, served on an advisory board for, and consulted for Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, and Amgen; received research funding from and served on an advisory board for Seattle Genetics; received research funding from and consulted for Millennium/Takeda; received research funding from Pharmacyclics; served on an advisory board for Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Oncopeptides; and consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb and Antegene., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Purpose: In relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by > 60% in POLLUX (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and CASTOR (daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone [D-Vd]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease control. Sustained MRD negativity and outcomes were evaluated in these studies., Methods: MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10 -5 ) at suspected complete response (CR), 3 and 6 months following confirmed CR (POLLUX), 6 and 12 months following the first dose (CASTOR), and every 12 months post-CR in both studies. Sustained MRD negativity (≥ 6 or ≥ 12 months) was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and ≥ CR populations., Results: The median follow-up was 54.8 months in POLLUX and 50.2 months in CASTOR. In the ITT population, MRD-negativity rates were 32.5% versus 6.7% for D-Rd versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) and 15.1% versus 1.6% for D-Vd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd; both P < .0001). Higher MRD negativity rates were achieved in ≥ CR patients in POLLUX (D-Rd, 57.4%; Rd, 29.2%; P = .0001) and CASTOR (D-Vd, 52.8%; Vd, 17.4%; P = .0035). More patients in the ITT population achieved sustained MRD negativity ≥ 6 months with D-Rd versus Rd (20.3% v 2.1%; P < .0001) and D-Vd versus Vd (10.4% v 1.2%; P < .0001), and ≥ 12 months with D-Rd versus Rd (16.1% v 1.4%; P < .0001) and D-Vd versus Vd (6.8% v 0%). Similar results for sustained MRD negativity were observed among ≥ CR patients. More patients in the daratumumab-containing arms achieved MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity, which were associated with prolonged progression-free survival., Conclusion: Daratumumab-based combinations induce higher rates of sustained MRD negativity versus standard of care, which are associated with durable remissions and prolonged clinical outcomes.

Background: We evaluated time to thromboembolism (TE) and risk factors in multiple myeloma (MM) patients after first exposure to immunomodulatory therapy, stratified by thromboprophylaxis., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult MM patients who received immunomodulatory therapy with or without dexamethasone between February 2012 and October 2017. Thromboprophylaxis included aspirin, anticoagulants (low-molecular-weight heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, or warfarin), or none. Primary endpoint was time to on-treatment TE by thromboprophylaxis type. Time to TE using death as a competing risk censored at 12 months was used in univariate and multivariable analyses to identify risk factors., Results: Of 485 evaluable patients, 57% were white and 36% African American; median age was 66. Most received lenalidomide (97.5%) and dexamethasone (90%). Half presented with ≥ 1 comorbidities. Sixty-nine had no documented receipt of prophylaxis, 357 aspirin, and 59 anticoagulation. More patients receiving anticoagulants had ≥ 1 comorbidities compared to aspirin or no-prophylaxis groups (P < .001). There was no difference in 12-month estimated cumulative incidence of TE (7.3%; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-9.9) between thromboprophylaxis groups (none 4.4%, aspirin 8.5%, anticoagulant 3.4%) (P = .24). In multivariable analyses, male sex (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-5.17; P = .014) and presence of any comorbidity (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.73; P = .016) were associated with TE incidence; thromboprophylaxis type was not (P = .12)., Conclusion: Male sex and presence of any comorbidity were associated with time to TE. There were no differences in TE incidence between thromboprophylaxis groups despite a higher proportion of those in the anticoagulant group having ≥ 1 comorbidities., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

CD38-targeted antibody, daratumumab, is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Phase 1/2 studies GEN501/SIRIUS revealed a novel immunomodulatory mechanism of action (MOA) of daratumumab that enhanced the immune response, reducing natural killer (NK) cells without affecting efficacy or safety. We further evaluated daratumumab's effects on immune cells in whole blood samples of relapsed/refractory MM patients from both treatment arms of the phase 3 POLLUX study (lenalidomide/dexamethasone [Rd] or daratumumab plus Rd [D-Rd]) at baseline (D-Rd, 40; Rd, 45) and after 2 months on treatment (D-Rd, 31; Rd, 33) using cytometry by time-of-flight. We confirmed previous reports of NK cell reduction with D-Rd. Persisting NK cells were phenotypically distinct, with increased expression of HLA-DR, CD69, CD127, and CD27. The proportion of T cells increased preferentially in deep responders to D-Rd, with a higher proportion of CD8 + versus CD4 + T cells. The expansion of CD8 + T cells correlated with clonality, indicating generation of adaptive immune response with D-Rd. D-Rd resulted in a higher proportion of effector memory T cells versus Rd. D-Rd reduced immunosuppressive CD38 + regulatory T cells. This study confirms daratumumab's immunomodulatory MOA in combination with immunomodulatory drugs and provides further insight into immune cell changes and activation status following daratumumab-based therapy.

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: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients with high-risk multiple myeloma have a poor long-term prognosis. We aimed to address optimal treatment for these patients., Methods: SWOG-1211 is a randomised phase 2 trial comparing eight cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-14 every 21 days), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 every 21 days; RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance (bortezomib 1 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 15 mg orally on days 1-21; dexamethasone 12 mg orally on days 1, 18, and 15 every 28 days) until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-8, and on days 1 and 15 during maintenance). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either RVd or RVd-elotuzumab. High-risk multiple myeloma was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high risk (GEP hi ), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) or amp1q21, primary plasma cell leukaemia and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (two times the upper limit of normal or more). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668719., Findings: 100 (RVd n=52, RVd-elotuzumab n=48) patients were enrolled between Oct 27, 2013, and May 15, 2016, across 26 cooperative group institutions in the USA. Median age was 64 years (IQR 57-70, range 36-85). 74 (75%) of 99 had International Staging System stage II or stage III disease, 47 (47%) of 99 had amp1q21, 37 (37%) of 100 had del17p, 11 (11%) of 100 had t(14;16), eight (9%) of 90 were GEP hi , seven (7%) of 100 had primary plasma cell leukaemia, five (5%) of 100 had t(14;20), four (4%) of 100 had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase, and 17 (17%) had two or more features. With a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 46-59), no difference in median progression-free survival was observed (RVd 33·64 months [95% CI 19·55-not reached], RVd-elotuzumab 31·47 months [18·56-53·98]; hazard ratio 0·968 [80% CI 0·697-1·344]; one-sided p=0·45]. 37 (71%) of 52 patients in the RVd group and 37 (77%) of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. No significant differences in the safety profile were observed, although some notable results included grade 3-5 infections (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, eight [17%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), sensory neuropathy (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, six [13%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), and motor neuropathy (one [2%] of 52 in the RVd group, four [8%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group). There were no treatment-related deaths in the RVd group and one death in the RVd-elotuzumab group for which study treatment was listed as possibly contributing by the investigator., Interpretation: In the first randomised study of high-risk multiple myeloma reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, progression-free survival in both study groups exceeded the original statistical assumptions and supports the role for continuous proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drug combination maintenance therapy for this patient population., Funding: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (D-Rd) recently received FDA approval for the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The present PEGASUS study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with D-Rd in the MAIA trial and patients treated with common standard-of-care regimens from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which has data from patients treated primarily at community-based oncology practices in the United States. Individual-level patient data from both data sources were used to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of D-Rd to bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd); lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) was the common anchor for the ITC. Hazard ratios (HRs) reflecting direct comparisons of PFS within MAIA (D-Rd vs Rd) and Flatiron Health (VRd vs Rd; Vd vs Rd) were used to make ITCs for D-Rd vs VRd and Vd, respectively. After application of MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity-score weighting, the Flatiron Health patients resembled the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics. Based on the direct comparison within MAIA, treatment with D-Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.71). Based on the ITCs, D-Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and Vd (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.69). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd to VRd or Vd, the present ITC may help inform treatment selection in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM., (© 2020 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: For patients with multiple myeloma (MM), each additional line of therapy (LOT) is associated with lower response rates, shorter treatment duration and treatment-free intervals, and increased rates of toxicities and comorbidities. Here, we examine frontline treatment patterns, and attrition rates by LOT among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the United States who were eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)., Methods: Data were identified from three US patient-level databases collectively covering the period January 2000 to September 2018. Patients had an index diagnosis of MM on or after January 1, 2007, medical and prescription insurance coverage at diagnosis, a 1-year look-back period prior to the index diagnosis, no prior malignancies in the 1-year period before index diagnosis, and had received ≥1 LOT., Results: Among patients who did not receive ASCT (non-transplant; n = 22,062), 12,557 (57%) received only 1 LOT and 9505 (43%) received > 1 LOT. Patients receiving only 1 LOT were significantly older, had higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores, and higher incidences of comorbidities. Among the 2763 patients receiving ASCT, 2184 received > 1 LOT, and 579 (21%) received only 1 LOT (ie, ASCT was the last treatment). 1682 (61%) patients received induction therapy as frontline treatment, of whom 187 (11%) also received consolidation therapy. The latter group was younger than those who received only induction therapy, had lower mean CCI scores, and comparable or lower incidences of selected comorbidities. The most common frontline therapy for non-transplant and transplant-eligible patients was bortezomib/dexamethasone and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, respectively. Attrition rates across all LOTs were high for non-transplant patients (range, 43-57%) and transplant patients (range, 21-37%). Treatment duration decreased by LOT for non-transplant patients and was consistent across LOTs for transplant patients., Conclusions: In this analysis, a substantial proportion of patients with NDMM who received frontline therapy did not appear to receive a subsequent LOT. These high attrition rates underscore the need to use the most optimal treatment regimens upfront rather than reserving them for later LOTs in which the clinical benefit may decrease.

High cytogenetic risk abnormalities confer poor outcomes in multiple myeloma patients. In POLLUX, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. We report an updated subgroup analysis of POLLUX based on cytogenetic risk. The cytogenetic risk was determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization/karyotyping; patients with high cytogenetic risk had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10 -5 ) was assessed via the clonoSEQ ® assay V2.0. 569 patients were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283); 35 (12%) patients per group had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 44.3 months, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd in standard cytogenetic risk (median: not estimable vs 18.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < 0.0001) and high cytogenetic risk (median: 26.8 vs 8.3 months; HR, 0.34; P = 0.0035) patients. Responses with D-Rd were deep, including higher MRD negativity and sustained MRD-negativity rates versus Rd, regardless of cytogenetic risk. PFS on subsequent line of therapy was improved with D-Rd versus Rd in both cytogenetic risk subgroups. The safety profile of D-Rd by cytogenetic risk was consistent with the overall population. These findings demonstrate the improved efficacy of daratumumab plus standard of care versus standard of care in RRMM, regardless of cytogenetic risk.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) inevitably relapse on initial treatment regimens, and novel combination therapies are needed. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, an enzyme implicated in growth and survival of MM cells. Preclinical data suggest supra-additivity or synergy between ibrutinib and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) against MM. This phase 1/2b study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib plus the PI carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). In this final analysis, we report results in patients who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; ibrutinib 840 mg and carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 with dexamethasone), which was determined in phase 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Fifty-nine patients with RRMM received the RP2D (18 in phase 1 and 41 in phase 2b). These patients had received a median of three prior lines of therapy; 69% were refractory to bortezomib, and 90% were refractory to their last treatment. ORR in the RP2D population was 71% (stringent complete response and complete response: 3% each). Median duration of clinical benefit and median duration of response were both 6.5 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 35.9 months. High-risk patients had comparable ORR and median PFS (67% and 7.7 months, respectively) to non-high-risk patients, whose ORR was 73% and median PFS was 6.9 months, whereas median OS in high-risk patients was 13.9 months and not reached in non-high-risk patients. The most common grade ≥3 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia and thrombocytopenia (17% each); the most common grade ≥3 non-hematologic TEAE was hypertension (19%). In patients with RRMM treated with multiple previous lines of therapy, ibrutinib plus carfilzomib demonstrated anticancer activity within the expected efficacy range. No new safety signals were identified and the combination was well-tolerated., (© 2020 The Authors. Hematological Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Lenalidomide and bortezomib frontline exposure has raised a growing need for novel treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib in combination with daratumumab has shown substantial efficacy with tolerable safety in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in a phase 1 study. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 466 patients recruited from 102 sites across North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomly assigned 2:1 to carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd). All patients received twice per week carfilzomib at 56 mg/m 2 (20 mg/m 2 ; days 1 and 2 during cycle 1). Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients ≥75 years old starting on the second week). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention to treat. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population. This trial (NCT03158688) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, and is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients of 569 assessed for eligibility were enrolled. After median follow-up of approximately 17 months, median progression-free survival was not reached in the KdD group versus 15·8 months in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·46-0·85; p=0·0027). Median treatment duration was longer in the KdD versus the Kd group (70·1 vs 40·3 weeks). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 253 (82%) patients in the KdD group and 113 (74%) patients in the Kd group. The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was similar in both groups (KdD, 69 [22%]; Kd, 38 [25%])., Interpretation: KdD significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus Kd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and was associated with a favourable benefit-risk profile., Funding: Amgen., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Daratumumab, a human immunoglobulin Gκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for multiple myeloma. In clinical studies, the median durations of the first, second, and subsequent intravenous infusions of daratumumab were 7.0, 4.3, and 3.4 h, respectively. Splitting the first intravenous infusion of daratumumab over 2 days is an approved alternative dosing regimen to reduce the duration of the first infusion and provide flexibility for patients and healthcare providers., Methods: The feasibility of splitting the first 16-mg/kg infusion into two separate infusions of 8 mg/kg on Days 1 and 2 of the first treatment cycle was investigated in two cohorts [daratumumab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (D-Kd) and daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-KRd)] of the phase 1b MMY1001 study. Additionally, a population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis and simulations were used to compare the PK profiles of the split first dose regimen with the recommended single first dose regimens of daratumumab in previously approved indications., Results: In MMY1001, following administration of the second half of a split first dose on Cycle 1 Day 2, postinfusion median (range) daratumumab concentrations were similar between split first dose [D-Kd, 254.9 (125.8-435.5) µg/ml; D-KRd, 277.2 (164.0-341.8) µg/ml; combined, 256.8 (125.8-435.5) µg/ml] and single first dose [D-Kd, 319.2 (237.5-394.7) µg/ml]. At the end of weekly dosing, median (range) Cycle 3 Day 1 preinfusion daratumumab concentrations were similar between split first dose [D-Kd, 663.9 (57.7-1110.7) µg/ml; D-KRd, 575.1 (237.9-825.5) µg/ml; combined, 639.2 (57.7-1110.7) µg/ml] and single first dose [D-Kd, 463.2 (355.9-792.9) µg/ml]. The population PK simulations demonstrated virtually identical PK profiles after the first day of treatment for all approved indications and recommended dosing schedules of daratumumab., Conclusion: These data support the use of an alternative split first dose regimen of intravenous daratumumab for the treatment of MM., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01998971.

Background: Pomalidomide and dexamethasone is a standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment has failed. KEYNOTE-183 assessed efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we present the findings of an unplanned, ad-hoc interim analysis at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)., Methods: KEYNOTE-183 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 97 medical centres across 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and USA). Patients aged at least 18 years with multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, previously treated with at least two lines of therapy (excluding pomalidomide) and refractory to the last line were randomly assigned 1:1 to the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group via an interactive voice response or integrated web response system. Patients received oral pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and oral low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles, with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02576977, and it is closed for accrual., Findings: Between Jan 18, 2016, and June 7, 2017, 249 patients were randomly assigned to either the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=125) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=124). On July 3, 2017, the FDA established that risks associated with the triple combination outweighed benefits and halted the study. Median follow-up was 8·1 months (IQR 4·5-10·9). Median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·7-7·5) in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 8·4 months (5·9-not reached) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; progression-free survival estimates at 6 months were 48% (95% CI 37-58) versus 60% (49-69) at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1·53; 95% CI 1·05-2·22; p=0·98). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 12·9-not reached) versus 15·2 months (12·7-not reached; HR 1·61; 95% CI 0·91-2·85; p=0·95); overall survival estimates at 6 months were 82% (95% CI 74-88) versus 90% (82-95). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (63%) of 120 patients in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 56 (46%) of 121 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Four (3%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (one each of unknown cause, neutropenic sepsis, myocarditis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome); myocarditis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome were considered related to pembrolizumab. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group., Interpretation: The results from this unplanned, FDA-requested, interim analysis showed that the benefit-risk profile of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone is unfavourable for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This phase 1b dose-escalation study evaluated isatuximab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients who had received ≥2 prior MM therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), were enrolled and received isatuximab at 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks, followed by every 2 weeks), pomalidomide 4 mg (days 1-21), and dexamethasone 40 mg (weekly) in 28-day cycles until progression/intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine the safety and recommended dose of isatuximab with this combination. Secondary objectives included evaluation of pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and efficacy. Forty-five patients received isatuximab (5 [n = 8], 10 [n = 31], or 20 [n = 6] mg/kg). Patients received a median of 3 (range, 1-10) prior lines; most were refractory to their last regimen (91%), with 82% lenalidomide-refractory and 84% PI-refractory. Median treatment duration was 9.6 months; 19 patients (42%) remain on treatment. Most common adverse events included fatigue (62%), and upper respiratory tract infection (42%), infusion reactions (42%), and dyspnea (40%). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event was pneumonia, which occurred in 8 patients (17.8%). Hematologic laboratory abnormalities were common (lymphopenia, leukopenia, anemia, 98% each; neutropenia, 93%; and thrombocytopenia, 84%). Overall response rate was 62%; median duration of response was 18.7 months; median progression-free survival was 17.6 months. These results demonstrate potential meaningful clinical activity and a manageable safety profile of isatuximab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM. The 10 mg/kg weekly/every 2 weeks isatuximab dose was selected for future studies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02283775., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population., Methods: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 10 5 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%)., Conclusions: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

With the introduction of new drugs with different mechanisms of action, multiple myeloma (MM) patients' outcomes have improved. However, the efficacy seen in clinical trials is often not seen in real-world settings and data on the effectiveness of MM therapies are needed. INSIGHT MM is a prospective, global, non-interventional, observational study that is enrolling approximately 4200 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM, making it the largest study of its kind to date. The study aims to describe contemporary, real-world patterns of patient characteristics, clinical disease presentation, therapies chosen, clinical outcomes (response, treatment duration, time-to-next-therapy, progression-free and overall survival), safety, healthcare resource utilization and quality of life. One interim analysis has been conducted to date; current accrual is approximately 3094 patients. Trial registration number: NCT02761187.

The frontline therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) has continued to evolve over the last 10 years. There has been a growing emphasis on achieving the best depth of response in the context of minimal residual disease negativity, given its prognostic correlation with superior overall survival. Another important area of emphasis has been to improve prognostication and staging by including information on disease biology. There also a growing appreciation of global differences in drug access and patterns of care. The current review explores each of these areas and how best to incorporate the emerging induction regimens in to schema of MM therapy.

In the POLLUX study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone significantly reduced risk of progression/death versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We provide one additional year of follow up and include the effect on minimal residual disease and in clinically relevant subgroups. After 25.4 months of follow up, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone (median not reached vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53; P <0.0001). The overall response rate was 92.9% versus 76.4%, and 51.2% versus 21.0% achieved a complete response or better, respectively (both P <0.0001). At the 10 -5 sensitivity threshold, 26.2% versus 6.4% were minimal residual disease-negative, respectively ( P <0.0001). Post hoc analyses of clinically relevant patient subgroups demonstrated that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Patients previously treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide and those refractory to bortezomib received similar benefits (all P <0.01). Treatment benefit with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone was maintained in high-risk patients (median progression-free survival 22.6 vs 10.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.13; P =0.0921) and patients with treatment-free intervals of >12 and ≤12 months and >6 and ≤6 months. No new safety signals were observed. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone continued to improve progression-free survival and deepen responses versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02076009 ., (Copyright© 2018 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

This phase 1, dose-finding study investigated ibrutinib and carfilzomib ± dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (≥2 lines of therapy including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent). Of 43 patients enrolled, 74% were refractory to bortezomib and 23% had high-risk cytogenetics. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The recommended phase 2 dose was ibrutinib 840 mg and carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 with dexamethasone. The most common ≥ grade 3 (>10%) treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, anemia, pneumonia, fatigue, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. Overall response rate was 67% (very good partial response, 21%; stringent complete response, 2%), with an additional 9% minimal response. Median progression-free survival was 7.2 months and was not inferior in refractory nor high-risk patients. Median overall survival was not reached. Ibrutinib plus carfilzomib demonstrated encouraging responses with a manageable safety profile in this advanced population.

Importance: The role of high-dose therapy with melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT) in patients with multiple myeloma continues to be debated in the context of novel agent induction., Objective: To perform a systematic review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis of all phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of HDT/ASCT., Data Sources: We performed a systematic literature search of Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and Scopus from January 2000 through April 2017 and relevant annual meeting abstracts from January 2014 to December 2016. The following search terms were used: "myeloma" combined with "autologous," "transplant," "myeloablative," or "stem cell.", Study Selection: Phase 3 RCTs comparing HDT/ASCT with standard-dose therapy (SDT) using novel agents were assessed. Studies comparing single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone consolidation and tandem transplantation were included for network meta-analysis., Data Extraction and Synthesis: For the random effects meta-analysis, we used hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), complete response, and treatment-related mortality were secondary outcomes., Results: A total of 4 RCTs (2421 patients) for conventional meta-analysis and 5 RCTs (3171 patients) for network meta-analysis were selected. The combined odds for complete response were 1.27 (95% CI, 0.97-1.65; P = .07) with HDT/ASCT when compared with SDT. The combined HR for PFS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.41-0.74; P < .001) and 0.76 for OS (95% CI, 0.42-1.36; P = .20) in favor of HDT. Meta-regression showed that longer follow-up was associated with superior PFS (HR/mo, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P = .03) and OS (HR/mo, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96; P = .002). For PFS, tandem HDT/ASCT had the most favorable HR (0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65) followed by single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.76) and single HDT/ASCT alone (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87) compared with SDT. For OS, none of the HDT/ASCT-based approaches had a significant effect on survival. Treatment-related mortality with HDT/ASCT was minimal (<1%)., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of the conventional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of all the phase 3 RCTs showed that HDT/ASCT was associated with superior PFS with minimal toxic effects compared with SDT. Both tandem HDT/ASCT and single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were superior to single HDT/ASCT alone and SDT for PFS, but OS was similar across the 4 approaches. Longer follow-up may better delineate any OS benefit; however, is likely to be affected by effective postrelapse therapy.

Considerable advances have been made in the treatment of relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, with numerous novel agents and combination strategies receiving regulatory approval worldwide during the past several years. An increasing body of phase III data has clearly demonstrated increased overall response rates, improved depths of response, and more durable responses when a third novel agent is incorporated into lenalidomide-dexamethasone and bortezomib-dexamethasone platforms, in most cases with acceptable toxicity. The carfilzomib-dexamethasone doublet has also demonstrated promising activity. With this rapid progress has come many new questions. We review the data supporting the use of these novel treatment paradigms for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, discuss the place of autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in this rapidly evolving treatment space, and propose strategies to best use these regimens, considering the disease, host, and previous treatment factors., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has changed significantly since the first targeted therapy, rituximab, was approved for the treatment of symptomatic patients. Areas covered: Multiple monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small molecule inhibitors (SMIs) that target the B-cell receptor (BCR) and BCL-2 pathways are now approved treatments for CLL patients. Recent and emerging clinical data investigating the use of targeted therapies in the treatment of CLL patients will be reviewed. The changing role of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of the CLL patient as a result of the increasing availability of novel targeted therapies will be discussed. Expert commentary: Use of novel therapies is progressively shifting much of the treatment of CLL patients towards a targeted therapeutic approach. Increasing availability of targeted agents such as SMIs will likely reduce the role of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of both front-line and relapsed/refractory CLL patients.

Background: Daratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: At a median follow-up of 13.5 months in a protocol-specified interim analysis, 169 events of disease progression or death were observed (in 53 of 286 patients [18.5%] in the daratumumab group vs. 116 of 283 [41.0%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.52; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test). The Kaplan-Meier rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.2) in the daratumumab group, as compared with 60.1% (95% CI, 54.0 to 65.7) in the control group. A significantly higher rate of overall response was observed in the daratumumab group than in the control group (92.9% vs. 76.4%, P<0.001), as was a higher rate of complete response or better (43.1% vs. 19.2%, P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.4% of the patients had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 10 5 white cells), as compared with 4.6% of those in the control group (P<0.001); results below the threshold for minimal residual disease were associated with improved outcomes. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 during treatment were neutropenia (in 51.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group vs. 37.0% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 12.7% vs. 13.5%), and anemia (in 12.4% vs. 19.6%). Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the patients and were mostly of grade 1 or 2., Conclusions: The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly lengthened progression-free survival among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher rate of neutropenia than the control therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; POLLUX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02076009 .).

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The outcomes and management of multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States have changed dramatically over the past 15 years with the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of 6 new drugs (thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [Doxil], carfilzomib, and pomalidomide). Despite these advances, a majority of patients with MM relapse, requiring subsequent lines of therapy to manage their disease as a chronic condition. Even though oncologists recognize the heterogeneity in the biology and clinical presentation of patients with newly diagnosed MM, clinical investigations still approach MM in a one-size-fits-all manner. The clinical management becomes even more challenging for relapsed/refractory MM, in which the clinician is balancing disease biology, disease burden, host factors, and financial limitations. There are several new drug targets and antibodies making their way through clinical development, but clinical trials remain an important avenue for patients with relapsed/refractory MM. The present review highlights some of the novel agent combinations in clinical trials that include the 2 most recently approved anti-MM agents, carfilzomib and pomalidomide, and looks ahead toward new drugs and targets in myeloma., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies that represent 10%-15% of all NHLs. The prognosis of relapsed T-cell NHL is poor, especially for those relapsing after an autologous (auto-) or allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Disease relapse post auto-HCT is best managed on a clinical trial. In the absence of an investigational protocol, the choice of salvage therapies should take into account patient performance status, eligibility for an allo-HCT, and surface CD30 expression. CD30-directed therapies or aggressive salvage regimens can be used as a bridge to allo-HCT in medically fit patients. In the elderly or more infirm patients, single-agent therapies could be offered, aiming at palliation. Similarly, relapse after an allo-HCT is not uncommon and is a real challenge. Reduction in ongoing immune suppression or donor lymphocyte infusion are often considered in this setting to augment graft-versus-lymphoma (GVL) effects and can occasionally provide durable disease control. Clinical trials designed to investigate novel therapeutic agents with immunomodulatory properties to augment GVL effects (eg, histone deacetylase [HDAC] inhibitors, proteasome inhibitor, lenalidomide) or targeted therapies (eg, aurora A kinase inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] inhibitors) are sorely needed to improve the dismal outcomes of T-cell NHL relapsing after an allo-HCT., (© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lenalidomide has been linked to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) after autotransplants for myeloma. Total therapy trials (TT; TT2(-/+) thalidomide) and TT3 (TT3a with bortezomib, thalidomide; TT3b with additional lenalidomide) offered the opportunity to examine the contribution of these immune-modulatory agents to MDS-associated cytogenetic abnormalities (MDS-CA) and clinical MDS or acute leukemia ("clinical MDS/AL"). Of 1080 patients with serial cytogenetic studies, MDS-CA occurred in 11% and clinical MDS/AL in 3%. Risk features of MDS-CA included TT3b, age ≥65 years, male gender, levels of β-2-microglobulin >5.5 mg/L, and multiple myeloma relapse. Clinical MDS/AL occurred less frequently in the control arm of TT2 and more often with TT3a and TT3b. Since MDS-CA often antedated clinical disease, periodic cytogenetic monitoring is recommended. Larger CD34 quantities should be collected upfront as the risk of MDS could be reduced by applying higher CD34 doses with transplant. Thus, treatment, host, and myeloma features could be linked to MDS development after therapy for this malignancy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: TT3A: NCT00081939, TT3B: NCT00572169.

Thalidomide and lenalidomide constitute an important part of effective myeloma therapy. Recent data from the Intergroup Francophone du Myélome, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, and Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell Adulto MM-015 trials suggest that lenalidomide maintenance therapy is associated with a higher incidence of second primary malignancies (SPMs), including both hematologic and solid malignancies. In the present study, we analyzed data from the Total Therapy 2 (TT2) trial, along with the 2 Total Therapy 3 (TT3) trials. TT2 patients were assigned randomly to either a control group (no thalidomide) or to the experimental group (thalidomide during induction, between transplantations, and during consolidation and maintenance). The 2 TT3 trials used thalidomide and bortezomib during induction, before and in consolidation after tandem melphalan-based transplantation; TT3A applied VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone) in the first year of maintenance and TD for 2 more years, whereas TT3B used VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) maintenance for 3 years. The cumulative incidence of SPMs did not differ significantly among the TT trial components when measured from enrollment (P = .78) or from initiation of maintenance (P = .82). However, a pairwise comparison of the TT2 arms suggested a lower incidence of hematologic SPMs in the thalidomide maintenance arm (hazard ratio = 0.38; P = .09). These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00573391 (TT2), NCT00081939 (TT3A), and NCT00572169 (TT3B).

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.).

Despite considerable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in the last decade, a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to current therapies or have a short duration of response. Furthermore, these treatments can have notable morbidity and are not uniformly tolerated in all patients. As there is no cure for MM, patients eventually become resistant to therapies, leading to development of relapsed/refractory MM. Therefore, an unmet need exists for MM treatments with novel mechanisms of action that can provide durable responses, evade resistance to prior therapies, and/or are better tolerated. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is preferentially expressed by mature B lymphocytes, and its overexpression and activation are associated with MM in preclinical models and humans, supporting its potential utility as a therapeutic target for MM. Moreover, the use of BCMA as a biomarker for MM is supported by its prognostic value, correlation with clinical status, and its ability to be used in traditionally difficult-to-monitor patient populations. Here, we review three common treatment modalities used to target BCMA in the treatment of MM: bispecific antibody constructs, antibody-drug conjugates, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T-cell therapy. We provide an overview of preliminary clinical data from trials using these therapies, including the BiTE® (bispecific T-cell engager) immuno-oncology therapy AMG 420, the antibody-drug conjugate GSK2857916, and several CAR T-cell therapeutic agents including bb2121, NIH CAR-BCMA, and LCAR-B38M. Notable antimyeloma activity and high minimal residual disease negativity rates have been observed with several of these treatments. These clinical data outline the potential for BCMA-targeted therapies to improve the treatment landscape for MM. Importantly, clinical results to date suggest that these therapies may hold promise for deep and durable responses and support further investigation in earlier lines of treatment, including newly diagnosed MM.