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: 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.)

Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients with triple- and penta-refractory disease have a poor survival and limited treatment options. Selinexor, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, demonstrated clinical activity in the STOMP study as well as in the BOSTON study in previously treated patients with disease refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI). Patients and Methods: Here, we report a real-world case series of 7 heavily pretreated MM patients who had been extensively pretreated with bortezomib and had disease refractory to PIs, including carfilzomib; who were administered a starting dose of 100 mg of selinexor, 20– 40 mg dexamethasone and 1.3 mg/m2 of bortezomib, each once weekly. The majority of these patients (6 patients, 86.0%) had penta-refractory disease, with 5 patients (71.4%) having disease refractory to bortezomib and carfilzomib, and all 7 patients having pomalidomide refractory disease. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 8 (range 4– 12). Results: The seven patients in this case series received selinexor for a median of 5 cycles (range 1– 10). Four patients (57.1%) had a dose reduction of selinexor. Five patients (71.4%) had a response, of which 2 (29.0%) had a very good partial response (VGPR) and 3 (43.0%) had a partial response (PR). One patient (14.3%) had stable disease (SD) and 1 (14.3%) had progressive disease (PD). There were no new safety signals. Conclusion: The selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone triplet combination demonstrates activity in PI-resistant MM and patients with heavily pretreated MM with refractory disease and after multiple lines of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delanzomib (CEP-18770), a reversible P2 threonine boronic acid proteasome (β5/β1 subunits) inhibitor that showed promising anti-myeloma effects in preclinical studies, was investigated in a single-agent multicenter phase I/II study in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. Sixty-one patients (17 during dose escalation; 44 in the expansion cohort) received delanzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-d cycles; 47 received the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), 2.1 mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at 2.4 mg/m2 were rash and thrombocytopenia. At the MTD, the most prominent adverse events were nausea, vomiting, anorexia, fatigue, and pyrexia; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred in 53 and 23% of patients, respectively. Peripheral neuropathy (21%) was limited to grades 1/2. At the MTD, 26 patients (55%) had stable disease and four (9%) had a partial response (PR). Median time to progression (TTP) was 2.5 months across the cohort. Based upon the efficacy results, development of delanzomib for myeloma was discontinued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Bortezomib is a first-generation proteasome inhibitor used in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). A few reports have linked bortezomib exposure with the development of thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). We describe a case of biopsy-proven renal thrombotic microangiopathy associated with the use of bortezomib in a 51-year-old man with IgG lambda MM. To our knowledge, this is the first biopsy-proven case. In addition, reexposure to bortezomib 18 months later was associated with recurrence of TMA. This supports a possible causal role of bortezomib. The exact mechanisms remain to be elucidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on an article published in the previous issue of the periodical regarding improvement in progression-free survival, overall response rate, and overall survival with the addition of bortezomib to the lenalidomide-dexamethasone combination (VRd) compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for treatment of multiple myeloma. It mentions drugs and new treatment concepts are on the horizon of myeloma care such as passive immunotherapies targeting monoclonal antibodies.

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

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. Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m, days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9 mg/m and prednisone 60 mg/m, days 1-4, cycles 1-9; N = 344) or MP alone ( N = 338). 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 694.4 pg/mL and increased with MP by 1273.3 pg/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. These results suggest a positive effect of bortezomib on bone metabolism and potentially bone healing in myeloma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Studies have shown that bortezomib retreatment is effective in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The observational, prospective electronic VELCADE® OBservational Study (eVOBS) study assessed bortezomib‐based therapies for patients with MM in everyday practice. Here, we report on those patients receiving retreatment with bortezomib. Methods: Consenting adults scheduled to receive bortezomib for MM were enrolled at 162 sites across Europe, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Turkey between 2006 and 2010. Retrospective data on prior therapies and prospective observational data after bortezomib initiation were captured electronically at baseline, after every bortezomib cycle, and every 12 weeks after discontinuation or progression. Investigator‐assessed responses and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: Ninety‐six of 873 patients enrolled to eVOBS received bortezomib as first retreatment for progressive disease during the prospective observation period. Median age was 62 years, 53% were male, and median number of prior therapies at retreatment was 4. Overall, 41% of patients initiated bortezomib retreatment in combination with dexamethasone, 16% in combination with lenalidomide, and 21% received monotherapy. Rate of partial response or better (≥PR) was 75% at initial bortezomib therapy, including 44% complete response (CR)/near CR (nCR); at retreatment, ≥PR rate was 46%, including 15% CR/nCR. Median progression‐free survival was 11.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.1‐12.7) from start of initial bortezomib treatment and 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.4‐7.2) from start of retreatment. Median overall survival from start of retreatment was 17.6 months (95% CI: 14.4‐23.5). Of the 96 patients retreated with bortezomib, 77% reported an AE. Peripheral neuropathy during bortezomib retreatment occurred in 49% of patients, including 10% grade 3/4. Conclusion: These data suggest that retreatment with bortezomib is a feasible option for patients with relapsed/refractory MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]