Search

Background: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have exhausted lenalidomide benefits require improved therapies. The 3-cohort phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) explored pomalidomide in early lines of treatment for lenalidomide-exposed RRMM. In cohort B, pomalidomide plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (DPd) showed promising efficacy (median follow-up 28.4 months), as previously reported. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) in cohort B., Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years were treated in 28-day cycles: pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily from days 1 to 21; daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycles 1-2), days 1 and 15 (cycles 3-6), and day 1 (cycle ≥ 7); and dexamethasone 40 mg (age ≤ 75 years) or 20 mg (age > 75 years) orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was ORR. OS and safety were secondary endpoints., Results: Among 112 patients enrolled, 85 (75.9%) had lenalidomide-refractory disease and 27 (24.1%) had lenalidomide-relapsed disease. At a median follow-up of 41.9 months (range, 0.4-73.1), median OS was 56.7 months (95% confidence interval, 46.5-not reached). Treatment-emergent adverse events related to, and leading to discontinuation of, pomalidomide, dexamethasone, or daratumumab occurred in 7 (6.3%), 9 (8.0%), and 6 (5.4%) patients, respectively., Conclusion: With long-term follow-up, our results show favorable OS with DPd. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified. IMiD agent-based therapy can still be considered in patients with RRMM who experience progressive disease on or after lenalidomide., Competing Interests: Disclosure N.J.B. declares research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Forus, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; and payment for expert testimony from BMS/Celgene, Karyopharm, and Pfizer. C.S. declares no competing financial interests. D.R. declares research funding from BMS; consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, and Janssen; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from BMS and Janssen; and board membership with Canadian Myeloma Research Network (CMRG; Chief Medical Officer). M.S. declares payment for expert testimony from BMS, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with Janssen. J.M. declares consulting fees from BeiGene and Pharmacyclics; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with BeiGene. J.G.B. declares research funding from 2seventy bio, AbbVie, Acetylon, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, bluebird bio, C4 Therapeutics, CARsgen, Cartesian, Celularity, CRISPR, EMD Serono, Fate, Genentech, GSK, Ichnos, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teva; and consulting fees from bluebird bio, BMS/Celgene, CRISPR, Janssen, Kite, Legend, Roche, Secura, and Takeda. J.S. declares honoraria from BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi. G.J.S. declares research funding from AbbVie, Actinium, Actuate, Agios, AltruBio, Amgen, Aptevo, Arog, Astellas, AVM Bio, BioMea, Biopath, Biosight, BMS/Celgene, Celator, Cellectis, Celularity, Cogent, Constellation, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Delta-Fly, Fate, Forma, FujiFilm, Gamida, Genentech/Roche, Geron, Gilead/Kite, Glycomimetics, Immunogene, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz, Karyopharm, Kiadis, Kronos Bio, Kura, Loxo, Marker, Mateon, Novartis, Onconova, Ono-UK, Orca, Pfizer, PrECOG, Regimmune, Samus, Sangamo, Sellas, Stemline, Syros, Takeda, Tolero, and Trovagene; consulting fees from BMS/Celgene, Curios, and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, AVM Biotech, BMS, Celgene, Gamida, Gilead, GSK, Incyte, Karyopharm, Novartis, Ono, and Stemline; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, AVM Biotech, BMS, Gamida, Gilead, GSK, Incyte, Novartis, and Ono; and stock or stock options with Amgen, BMS, and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson. S.G. declares consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Kite, and Sanofi; and honoraria from Kite and Seagen. K.S. declares research funding from BMS; and honoraria from Amgen, BMS, and Sanofi. C.S.S. declares no competing financial interests. M.A-R. declares honoraria from BMS, Eisai, and Merck Sharp Dohme. M.B. declares no competing financial interests. D.Q. declares no competing financial interests. G.F. declares honoraria from Amgen, BMS, and Sanofi. H.L. declares employment and stock/stock options with BMS. C.G. declares employment and equity ownership with BMS. P.S. declares employment with BMS. D.S. declares research funding from BMS; consulting fees from BMS, Janssen, and Karyopharm; honoraria from BMS and Janssen; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board with BMS; and stock or stock options with COTA., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The phase 3 FIRST trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an immune-stimulatory agent, lenalidomide, in combination with low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) vs melphalan +prednisone + thalidomide (MPT) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Rd continuous similarly extended PFS vs fixed-duration Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18). Outcomes in the Canadian/US subgroup (104 patients per arm) are reported in this analysis. Rd continuous demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS vs MPT (median, 29.3 vs 20.2 months; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.97]; p = 0.03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median, 21.9 months). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 months with Rd continuous vs MPT (p = 0.15346) and 59.5 months with Rd18. The overall response rate was higher with Rd continuous and Rd18 (78.8% and 79.8%) vs MPT (65.4%). In the 49.0%, 52.9%, and 29.8% of patients with at least very good partial response in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively, the median PFS was 56.0, 30.9, and 40.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (28.4%, 30.1%, and 52.0%), anemia (23.5%, 21.4%, and 23.5%), and infections (37.3%, 30.1%, and 24.5%) with Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT, respectively. These results were consistent with those in the intent-to-treat population, confirming the benefit of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canadian/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg daily from days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N = 112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important element for consideration in treatment decisions in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The pivotal MM-003 (A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Pomalidomide in Combination With Low-Dose Dexamethasone vs. High-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients With Refractory Multiple Myeloma or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Companion Study [NIMBUS]) randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and prolonged overall survival (OS) with pomalidomide (POM) plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in patients with RRMM in whom lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) had failed. MM-003 also investigated HRQoL as a predefined secondary end point., Patients and Methods: Recruited patients (n = 455) were refractory to their last treatment and had failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Eight clinically relevant and validated HRQoL domains from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20, and EQ-5D questionnaires were selected for analysis. Time to symptom worsening based on minimally important differences (MIDs) was calculated., Results: Clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL as determined by MIDs, regression analyses, and best response analyses were observed more frequently in patients receiving POM + LoDEX than in those receiving HiDEX. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median time to clinically meaningful worsening in HRQoL versus HiDEX in 4 HRQoL domains and demonstrated a trend in an additional 3 domains. Patients in the HiDEX arm experienced earlier HRQoL deterioration compared with those in the POM + LoDEX arm in each domain analyzed., Conclusion: POM + LoDEX offer good clinical outcomes that lead to improved and prolonged HRQoL compared with HiDEX in patients with RRMM and end-stage disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide (POM) with/without low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients who had received ≥2 prior therapies (including lenalidomide [LEN] and bortezomib [BORT]) and had progressed within 60 days of their last therapy were randomized to POM (4 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) with/without LoDEX (40 mg/week). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). In total, 221 patients (median 5 prior therapies, range 1-13) received POM+LoDEX (n = 113) or POM (n = 108). With a median follow-up of 14.2 months, median PFS was 4.2 and 2.7 months (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = .003), overall response rates (ORRs) were 33% and 18% (P = .013), median response duration was 8.3 and 10.7 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 16.5 and 13.6 months, respectively. Refractoriness to LEN, or resistance to both LEN and BORT, did not affect outcomes with POM+LoDEX (median PFS 3.8 months for both; ORRs 30% and 31%; and median OS 16 and 13.4 months). Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 41% (POM+LoDEX) and 48% (POM); no grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy was reported. POM+LoDEX was effective and generally well tolerated and provides an important new treatment option for RRMM patients who have received multiple prior therapies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00833833.

Although the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone is effective therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the influence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities on outcomes is unknown. This subanalysis of a large, open-label study investigated the effects of the most common unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization, del(13q), t(4;14), and del(17p13), in 130 evaluable patients treated with this regimen. Whereas patients with either del(13q) or t(4;14) experienced a median time to progression and overall survival comparable with those without these cytogenetic abnormalities, patients with del(17p13) had a significantly worse outcome, with a median time to progression of 2.22 months (hazard ratio, 2.82; P < .001) and median overall survival of 4.67 months (hazard ratio, 3.23; P < .001). Improved therapeutic strategies are required for this subgroup of patients. This study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00179647.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted in early treatment lines need effective therapies. In cohort A of the phase 2 MM-014 trial, we examined the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment failure in patients with RRMM and two prior lines of therapy. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1 to 21 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The intention-to-treat population comprised 56 patients; all received prior lenalidomide (87·5% lenalidomide refractory) and 39 (69·6%) received prior bortezomib. ORR was 32·1% (28·2% in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median PFS was 12·2 months (7·9 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median OS was 41·7 months (38·6 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (25·0%), pneumonia (14·3%) and fatigue (14·3%). These findings support earlier sequencing of pomalidomide-based therapy in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with RRMM, including those who have become refractory to lenalidomide. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01946477.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) need proven subsequent therapies after early-line lenalidomide treatment failure. The phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) investigated pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab after 1 to 2 prior treatment lines (62.5%, 1 prior line) in patients with RRMM and prior lenalidomide (75.0%, lenalidomide refractory). With a median follow-up of 28.4 months, overall response rate was 77.7% (52.7% achieved very good partial response or better) and median progression-free survival was 30.8 months. For patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease, these outcomes were 76.2%, 47.6%, and 23.7 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed; 64.3% experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia. Health-related quality of life was preserved or trended toward improvement through 12 treatment cycles. Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab given immediately after early-line lenalidomide-based treatment continues to demonstrate safety and efficacy, supporting pomalidomide-dexamethasone as a foundation of combination therapy in RRMM and providing evidence that the immunomodulatory agent class delivers benefit after lenalidomide treatment failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Bortezomib‐containing regimens (BCRs) represented standard, first‐line therapy for transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma (TIMM) in Canada until the introduction of lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (Ld). However, little comparative data exist to inform the selection of regimens. We assessed the outcomes for TIMM patients treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone or prednisone (CyBorD/P), bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP), bortezomib and dexamethasone or prednisone (VD/P) and lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (Ld) using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database. Of 1156 TIMM patients evaluated, 82% received bortezomib combinations while 18% received Ld. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 21·0, 21·1, 13·2 and 28·5 months (P = 0·0002) and median overall survival (OS) was 52·0, 63·6, 30·8 and 65·7 months (P < 0·0001) in the CyBorD/P, VMP, VD/P and Ld groups respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two triplet bortezomib regimens (VMP and CyBorD/P). Ld was associated with a longer PFS but not a significantly superior OS to date. Outcomes with the bortezomib‐steroid doublet were inferior (VD/P). However, multivariable analysis identified features related to disease biology as the most important prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Such factors, as well as those affecting the physician's choice of regimen, are likely to influence the results observed with different regimens. This study demonstrated real‐world outcomes in TIMM similar to those reported in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FIRST trial demonstrated that continuous therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) prolongs overall survival (OS) and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during the first 18 months of therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. However, patient-reported HRQoL data were not collected after 18 months. We therefore estimated HRQoL scores based on time-varying data collected during progression-free follow-up after 18 months. During the initial 18 months of Rd, observed changes from baseline were within the 95% confidence interval of the predictive models at 33 of 35 time points across 7 HRQoL scores. Predicted scores after 18 months of therapy showed that observed HRQoL improvements during therapy were maintained or improved. Therefore, the survival gain observed with Rd does not come at a cost of declining HRQoL during continuous therapy beyond 18 months, supporting long-term Rd as a standard of care for initial myeloma therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The optimal choice of salvage therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains unknown. Based on promising results of phase II trials, the preferred salvage regimen in British Columbia since 2002 has been the out-patient regimen, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP). We conducted a retrospective analysis including all patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or HL who received GDP as salvage therapy between September 2002 and June 2010. We identified 235 patients: 152 DLBCL, 83 HL. Overall response rates were 49% and 71% for patients with DLBCL and HL, respectively. Within the transplant-eligible population, 52% of patients with DLBCL and 96% of patients with HL proceeded to stem cell transplantation. The 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 21% and 28% in the DLBCL cohort, and 58% and 85% in the HL group. GDP is an effective and well-tolerated out-patient salvage regimen for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and HL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients have poor overall survival (OS). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) significantly extends OS in RRMM vs. high-dose dexamethasone. Survival of patients with stable disease (SD) was compared to patients with progressive disease (PD) or ≥ partial response (≥PR) at cycles (C) 3, 5, and 7. Among 302 patients randomized to POM + LoDEX, at C3 19.2% achieved ≥ PR, 38.4% SD, and 14.6% PD. Patients with SD at C3 (17.4%) and C5 (13.6%) showed improved responses at C7. Median OS from randomization by response at C3 was 22.4 months for ≥ PR (n = 58, HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.40–1.08,p = 0.0976 vs. SD), 16.2 months for SD (n = 116), and 6.3 months for PD (n = 44, HR 3.43; 95% CI 2.23–5.27,p < 0.0001 vs. SD). Similar patterns were observed for C5 and C7. Results show that POM + LoDEX should be a standard treatment after lenalidomide and bortezomib, including in SD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

In Canada, lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (Len/Dex) is approved for use in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Our expert panel sought to provide an up-to-date practical guide on the use of lenalidomide in the managing RRMM within the Canadian clinical setting, including management of common adverse events (AEs). The panel concluded that safe, effective administration of Len/Dex treatment involves the following steps: (1) lenalidomide dose adjustment based on creatinine clearance and the extent of neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, (2) dexamethasone administered at 20-40 mg/week, and (3) continuation of treatment until disease progression or until toxicity persists despite dose reduction. Based on available evidence, the following precautions should reduce the risk of common Len/Dex AEs: (1) all patients treated with Len/Dex should receive thromboprophylaxis, (2) erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) should be used cautiously, and (3) females of childbearing potential and males in contact with such females must use multiple contraception methods. Finally, while Len/Dex can be administered irrespective of prior therapy and in all prognostic subsets, patients with chromosomal deletion 17(p13) have less favorable outcomes with all treatments, including Len/Dex. New directions for the use of lenalidomide in RRMM are also considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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