Search

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).)

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.)

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: 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.)

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.)

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 .).

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone with bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) are commonly used induction regimens in the U.S. This single-center, retrospective study evaluated outcomes and safety of VRd and KRd. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Of 389 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 198 received VRd and 191 received KRd. Median PFS was not reached (NR) in both groups; 5-year PFS was 56% (95%CI, 48–64%) for VRd and 67% (60–75%) for KRd (P = 0.027). Estimated 5-year EFS was 34% (95%CI, 27–42%) for VRd and 52% (45–60%) for KRd (P < 0.001) with corresponding 5-year OS of 80% (95%CI, 75–87%) and 90% (85–95%), respectively (P = 0.053). For standard-risk patients, 5-year PFS was 68% (95%CI, 60–78%) for VRd and 75% (65–85%) for KRd (P = 0.20) with 5-year OS of 87% (95%CI, 81–94%) and 93% (87–99%), respectively (P = 0.13). For high-risk patients, median PFS was 41 months (95%CI, 32.8–61.1) for VRd and 70.9 months (58.2-NR) for KRd (P = 0.016). Respective 5-year PFS and OS were 35% (95%CI, 24–51%) and 69% (58–82%) for VRd and 58% (47–71%) and 88% (80–97%, P = 0.044) for KRd. Overall, KRd resulted in improved PFS and EFS with a trend toward improved OS compared to VRd with associations primarily driven by improvements in outcome for high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Magrolimab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks CD47, a 'do not eat me' signal overexpressed on tumor cells. CD47 is overexpressed in multiple myeloma (MM), which contributes to its pathogenesis. Preclinical studies have shown that CD47 blockade induces macrophage activation, resulting in elimination of myeloma cells, and that there is synergy between magrolimab and certain anticancer therapies. These findings suggest that magrolimab-based combinations may have a therapeutic benefit in MM. This phase II study investigates magrolimab in combination with commonly used myeloma therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory MM and includes a safety run-in phase followed by a dose-expansion phase. Primary end points include the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events (safety run-in) and the objective response rate (dose expansion). Magrolimab is a therapy that blocks a 'do not eat me' signal overexpressed by certain cancers, including multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Studies have shown that blocking this signal leads to destruction of myeloma cells and that this cancer-killing effect may be increased by combining magrolimab with certain additional anticancer therapies. These findings suggest that magrolimab-based combinations may have a therapeutic benefit in MM. This study is investigating magrolimab in combination with commonly used myeloma therapies in patients with MM who have persistent disease despite prior treatment. Goals of the trial include assessing safety and response to treatment. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04892446 (ClinicalTrials.gov) This phase II study investigates safety and treatment response to #magrolimab, an antibody that enhances phagocytosis of cancer cells, combined with commonly used therapies in patients with #multiplemyeloma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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/m2 (20 mg/m2 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare hematologic disorder where proteins infiltrate tissues leading to organ failure and death. Cardiac involvement, present in ∼70% of patients, determines stage and prognosis of the disease, with advanced involvement having a median survival of six months. The treatment of light-chain amyloidosis is directed at recovering organ function with therapeutic strategies following those of multiple myeloma with plasma cell-directed therapies. The use of single agent daratumumab has been reported in light-chain amyloidosis achieving rapid and deep responses. The combination of daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DaraPomD) is particularly interesting for severe AL based on success in multiple myeloma. A 43-year-old female with light-chain amyloidosis and concomitant multiple myeloma presented with severe bowel dysmotility causing abdominal pain, anemia, and a 100-pound unintentional weight loss. A combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone was initiated but after five cycles her symptoms were progressing and therapy was switched to DaraPomD to optimize response. At the conclusion of two cycles she had achieved an amyloid complete-hematologic response, with her recurring ileus and abdominal pain significantly improved. Additionally, cardiac markers also suggested a rapid response without a common paradoxical worsening of congestive heart failure, and was overall well tolerated. Given the severe symptoms and refractory nature of our patient's disease DaraPomD was reasonable. With the tolerability and response seen, this patient experience supports a formal clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DaraPomD in light-chain amyloidosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thalidomide and lenalidomide constitute an important part of effective myeloma therapy. Recent data from the Intergroup Francophone du Myelome, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, and Gruppo Italiano Malattle Ematologiche dell Adulto MM-015 trials suggest that lenalidomide main-tenance therapy is associated with a higher incidence of second primary malig-nancies (SPMs), including both hemato-logic and solid malignancies. In the pres-ent 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 con-trol group (no thalidomide) or to the ex-perimental group (thalidomide during in-duction, 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, dexametha-sone) in the first year of maintenance and TD for 2 more years, whereas TT3B used VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexa-methasone) maintenance for 3 years. The cumulative incidence of SPMs did not differ significantly among the TT trial com-ponents when measured from enrollment (P = .78) or from initiation of mainte-nance (P = .82). However, a palrwise com-parison 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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/m2 (20 mg/m2; 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]