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: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) showed significantly improved progression-free survival compared with standard regimens in adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four previous regimens in the ongoing phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128). This study analysed patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a KarMMa-3 secondary endpoint., Methods: In the randomised, open-label, phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, 386 patients in hospitals (≥18 years of age, with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, who had received two to four previous regimens-including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab-and had documented disease progression after receiving their last dose of the last therapy) were randomly assigned to ide-cel (n=254) or standard regimens (daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone; daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone; ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone; carfilzomib and dexamethasone; or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone; n=132). Patients were expected to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life C30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), EQ 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and follow-up timepoints (data cutoff April 18, 2022). PROs included nine prespecified primary domains: EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS-quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) index score and EQ-5D visual VAS. Differences in overall least-squares mean changes from baseline to month 20 were analysed using post-hoc constrained longitudinal data analysis. Time to confirmed improvement or deterioration from baseline was analysed using Cox proportional hazard models., Findings: Patients were randomly assigned between May 6, 2019, and April 8, 2022. Overall, the median age was 63 years (IQR 55-68); 151 (39%) patients were female; and 250 (65%) patients were White, 36 (9%) Black or African American, 19 (5%) Hispanic or Latino, 12 (3%) Asian, and seven (2%) of other race. The median follow-up was 18·6 months (IQR 14·0-26·4). PRO compliance was higher than 75% throughout. Overall least-squares mean changes from baseline favoured ide-cel with Hedges' g effect sizes from 0·3 to 0·7 for most domains. Patients in the ide-cel group showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements across the primary PRO domains of interest, with the exception of QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms, side effects of treatment, and EQ-5D-5L index score, which showed improvement across assessment visits but did not exceed the within-group minimally important difference thresholds. The ide-cel group had shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement than the standard regimens group in QLQ-C30 domains except in role functioning, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties; in QLQ-MY20 domains except body image; and in EQ-5D-VAS., Interpretation: Ide-cel offers improved health-related quality of life compared with standard regimens for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after previous lines of therapy. The PRO data highlight the extended QoL benefits of a one-time infusion with ide-cel compared with continuous treatment with standard regimens in the treatment of triple-class exposed patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MD reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda. KP reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Arcellx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Science, Cellectis, Genentech, Janssen, Karvopharm, Legend Biotech, Merck, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, and Precision Biosciences. BA reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; and honoraria for presentations, support for attending meetings or travel, and participation on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi. MC reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda. AN reports honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Adaptative Biotechnologies, Amgen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar Biosciences, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, ONK Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Secura Bio, and Takeda; research funding to the institution from Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Arch Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectis, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, and Takeda; and grants and research support for investigator-initiated studies from Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Merck, and Takeda. SM reports participation on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. SG reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Actinuum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Miltenyi, Omeros, and Takeda; leadership or fiduciary role on other board, society committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, for Amgen, Actinuum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kite Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jazz Phamaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; and ownership of stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. HE reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, support for attending meetings or travel, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; research funding to the institution from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi; and ownership of stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. SA reports consulting fees from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar Biosciences, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; and research funding to the institution from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar Biosciences, GSK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and Sanofi. PR-O reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, H3 Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen. LE, DD, TSM, and MPM are employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. LS and SG are employees of Evidera. NC declares no competing interests. MC is an employee of Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Company., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: In patients with recently diagnosed multiple myeloma, the HOVON-50 phase 3 trial showed improved event-free survival for thalidomide-containing induction and maintenance regimens (in conjunction with high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation [auto-SCT]) after a median of 52 months of follow-up, by comparison with regimens containing classical cytotoxic drugs. In this follow-up analysis, we aimed to determine the long-term effects of thalidomide in induction and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial, patients with recently diagnosed multiple myeloma were recruited from 44 Dutch and Belgian hospitals. Participants had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma of Durie-Salmon stage II or III and were aged 18-65 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) either to receive three 28-day cycles of vincristine (0·4 mg, intravenous rapid infusion on days 1-4), doxorubicin (9 mg/m 2 , intravenous rapid infusion on days 1-4) and dexamethasone (40 mg, orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20; control group); or to receive the same regimen, but with thalidomide (200-400 mg, orally on days 1-28) instead of vincristine (thalidomide group). No masking after assignment to intervention was used. Patients were randomly assigned to groups, stratified by centre and treatment policy (one vs two courses of high-dose melphalan and auto-SCT). After stem cell harvest, patients received one or two courses of 200 mg/m 2 melphalan intravenously with auto-SCT. Patients with at least a partial response to high-dose melphalan and auto-SCT were eligible for maintenance therapy, starting 2-3 months after high-dose melphalan. Patients in the control group received maintenance therapy with interferon alfa (3 ×  10 6 international units, subcutaneously, three times weekly). Patients in the thalidomide group received thalidomide as maintenance therapy (50 mg, orally, daily). Maintenance therapy was given until relapse, progression, or the occurrence of adverse events. The primary endpoint of the study was event-free survival (EFSc; censored at allogeneic stem cell transplantation), analysed by intention to treat. The study is closed for enrolment and this Article represents the final analysis. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR238., Findings: Between Nov 27, 2001 and May 31, 2005, 556 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 536 (96%) were eligible for evaluation and were randomly allocated (268 [50%] to the control group and 268 [50%] to the thalidomide group). These 536 patients were assessed for the primary endpoint of EFSc. At an extended median follow-up of 129 months (IQR 123-136), EFSc was significantly longer in the thalidomide group compared with the control group (multivariate analysis hazard ratio [HR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·50-0·77; p<0·0001). Thalidomide maintenance was stopped because of toxicity in 65 (42%) of 155 patients in the thalidomide group (neuropathy in 49 [75%] patients, skin reactions in four [6%] patients, fatigue in two [3%] patients, and as other symptoms [such as abdominal pain, pancreatitis, and dyspnoea] in ten [15%] patients). 24 (27%) of 90 patients in the control group discontinued protocol treatment during maintenance therapy with interferon alfa because of toxicity (five [21%] patients with psychiatric side-effects, five [21%] patients with flu-like symptoms, four [17%] patients with haematological toxicity [thrombocytopenia and leucocytopenia], three [13%] patients with skin reactions, and seven [29%] patients with other symptoms [such as infections, cardiomyopathy, and headache]). The frequency of second primary malignancies was similar in both groups. There were 23 second primary malignancies in 17 patients in the control group and 29 second primary malignancies in 24 patients in the thalidomide group. There were 19 treatment-related deaths in the control group, and 16 treatment-related deaths in the thalidomide group., Interpretation: Our data indicate that thalidomide-based treatment could be a treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for auto-SCT who live in countries without access to proteasome inhibitors or lenalidomide. However, careful follow-up and timely dose adjustments are important to prevent the development of thalidomide-induced neurotoxicity., Funding: The Dutch Cancer Foundation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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

In the prospective phase 3 HOVON-50/GMMG-HD3 trial, patients randomized to TAD (thalidomide, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) had a significantly higher response rate (at least PR) after induction compared with patients randomized to VAD (vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone, 72% vs. 54%, p<0.001). Complete remission (CR) and very good partial remission (VGPR) were also higher after TAD. After High Dose melphalan 200mg/m(2) response was comparable in both arms, 76% and 79% respectively. However, CR plus VGPR were significantly higher in the patients randomized to TAD (49% vs. 32%, p<0.001). CTC grade 3-4 adverse events were similar in both arms.

Background: No adequate data exist on the impact of multiple myeloma (MM) with extramedullary disease (EMD) after autograft and maintenance therapy. Methods: We identified 808 patients with newly diagnosed MM who received first autograft, of whom 107 had EMD (83 paraskeletal and 24 organ involvement), and who had been reported to the EBMT registry December 2018. Distribution according to type of involvement was similar between the treatment groups (p =.69). For EMD, 46 (40%) received thalidomide, 59 (51%) lenalidomide, and 11 (10%) bortezomib. Results: The median follow‐up from maintenance start was 44 months. Three‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) was 52% (48%–57%) for no EMD, 56% (44%–69%) for paraskeletal involvement, and 45% (22%–68%) for organ involvement (p =.146). Early PFS (within first year) appeared to be significantly worse for organ involvement (hazard ratio, 3.40), while no significant influence was found after first year from maintenance start. Three‐year overall survival (OS) was 81% (77%–84%), 88% (80%–96%), and 68% (47%–89%; p =.064), respectively. With thalidomide as reference, lenalidomide was significantly associated with better PFS and OS, whereas bortezomib appeared to improve outcome specifically in EMD. Conclusion: Lenalidomide maintenance is standard of care for MM without EMD, whereas extramedullary organ involvement remains a significant risk factor for worse outcome, especially for early events after maintenance start. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Summary: Introduction of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide has substantially improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. As a result, these drugs have become cornerstones of current antimyeloma treatment regimens. However, after several years of clinical experience it has become apparent that peripheral neuropathy is the most common and potentially disabling non-haematological side-effect associated with thalidomide and bortezomib. Maximising treatment benefit while preserving quality of life therefore requires a careful balance between achieving optimum activity and minimising toxicity, including neuropathy, to further enhance efficacy. In this review, we discuss all aspects of drug-induced peripheral neuropathy in myeloma, with a particular focus on thalidomide and bortezomib. [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]

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]