Search

This phase IB/II trial evaluated safety and efficacy of cobimetinib alone and in novel combinations with veneto-clax with/without atezolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Cobimetinib alone and in combination with venetoclax with/without atezolizumab was determined to be safe and tolerable; anti-tumor activity was moderate overall but higher in patients with translocation t(11;14). Introduction: Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway mutations are present in > 50% of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). MEK inhibitors show limited single-agent activity in R/R MM; combi-nation with B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition may improve efficacy. This phase Ib/II trial (NCT03312530) evaluated safety and efficacy of cobimetinib (cobi) alone and in combination with veneto-clax (ven) with/without atezolizumab (atezo) in patients with R/R MM. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine patients were randomized 1:2:2 to cobi 60 mg/day on days 1-21 (n = 6), cobi 40 mg/day on days 1-21 + ven 800 mg/day on days 1-28 with/without atezo 840 mg on days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycles (cobi-ven, n = 22; cobi-ven-atezo, n = 21). Safety run-in cohorts evaluated cobi-ven and cobi-ven-atezo dose levels. Results: Any-grade common adverse events (AEs) with cobi, cobi-ven, and cobi-ven-atezo, respectively, included diarrhea (33.3%, 81.8%, 90.5%) and nausea (16.7%, 50.0%, 66.7%); common grade >= 3 AEs included anemia (0%, 22.7%, 23.8%), neutropenia (0%, 13.6%, 38.1%), and thrombocytopenia (0%, 18.2%, 23.8%). The overall response rate for all-comers was 0% (cobi), 27.3% (cobi-ven), and 28.6% (cobi-ven-atezo), and 0%, 50.0%, and 100%, respectively, in patients with t(11;14) + . Biomarker analysis demon-strated non-t(11;14) patient selection with NRAS /KRAS /BRAF mutation or high BCL-2/BCL-2-L1 ratio ( > 52% of the study population) could enrich for responders to the cobi-ven combination. Conclusions: Cobi-ven and cobi-ven-atezo demonstrated manageable safety with moderate activity in all-comers, and higher activity in patients with t(11;14) + MM, supporting a biomar ker-dr iven approach for ven in MM.

In this Policy Review, the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group updates its clinical practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma-related bone disease. After assessing the available literature and grading recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) method, experts from the working group recommend zoledronic acid as the preferred bone-targeted agent for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, with or without multiple myeloma-related bone disease. Once patients achieve a very good partial response or better, after receiving monthly zoledronic acid for at least 12 months, the treating physician can consider decreasing the frequency of or discontinuing zoledronic acid treatment. Denosumab can also be considered for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Denosumab might prolong progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who have multiple myeloma-related bone disease and who are eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Denosumab discontinuation is challenging due to the rebound effect. The Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group also found cement augmentation to be effective for painful vertebral compression fractures. Radiotherapy is recommended for uncontrolled pain, impeding or symptomatic spinal cord compression, or pathological fractures. Surgery should be used for the prevention and restoration of long-bone pathological fractures, vertebral column instability, and spinal cord compression with bone fragments within the spinal route. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

Low-resolution figures were inadvertently created during production and published. These have been replaced with the high-resolution figures that were originally provided by the authors. No changes have been made to the data presented within the figures or to any other manuscript content.Please see below for the high-resolution figures:. © 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

In this Policy Review, the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group updates its clinical practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma-related bone disease. After assessing the available literature and grading recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) method, experts from the working group recommend zoledronic acid as the preferred bone-targeted agent for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, with or without multiple myeloma-related bone disease. Once patients achieve a very good partial response or better, after receiving monthly zoledronic acid for at least 12 months, the treating physician can consider decreasing the frequency of or discontinuing zoledronic acid treatment. Denosumab can also be considered for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Denosumab might prolong progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who have multiple myeloma-related bone disease and who are eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Denosumab discontinuation is challenging due to the rebound effect. The Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group also found cement augmentation to be effective for painful vertebral compression fractures. Radiotherapy is recommended for uncontrolled pain, impeding or symptomatic spinal cord compression, or pathological fractures. Surgery should be used for the prevention and restoration of long-bone pathological fractures, vertebral column instability, and spinal cord compression with bone fragments within the spinal route.

Background: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication. Methods: PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654990. Findings: Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8–24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8–72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8–75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4–61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related. Interpretation: The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated. Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

Simple Summary In this review we have summarized the history, the current use, and the future possibilities of alkylator treatment in multiple myeloma. Alkylators have for decades been part of the standard of care of myeloma treatment, but still new alkylators and new use of old alkylators are making its way into myeloma guidelines of today. A large number of novel treatments for myeloma have been developed and approved; however, alkylating drugs continue to be part of standard regimens. Additionally, novel alkylators are currently being developed. We performed a non-systematized literary search for relevant papers and communications at large conferences, as well as exploiting the authors' knowledge of the field, to review the history, current use and novel concepts around the traditional alkylators cyclophosphamide, bendamustine and melphalan and current data on the newly developed pro-drug melflufen. Even in the era of targeted treatment and personalized medicine, alkylating drugs continue to be part of the standard-of-care in myeloma, and new alkylators are coming to the market.

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

Summary 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).

Objectives: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post-transplant, when disease symptoms are limited. Methods: We assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE-MM3 (NCT02181413). Results: The characteristics at study entry were well-balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ-C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four-week intervals using a linear mixed-effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ-MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least-squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma. Conclusions: In addition to improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL. © 2019 Takeda Pharmaceuticals. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

Background: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2–3 vs >3) and age (

Background: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT. Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1–4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3–35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7–33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0–24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58–0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group. Interpretation: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Funding: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd