Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, Mateos MV, Lonial S, Joao C, Anderson KC, García-Sanz R, Riva E, Du J, van de Donk N, Berdeja JG, Terpos E, Zamagni E, Kyle RA, San Miguel J, Goldschmidt H, Giralt S, Kumar S, Raje N, Ludwig H, Ocio E, Schots R, Einsele H, Schjesvold F, Chen WM, Abildgaard N, Lipe BC, Dytfeld D, Wirk BM, Drake M, Cavo M, Lahuerta JJ, Lentzsch S.
International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders.
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jun;20(6):e302-e312. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2.
Abstract/Text
Recent advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma have increased the need for accurate diagnosis of the disease. The detection of bone and bone marrow lesions is crucial in the investigation of multiple myeloma and often dictates the decision to start treatment. Furthermore, detection of minimal residual disease is important for prognosis determination and treatment planning, and it has underscored an unmet need for sensitive imaging methods that accurately assess patient response to multiple myeloma treatment. Low-dose whole-body CT has increased sensitivity compared with conventional skeletal survey in the detection of bone disease, which can reveal information leading to changes in therapy and disease management that could prevent or delay the onset of clinically significant morbidity and mortality as a result of skeletal-related events. Given the multiple options available for the detection of bone and bone marrow lesions, ranging from conventional skeletal survey to whole-body CT, PET/CT, and MRI, the International Myeloma Working Group decided to establish guidelines on optimal use of imaging methods at different disease stages. These recommendations on imaging within and outside of clinical trials will help standardise imaging for monoclonal plasma cell disorders worldwide to allow the comparison of results and the unification of treatment approaches for multiple myeloma.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM, Dispenzieri A, Kurtin PJ, Hodnefield JM, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Jelinek DF, Fonseca R, Melton LJ 3rd, Rajkumar SV.
Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 21;356(25):2582-90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070389.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma is an asymptomatic plasma-cell proliferative disorder associated with a high risk of progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma or amyloidosis. Prognostic factors for the progression and outcome of this disease are unclear.
METHODS: We searched a computerized database and reviewed the medical records of all patients at Mayo Clinic who fulfilled the criteria of the International Myeloma Working Group for the diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma between 1970 and 1995. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy specimens were studied, and patients were followed throughout the course of disease.
RESULTS: During the 26-year period, 276 patients fulfilled the criteria for smoldering multiple myeloma. During 2131 cumulative person-years of follow-up, symptomatic multiple myeloma or amyloidosis developed in 163 persons (59%). The overall risk of progression was 10% per year for the first 5 years, approximately 3% per year for the next 5 years, and 1% per year for the last 10 years; the cumulative probability of progression was 73% at 15 years. At diagnosis, significant risk factors for progression included the serum level and type of monoclonal protein, the presence of urinary light chain, the extent and pattern of bone marrow involvement, and the reduction in uninvolved immunoglobulins. The proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow and the serum monoclonal protein level were combined to create a risk-stratification model with three distinct prognostic groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of progression from smoldering multiple myeloma to symptomatic disease is related to the proportion of bone marrow plasma cells and the serum monoclonal protein level at diagnosis.
Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Mateos MV, Kumar S, Dimopoulos MA, González-Calle V, Kastritis E, Hajek R, De Larrea CF, Morgan GJ, Merlini G, Goldschmidt H, Geraldes C, Gozzetti A, Kyriakou C, Garderet L, Hansson M, Zamagni E, Fantl D, Leleu X, Kim BS, Esteves G, Ludwig H, Usmani S, Min CK, Qi M, Ukropec J, Weiss BM, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, San-Miguel J.
International Myeloma Working Group risk stratification model for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM).
Blood Cancer J. 2020 Oct 16;10(10):102. doi: 10.1038/s41408-020-00366-3. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
Abstract/Text
Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor state of multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, MM was redefined to include biomarkers predicting a high risk of progression from SMM, thus necessitating a redefinition of SMM and its risk stratification. We assembled a large cohort of SMM patients meeting the revised IMWG criteria to develop a new risk stratification system. We included 1996 patients, and using stepwise selection and multivariable analysis, we identified three independent factors predicting progression risk at 2 years: serum M-protein >2 g/dL (HR: 2.1), involved to uninvolved free light-chain ratio >20 (HR: 2.7), and marrow plasma cell infiltration >20% (HR: 2.4). This translates into 3 categories with increasing 2-year progression risk: 6% for low risk (38%; no risk factors, HR: 1); 18% for intermediate risk (33%; 1 factor; HR: 3.0), and 44% for high risk (29%; 2-3 factors). Addition of cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q, and/or del13q) allowed separation into 4 groups (low risk with 0, low intermediate risk with 1, intermediate risk with 2, and high risk with ≥3 risk factors) with 6, 23, 46, and 63% risk of progression in 2 years, respectively. The 2/20/20 risk stratification model can be easily implemented to identify high-risk SMM for clinical research and routine practice and will be widely applicable.
Hjorth M, Hellquist L, Holmberg E, Magnusson B, Rödjer S, Westin J.
Initial versus deferred melphalan-prednisone therapy for asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I--a randomized study. Myeloma Group of Western Sweden.
Eur J Haematol. 1993 Feb;50(2):95-102. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.1993.tb00148.x.
Abstract/Text
From October 1983 until December 1988, 50 patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma stage I were included in a prospective randomized multi-centre study comparing melphalan-prednisone (MP) therapy started at the time of diagnosis with deferred therapy where MP was started at the time of disease progression. Twenty-five patients were randomized to each group. The median time from diagnosis to start of therapy in the group with deferred therapy was 12 months. The reasons for starting therapy were increasing M-protein in 8 cases, symptomatic bone disease in 9 and anaemia in 5. In 2 cases, disease progression was complicated by vertebral fractures necessitating radiotherapy. Two patients in the group in which MP was started at the time of diagnosis developed acute leukaemia. No differences in response rate, response duration or survival were observed between the treatment groups. We conclude that in asymptomatic myeloma deferral of chemotherapy is feasible in well-informed and well-controlled patients but conveys no advantage in survival. In clinical practice the benefits of treatment deferral are to some extent outweighed by disease progression before start of treatment.
Riccardi A, Mora O, Tinelli C, Valentini D, Brugnatelli S, Spanedda R, De Paoli A, Barbarano L, Di Stasi M, Giordano M, Delfini C, Nicoletti G, Bergonzi C, Rinaldi E, Piccinini L, Ascari E.
Long-term survival of stage I multiple myeloma given chemotherapy just after diagnosis or at progression of the disease: a multicentre randomized study. Cooperative Group of Study and Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.
Br J Cancer. 2000 Apr;82(7):1254-60. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.1999.1087.
Abstract/Text
We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate whether melphalan-prednisone (MPH-P) treatment administered just after diagnosis improves survival of stage I multiple myeloma (MM). Between January 1987 and March 1993, 145 consecutive previously untreated patients with stage I MM were randomized between treatment with MPH-P (administered for 4 days every 6 weeks) just after diagnosis and treatment only at disease progression. Survival was not influenced by MPH-P treatment either administered just after diagnosis or at disease progression (64 vs 71 months respectively). Comparing the first with the second group the odds ratio of death is 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.57-2.42; P = 0.64). Disease progression occurred within a year in about 50% of patients who were initially untreated. Response rate was similar in both groups, but duration of response was shorter in patients who were treated at disease progression (48 vs 79 months, P = 0.044). Patients actually treated at disease progression (34/70) survived shorter than those who had neither disease progression nor treatment (56 vs > 92 months; P = 0.005). Starting MPH-P just after diagnosis does not improve survival and response rate in stage I MM, with respect to deferring therapy until disease progression. However, patients with stage I MM randomized to have treatment delayed and who actually progressed and were treated had shorter survival than those with stable disease and no treatment. Biologic or other disease features could identify these subgroups of patients.
Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, de la Rubia J, de Arriba F, López Corral L, Rosiñol L, Paiva B, Palomera L, Bargay J, Oriol A, Prosper F, López J, Olavarría E, Quintana N, García JL, Bladé J, Lahuerta JJ, San Miguel JF.
Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):438-47. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300439.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: For patients with smoldering multiple myeloma, the standard of care is observation until symptoms develop. However, this approach does not identify high-risk patients who may benefit from early intervention.
METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 119 patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma to treatment or observation. Patients in the treatment group received an induction regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg per day on days 1 to 21, plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg per day on days 1 to 4 and days 12 to 15, at 4-week intervals for nine cycles), followed by a maintenance regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 10 mg per day on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle for 2 years). The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease. Secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, and safety.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the treatment group than in the observation group (median not reached vs. 21 months; hazard ratio for progression, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.32; P<0.001). The 3-year survival rate was also higher in the treatment group (94% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; P=0.03). A partial response or better was achieved in 79% of patients in the treatment group after the induction phase and in 90% during the maintenance phase. Toxic effects were mainly grade 2 or lower.
CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment for patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma delays progression to active disease and increases overall survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00480363.).
Koreth J, Cutler CS, Djulbegovic B, Behl R, Schlossman RL, Munshi NC, Richardson PG, Anderson KC, Soiffer RJ, Alyea EP 3rd.
High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007 Feb;13(2):183-96. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2006.09.010.
Abstract/Text
Myeloablative high-dose therapy and single autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT) is frequently performed early in the course of multiple myeloma, supported by some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicating overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benefit compared with nonmyeloablative standard-dose therapy (SDT). Other RCTs, however, suggest variable benefit. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating upfront HDT versus SDT in myeloma. The primary objective was to quantify OS benefit with HDT, with PFS benefit a secondary objective. Anticipating heterogeneity, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were undertaken to assess robustness of results. Assessment of harms (treatment-related mortality) was also undertaken. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Collection of Controlled Trials databases using the terms myeloma combined with autologous or transplant or myeloablative or stem cell. In total, 3407 articles were accessed, and 10 RCTs prospectively comparing upfront HDT with SDT, with > or =2-year follow-up, and reporting OS benefit on an intent-to-treat basis were identified. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (with 95% confidence interval) were determined. Nine studies comprising 2411 patients were fully analyzed. Significant heterogeneity was present. The combined hazard of death with HDT was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.13). The combined hazard of progression with HDT was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96). The totality of the randomized data indicates PFS benefit but not OS benefit for HDT with single autologous transplantation performed early in multiple myeloma. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported the findings and indicated that, contrary to current reimbursement criteria, PFS benefit with upfront HDT is not restricted to chemoresponsive myeloma. However, the overall risk of developing treatment-related mortality with HDT was increased significantly (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-5.50). Hence, evaluating alternative therapeutic options upfront may also be reasonable.
Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H, Marit G, Caillot D, Mohty M, Lenain P, Hulin C, Facon T, Casassus P, Michallet M, Maisonneuve H, Benboubker L, Maloisel F, Petillon MO, Webb I, Mathiot C, Moreau P.
Bortezomib plus dexamethasone is superior to vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone as induction treatment prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the IFM 2005-01 phase III trial.
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Oct 20;28(30):4621-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.9158. Epub 2010 Sep 7.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To compare efficacy and safety of bortezomib plus dexamethasone and vincristine plus doxorubicin plus dexamethasone (VAD) as induction before stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated myeloma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to VAD (n = 121), VAD plus dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (DCEP) consolidation (n = 121), bortezomib plus dexamethasone (n = 121), or bortezomib plus dexamethasone plus DCEP (n = 119), followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients not achieving very good partial response (VGPR) required a second transplantation. The primary end point was postinduction complete response/near complete response (CR/nCR) rate.
RESULTS: Postinduction CR/nCR (14.8% v 6.4%), at least VGPR (37.7% v 15.1%), and overall response (78.5% v 62.8%) rates were significantly higher with bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus VAD; CR/nCR and at least VGPR rates were higher regardless of disease stage or adverse cytogenetic abnormalities. Response rates were similar in patients who did and did not receive DCEP. Post first transplantation, CR/nCR (35.0% v 18.4%) and at least VGPR (54.3% v 37.2%) rates remained significantly higher with bortezomib plus dexamethasone. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 36.0 months versus 29.7 months (P = .064) with bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus VAD; respective 3-year survival rates were 81.4% and 77.4% (median follow-up, 32.2 months). The incidence of severe adverse events appeared similar between groups, but hematologic toxicity and deaths related to toxicity (zero v seven) were more frequent with VAD. Conversely, rates of grade 2 (20.5% v 10.5%) and grades 3 to 4 (9.2% v 2.5%) peripheral neuropathy during induction through first transplantation were significantly higher with bortezomib plus dexamethasone.
CONCLUSION: Bortezomib plus dexamethasone significantly improved postinduction and post-transplantation CR/nCR and at least VGPR rates compared with VAD and resulted in a trend for longer PFS. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone should therefore be considered a standard of care in this setting.
Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M, Di Raimondo F, Crippa C, Zamagni E, Palumbo A, Offidani M, Corradini P, Narni F, Spadano A, Pescosta N, Deliliers GL, Ledda A, Cellini C, Caravita T, Tosi P, Baccarani M; GIMEMA Italian Myeloma Network.
Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study.
Lancet. 2010 Dec 18;376(9758):2075-85. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61424-9. Epub 2010 Dec 9.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (TD) is a standard induction therapy for myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of addition of bortezomib to TD (VTD) versus TD alone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
METHODS: Patients (aged 18-65 years) with previously untreated symptomatic myeloma were enrolled from 73 sites in Italy between May, 2006, and April, 2008, and data collection continued until June 30, 2010. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (40 mg daily on 8 of the first 12 days, but not consecutively; total of 320 mg per cycle), either alone or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The randomisation sequence was computer generated by the study coordinating team and was stratified by disease stage. After double autologous stem-cell transplantation, patients received two 35-day cycles of their assigned drug regimen, VTD or TD, as consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to induction therapy. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. This study is still underway but is not recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01134484, and with EudraCT, number 2005-003723-39.
FINDINGS: 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (n=241 patients) or TD (n=239). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment, and 236 on VTD and 238 on TD were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After induction therapy, complete or near complete response was achieved in 73 patients (31%, 95% CI 25·0-36·8) receiving VTD, and 27 (11%, 7·3-15·4) on TD (p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in a significantly higher number of patients on VTD (n=132, 56%) than in those on TD (n=79, 33%; p<0·0001), with a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy in patients on VTD (n=23, 10%) than in those on TD (n=5, 2%; p=0·0004). Resolution or improvement of severe peripheral neuropathy was recorded in 18 of 23 patients on VTD, and in three of five patients on TD.
INTERPRETATION: VTD induction therapy before double autologous stem-cell transplantation significantly improves rate of complete or near complete response, and represents a new standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for transplant.
FUNDING: Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology at the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, Leleu X, Caillot D, Escoffre M, Arnulf B, Macro M, Belhadj K, Garderet L, Roussel M, Payen C, Mathiot C, Fermand JP, Meuleman N, Rollet S, Maglio ME, Zeytoonjian AA, Weller EA, Munshi N, Anderson KC, Richardson PG, Facon T, Avet-Loiseau H, Harousseau JL, Moreau P; IFM 2009 Study.
Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone with Transplantation for Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1311-1320. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation has been the standard treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in adults up to 65 years of age. However, promising data on the use of combination therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) in this population have raised questions about the role and timing of transplantation.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 700 patients with multiple myeloma to receive induction therapy with three cycles of RVD and then consolidation therapy with either five additional cycles of RVD (350 patients) or high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation followed by two additional cycles of RVD (350 patients). Patients in both groups received maintenance therapy with lenalidomide for 1 year. The primary end point was progression-free survival.
RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the group that underwent transplantation than in the group that received RVD alone (50 months vs. 36 months; adjusted hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; P<0.001). This benefit was observed across all patient subgroups, including those stratified according to International Staging System stage and cytogenetic risk. The percentage of patients with a complete response was higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (59% vs. 48%, P=0.03), as was the percentage of patients in whom minimal residual disease was not detected (79% vs. 65%, P<0.001). Overall survival at 4 years did not differ significantly between the transplantation group and the RVD-alone group (81% and 82%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (92% vs. 47%), as were the rates of grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal disorders (28% vs. 7%) and infections (20% vs. 9%). No significant between-group differences were observed in the rates of treatment-related deaths, second primary cancers, thromboembolic events, and peripheral neuropathy.
CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD therapy plus transplantation was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than RVD therapy alone, but overall survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches. (Supported by Celgene and others; IFM 2009 Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01191060 .).
Kastritis E, Anagnostopoulos A, Roussou M, Gika D, Matsouka C, Barmparousi D, Grapsa I, Psimenou E, Bamias A, Dimopoulos MA.
Reversibility of renal failure in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with high dose dexamethasone-containing regimens and the impact of novel agents.
Haematologica. 2007 Apr;92(4):546-9. doi: 10.3324/haematol.10759.
Abstract/Text
The impact of high dose dexamethasone containing regimens with or without the novel agents thalidomide and bortezomib on the reversal of renal failure (RF) was evaluated in 41 consecutive newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated in a single institution. RF was reversed in 73% of all patients within a median of 1.9 months. In patients treated with dexamethasone and novel agents (thalidomide and/or bortezomib) the reversibility rate was 80% within a median of 0.8 months. Severe RF and significant Bence Jones proteinuria were associated with a lower probability of RF reversal. Patients who responded to treatment achieved RF reversal more often than in those who did not (85% versus 56%, p=0.046). In conclusion, RF is reversible in the majority of newly diagnosed MM patients treated with high-dose dexamethasone containing regimens. The addition of novel agents induces a more rapid RF reversal.
San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M, Spicka I, Petrucci MT, Palumbo A, Samoilova OS, Dmoszynska A, Abdulkadyrov KM, Schots R, Jiang B, Mateos MV, Anderson KC, Esseltine DL, Liu K, Cakana A, van de Velde H, Richardson PG; VISTA Trial Investigators.
Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 28;359(9):906-17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0801479.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression.
RESULTS: The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan-prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone was superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.)
2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
Rajkumar SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, Fonseca R, Vesole DH, Williams ME, Abonour R, Siegel DS, Katz M, Greipp PR; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jan;11(1):29-37. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70284-0. Epub 2009 Oct 21.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: High-dose dexamethasone is a mainstay of therapy for multiple myeloma. We studied whether low-dose dexamethasone in combination with lenalidomide is non-inferior to and has lower toxicity than high-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide.
METHODS: Patients with untreated symptomatic myeloma were randomly assigned in this open-label non-inferiority trial to lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 of a 28-day cycle (high dose), or lenalidomide given on the same schedule with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle (low dose). After four cycles, patients could discontinue therapy to pursue stem-cell transplantation or continue treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was response rate after four cycles assessed with European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant criteria. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 15% in response rate. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00098475.
FINDINGS: 445 patients were randomly assigned: 223 to high-dose and 222 to low-dose regimens. 169 (79%) of 214 patients receiving high-dose therapy and 142 (68%) of 205 patients on low-dose therapy had complete or partial response within four cycles (odds ratio 1.75, 80% CI 1.30-2.32; p=0.008). However, at the second interim analysis at 1 year, overall survival was 96% (95% CI 94-99) in the low-dose dexamethasone group compared with 87% (82-92) in the high-dose group (p=0.0002). As a result, the trial was stopped and patients on high-dose therapy were crossed over to low-dose therapy. 117 patients (52%) on the high-dose regimen had grade three or worse toxic effects in the first 4 months, compared with 76 (35%) of the 220 on the low-dose regimen for whom toxicity data were available (p=0.0001), 12 of 222 on high dose and one of 220 on low-dose dexamethasone died in the first 4 months (p=0.003). The three most common grade three or higher toxicities were deep-vein thrombosis, 57 (26%) of 223 versus 27 (12%) of 220 (p=0.0003); infections including pneumonia, 35 (16%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.04), and fatigue 33 (15%) of 223 versus 20 (9%) of 220 (p=0.08), respectively.
INTERPRETATION: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with better short-term overall survival and with lower toxicity than lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.
FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fayers PM, Palumbo A, Hulin C, Waage A, Wijermans P, Beksaç M, Bringhen S, Mary JY, Gimsing P, Termorshuizen F, Haznedar R, Caravita T, Moreau P, Turesson I, Musto P, Benboubker L, Schaafsma M, Sonneveld P, Facon T; Nordic Myeloma Study Group; Italian Multiple Myeloma Network; Turkish Myeloma Study Group; Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland; Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome; European Myeloma Network.
Thalidomide for previously untreated elderly patients with multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of 1685 individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials.
Blood. 2011 Aug 4;118(5):1239-47. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-03-341669. Epub 2011 Jun 13.
Abstract/Text
The role of thalidomide for previously untreated elderly patients with multiple myeloma remains unclear. Six randomized controlled trials, launched in or after 2000, compared melphalan and prednisone alone (MP) and with thalidomide (MPT). The effect on overall survival (OS) varied across trials. We carried out a meta-analysis of the 1685 individual patients in these trials. The primary endpoint was OS, and progression-free survival (PFS) and 1-year response rates were secondary endpoints. There was a highly significant benefit to OS from adding thalidomide to MP (hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.94, P = .004), representing increased median OS time of 6.6 months, from 32.7 months (MP) to 39.3 months (MPT). The thalidomide regimen was also associated with superior PFS (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.76, P < .0001) and better 1-year response rates (partial response or better was 59% on MPT and 37% on MP). Although the trials differed in terms of patient baseline characteristics and thalidomide regimens, there was no evidence that treatment affected OS differently according to levels of the prognostic factors. We conclude that thalidomide added to MP improves OS and PFS in previously untreated elderly patients with multiple myeloma, extending the median survival time by on average 20%.
Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Masszi T, Špička I, Oriol A, Hájek R, Rosiñol L, Siegel DS, Mihaylov GG, Goranova-Marinova V, Rajnics P, Suvorov A, Niesvizky R, Jakubowiak AJ, San-Miguel JF, Ludwig H, Wang M, Maisnar V, Minarik J, Bensinger WI, Mateos MV, Ben-Yehuda D, Kukreti V, Zojwalla N, Tonda ME, Yang X, Xing B, Moreau P, Palumbo A; ASPIRE Investigators.
Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):142-52. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411321. Epub 2014 Dec 6.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown efficacy in a phase 1 and 2 study in relapsed multiple myeloma.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 792 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma to carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival.
RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly improved with carfilzomib (median, 26.3 months, vs. 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P=0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis. The Kaplan-Meier 24-month overall survival rates were 73.3% and 65.0% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 87.1% and 66.7% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (P<0.001; 31.8% and 9.3% of patients in the respective groups had a complete response or better; 14.1% and 4.3% had a stringent complete response). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 83.7% and 80.7% of patients in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively; 15.3% and 17.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. Patients in the carfilzomib group reported superior health-related quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival at the interim analysis and had a favorable risk-benefit profile. (Funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01080391.).
MacLennan IC, Cusick J.
Objective evaluation of the role of vincristine in induction and maintenance therapy for myelomatosis. Medical Research Council Working Party on Leukaemia in Adults.
Br J Cancer. 1985 Aug;52(2):153-8. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1985.171.
Abstract/Text
In the Medical Research Council's IVth trial in Myelomatosis the possible benefit of adding vincristine to first line treatment with intermittent melphalan and prednisone has been assessed. This was analysed in 530 patients who were randomly allocated to receive vincristine or not. Survival was not improved by the addition of vincristine. A total of 268 patients reached plateau phase on first line therapy. Of these 226 patients were rerandomised either to continue receiving first line therapy for a further year or to cease therapy. At the present time there is a slight but not significant survival advantage in the group which received no further treatment on reaching plateau.
Belch A, Shelley W, Bergsagel D, Wilson K, Klimo P, White D, Willan A.
A randomized trial of maintenance versus no maintenance melphalan and prednisone in responding multiple myeloma patients.
Br J Cancer. 1988 Jan;57(1):94-9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1988.17.
Abstract/Text
In order to assess the role of maintenance melphalan and prednisone (MP) in responding multiple myeloma patients, 185 eligible patients who responded to initial MP with stabilization for at least 4 months were randomized to either stop treatment and resume therapy at relapse or to continue MP until relapse. Time to first relapse was significantly shorter in the no maintenance group (P = 0.0011), however 57% of the no maintenance patients had a second response when MP was restarted and others had minor improvement. The time to final progression on MP, which reflects the duration of disease control by MP, was therefore longer for the no maintenance group (median = 39 months) compared to the maintenance group (median = 31 months) although the observed difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.086). Median survival from start of MP in the maintenance group (46 months) was also not significantly different than the no maintenance group (51 months) (P = 0.587). Multifactor analysis of the randomized patients demonstrated shorter total remission duration and shorter survival in patients who had an initially rapid response to therapy or a lesser reduction in serum M-protein concentration.
Palumbo A, Cavo M, Bringhen S, Zamagni E, Romano A, Patriarca F, Rossi D, Gentilini F, Crippa C, Galli M, Nozzoli C, Ria R, Marasca R, Montefusco V, Baldini L, Elice F, Callea V, Pulini S, Carella AM, Zambello R, Benevolo G, Magarotto V, Tacchetti P, Pescosta N, Cellini C, Polloni C, Evangelista A, Caravita T, Morabito F, Offidani M, Tosi P, Boccadoro M.
Aspirin, warfarin, or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide: a phase III, open-label, randomized trial.
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):986-93. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6844. Epub 2011 Jan 31.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: In patients with myeloma, thalidomide significantly improves outcomes but increases the risk of thromboembolic events. In this randomized, open-label, multicenter trial, we compared aspirin (ASA) or fixed low-dose warfarin (WAR) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing thromboembolism in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 667 patients with previously untreated myeloma who received thalidomide-containing regimens and had no clinical indication or contraindication for a specific antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA (100 mg/d), WAR (1.25 mg/d), or LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg/d). A composite primary end point included serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths during the first 6 months of treatment.
RESULTS: Of 659 analyzed patients, 43 (6.5%) had serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden death during the first 6 months (6.4% in the ASA group, 8.2% in the WAR group, and 5.0% in the LMWH group). Compared with LMWH, the absolute differences were +1.3% (95% CI, -3.0% to 5.7%; P = .544) in the ASA group and +3.2% (95% CI, -1.5% to 7.8%; P = .183) in the WAR group. The risk of thromboembolism was 1.38 times higher in patients treated with thalidomide without bortezomib. Three major (0.5%) and 10 minor (1.5%) bleeding episodes were recorded.
CONCLUSION: In patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens, ASA and WAR showed similar efficacy in reducing serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, and sudden deaths compared with LMWH, except in elderly patients where WAR showed less efficacy than LMWH.
Zangari M, Tricot G, Polavaram L, Zhan F, Finlayson A, Knight R, Fu T, Weber D, Dimopoulos MA, Niesvizky R, Fink L.
Survival effect of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone.
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):132-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0169. Epub 2009 Nov 9.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE We conducted a retrospective analysis of the survival effect of venous thromboembolism (VTE) development in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS Two identically designed, multicenter, double-blind, phase III clinical trials (MM-009 and MM-010) were conducted in Europe and the United States to assess the effect of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone versus dexamethasone plus placebo in patients with relapsed or refractory MM, after failing at least one prior line of treatment. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated incidence and survival effect of thromboembolism in 353 patients randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of lenalidomide on days 1 through 21 of a 28-day cycle, plus 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 for the first four cycles; after the fourth cycle, 40 mg of dexamethasone was administered on days 1 through 4 only. Results Seventeen percent of patients experienced a thromboembolic episode. The development of VTE did not significantly affect overall survival (P = .90) or time to progression (P = .34). No significant survival impact was observed in a subgroup of patients who received prophylactic anticoagulation (overall survival P = .7, time to progression P = .1). CONCLUSION Patients with MM treated with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone who developed a VTE did not experience shorter overall survival or time to progression.
Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Cocks K, Bell SE, Szubert AJ, Navarro-Coy N, Drayson MT, Owen RG, Feyler S, Ashcroft AJ, Ross F, Byrne J, Roddie H, Rudin C, Cook G, Jackson GH, Child JA; National Cancer Research Institute Haematological Oncology Clinical Study Group.
First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet. 2010 Dec 11;376(9757):1989-99. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62051-X. Epub 2010 Dec 3.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of skeletal events in patients with malignant bone disease, and zoledronic acid has shown potential anticancer effects in preclinical and clinical studies. We aimed to establish whether bisphosphonates can affect clinical outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.
METHODS: Patients of age 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were enrolled from 120 centres in the UK. Computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to allocate patients equally, via an automated telephone service, to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid as an infusion every 3-4 weeks or 1600 mg oral clodronic acid daily. Patients also received intensive or non-intensive induction chemotherapy. No investigators, staff, or patients were masked to treatment allocation, and bisphosphonate and maintenance therapy continued at least until disease progression. The primary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate. We assessed between-group differences with Cox proportional hazards models for progression-free survival and overall survival, and with logistic regression models for overall response rate. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN68454111.
FINDINGS: 1970 patients were enrolled between May, 2003, and November, 2007, of whom 1960 were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 981 in the zoledronic acid group (555 on intensive chemotherapy, 426 on non-intensive chemotherapy); and 979 on clodronic acid (556 on intensive chemotherapy, 423 on non-intensive chemotherapy). The treatment cutoff was Oct 5, 2009, with patients receiving bisphosphonates for a median of 350 days (IQR 137-632) before disease progression, with a median of 3·7 years' follow-up (IQR 2·9-4·7). Zoledronic acid reduced mortality by 16% (95% CI 4-26) versus clodronic acid (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84, 95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·0118), and extended median overall survival by 5·5 months (50·0 months, IQR 21·0 to not reached vs 44·5 months, IQR 16·5 to not reached; p=0·04). Zoledronic acid also significantly improved progression-free survival by 12% (95% CI 2-20) versus clodronic acid (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·80-0·98; p=0·0179), and increased median progression-free survival by 2·0 months (19·5 months, IQR 9·0-38·0 vs 17·5 months, IQR 8·5-34·0; p=0·07). Rates of complete, very good partial, or partial response did not differ significantly between the zoledronic acid and clodronic acid groups for patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (432 patients [78%] vs 422 [76%]; p=0·43) or non-intensive induction chemotherapy (215 [50%] vs 195 [46%]; p=0·18). Both bisphosphonates were generally well tolerated, with similar occurrence of acute renal failure and treatment-emergent serious adverse events, but zoledronic acid was associated with higher rates of confirmed osteonecrosis of the jaw (35 [4%]) than was clodronic acid (3 [<1%]).
INTERPRETATION: Consistent with the potential anticancer activity of zoledronic acid, overall survival improved independently of prevention of skeletal-related events, showing that zoledronic acid has treatment benefits beyond bone health. These findings support immediate treatment with zoledronic acid in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, not only for prevention of skeletal-related events, but also for potential antimyeloma benefits.
FUNDING: Medical Research Council (London, UK), with unrestricted educational grants from Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, and Ortho Biotech.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, Howell A, Belch A, Mackey J, Apffelstaedt J, Hussein MA, Coleman RE, Reitsma DJ, Chen BL, Seaman JJ.
Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial.
Cancer. 2003 Oct 15;98(8):1735-44. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11701.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to compare the long-term (25-month) safety and efficacy of zoledronic acid with pamidronate in patients with bone lesions secondary to advanced breast carcinoma or multiple myeloma.
METHODS: Patients (n = 1648) were randomized to receive 4 mg or 8 mg (reduced to 4 mg) zoledronic acid as a 15-minute infusion or to receive 90 mg pamidronate as a 2-hour infusion every 3-4 weeks for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy, or surgery to bone. Secondary analyses included time to first SRE, skeletal morbidity rate, and multiple-event analysis. Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) was included as an SRE in some secondary analyses.
RESULTS: After 25 months of follow-up, zoledronic acid reduced the overall proportion of patients with an SRE and reduced the skeletal morbidity rate similar to pamidronate. Compared with pamidronate, zoledronic acid (4 mg) reduced the overall risk of developing skeletal complications (including HCM) by an additional 16% (P = 0.030). In patients with breast carcinoma, zoledronic acid (4 mg) was significantly more effective than pamidronate, reducing the risk of SREs by an additional 20% (P = 0.025) compared with pamidronate and by an additional 30% in patients receiving hormonal therapy (P = 0.009). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) and pamidronate were tolerated equally well. The most common adverse events included bone pain, nausea, and fatigue.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up data confirm that zoledronic acid was more effective than pamidronate in reducing the risk of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from breast carcinoma and was of similar efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.
Henry DH, Costa L, Goldwasser F, Hirsh V, Hungria V, Prausova J, Scagliotti GV, Sleeboom H, Spencer A, Vadhan-Raj S, von Moos R, Willenbacher W, Woll PJ, Wang J, Jiang Q, Jun S, Dansey R, Yeh H.
Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma.
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 20;29(9):1125-32. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304. Epub 2011 Feb 22.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: This study compared denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand antibody, with zoledronic acid (ZA) for delaying or preventing skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases (excluding breast and prostate) or myeloma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 886) or intravenous ZA 4 mg (dose adjusted for renal impairment; n = 890). Daily supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression).
RESULTS: Denosumab was noninferior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98; P = .0007). Although directionally favorable, denosumab was not statistically superior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (P = .03 unadjusted; P = .06 adjusted for multiplicity) or time to first-and-subsequent (multiple) SRE (rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; P = .14). Overall survival and disease progression were similar between groups. Hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred at similarly low rates in both groups. Acute-phase reactions after the first dose occurred more frequently with ZA, as did renal adverse events and elevations in serum creatinine based on National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grading.
CONCLUSION: Denosumab was noninferior (trending to superiority) to ZA in preventing or delaying first on-study SRE in patients with advanced cancer metastatic to bone or myeloma. Denosumab represents a potential novel treatment option with the convenience of subcutaneous administration and no requirement for renal monitoring or dose adjustment.
Raje N, Terpos E, Willenbacher W, Shimizu K, García-Sanz R, Durie B, Legieć W, Krejčí M, Laribi K, Zhu L, Cheng P, Warner D, Roodman GD.
Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Mar;19(3):370-381. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019.
FINDINGS: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease.
FUNDING: Amgen.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Miguel JS, Weisel K, Moreau P, Lacy M, Song K, Delforge M, Karlin L, Goldschmidt H, Banos A, Oriol A, Alegre A, Chen C, Cavo M, Garderet L, Ivanova V, Martinez-Lopez J, Belch A, Palumbo A, Schey S, Sonneveld P, Yu X, Sternas L, Jacques C, Zaki M, Dimopoulos M.
Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Oct;14(11):1055-1066. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2. Epub 2013 Sep 3.
Abstract/Text
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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dimopoulos MA, Weisel KC, Song KW, Delforge M, Karlin L, Goldschmidt H, Moreau P, Banos A, Oriol A, Garderet L, Cavo M, Ivanova V, Alegre A, Martinez-Lopez J, Chen C, Spencer A, Knop S, Bahlis NJ, Renner C, Yu X, Hong K, Sternas L, Jacques C, Zaki MH, San Miguel JF.
Cytogenetics and long-term survival of patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone.
Haematologica. 2015 Oct;100(10):1327-33. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2014.117077. Epub 2015 Aug 6.
Abstract/Text
Patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who no longer receive benefit from novel agents have limited treatment options and short expected survival. del(17p) and t(4;14) are correlated with shortened survival. The phase 3 MM-003 trial demonstrated significant progression-free and overall survival benefits from treatment with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone compared to high-dose dexamethasone among patients in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment had failed. At an updated median follow-up of 15.4 months, the progression-free survival was 4.0 versus 1.9 months (HR, 0.50; P<0.001), and median overall survival was 13.1 versus 8.1 months (HR, 0.72; P=0.009). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with high-dose dexamethasone, improved progression-free survival in patients with del(17p) (4.6 versus 1.1 months; HR, 0.34; P <0.001), t(4;14) (2.8 versus 1.9 months; HR, 0.49; P=0.028), and in standard-risk patients (4.2 versus 2.3 months; HR, 0.55; P<0.001). Although the majority of patients treated with high-dose dexamethasone took pomalidomide after discontinuation, the overall survival of patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone or high-dose dexamethasone was 12.6 versus 7.7 months (HR, 0.45; P=0.008) in patients with del(17p), 7.5 versus 4.9 months (HR, 1.12; P=0.761) in those with t(4;14), and 14.0 versus 9.0 months (HR, 0.85; P=0.380) in standard-risk subjects. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone than in those treated with high-dose dexamethasone both among standard-risk patients (35.2% versus 9.7%) and those with del(17p) (31.8% versus 4.3%), whereas it was similar in patients with t(4;14) (15.9% versus 13.3%). The safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was consistent with initial reports. In conclusion, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is efficacious in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and del(17p) and/or t(4;14). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01311687 and with EudraCT as 2010-019820-30.
Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.
Dimopoulos MA, Goldschmidt H, Niesvizky R, Joshua D, Chng WJ, Oriol A, Orlowski RZ, Ludwig H, Facon T, Hajek R, Weisel K, Hungria V, Minuk L, Feng S, Zahlten-Kumeli A, Kimball AS, Moreau P.
Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Oct;18(10):1327-1337. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30578-8. Epub 2017 Aug 23.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The phase 3 ENDEAVOR trial was a head-to-head comparison of two proteasome inhibitors in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Progression-free survival was previously reported to be significantly longer with carfilzomib administered in combination with dexamethasone than with bortezomib and dexamethasone in an interim analysis. The aim of this second interim analysis was to compare overall survival between the two treatment groups.
METHODS: ENDEAVOR was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Patients were recruited from 198 hospitals and outpatient clinics in 27 countries in Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and had received between one and three previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive carfilzomib and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib and dexamethasone (bortezomib group) through a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by International Staging System stage, previous lines of treatment, previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, and planned route of bortezomib delivery if assigned to the bortezomib group. Carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m2 thereafter) was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles; bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2) was given as an intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles. Dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) was given on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23 in the carfilzomib group and on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 in the bortezomib group. The primary endpoint of ENDEAVOR, progression-free survival, has been previously reported. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between treatment groups for this prospectively planned second interim analysis. Efficacy assessments were done in all randomly assigned patients (the intention-to-treat population) and the safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866, and is no longer enrolling patients.
FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 1096 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 929 were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group and 465 to the bortezomib group). The cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Jan 3, 2017. Median overall survival was 47·6 months (95% CI 42·5-not evaluable) in the carfilzomib group versus 40·0 months (32·6-42·3) in the bortezomib group (hazard ratio 0·791 [95% CI 0·648-0·964], one-sided p=0·010). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 377 (81%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and 324 (71%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group, and serious adverse events in 273 (59%) patients in the carfilzomib group and 182 (40%) in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (76 [16%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 46 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (67 [15%] vs 15 [3%]), pneumonia (42 [9%] vs 39 [9%]), thrombocytopenia (41 [9%] vs 43 [9%]), fatigue (31 [7%] vs 35 [8%]), dyspnoea (29 [6%] vs ten [2%]), decreased lymphocyte count (29 [6%] vs nine [2%]), diarrhoea (18 [4%] vs 39 [9%]), and peripheral neuropathy (six [1%] vs 28 [6%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (1%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group (pneumonia [n=2], interstitial lung disease [n=1], septic shock [n=1], and unknown [n=1]) and two (<1%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group (cardiac arrest [n=1] and pneumonia [n=1]).
INTERPRETATION: Carfilzomib provided a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death compared with bortezomib. To our knowledge, carfilzomib is the first and only multiple myeloma treatment that extends overall survival in the relapsed setting over the current standard of care. This study is informative for deciding which proteasome inhibitor to use for treating this disease.
FUNDING: Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, an Amgen Inc subsidiary.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Moreau P, Masszi T, Grzasko N, Bahlis NJ, Hansson M, Pour L, Sandhu I, Ganly P, Baker BW, Jackson SR, Stoppa AM, Simpson DR, Gimsing P, Palumbo A, Garderet L, Cavo M, Kumar S, Touzeau C, Buadi FK, Laubach JP, Berg DT, Lin J, Di Bacco A, Hui AM, van de Velde H, Richardson PG; TOURMALINE-MM1 Study Group.
Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1621-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is currently being studied for the treatment of multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 722 patients who had relapsed, refractory, or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib group) or placebo plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo group). The primary end point was progression-free survival.
RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 14.7 months (median progression-free survival, 20.6 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the ixazomib group, 0.74; P=0.01); a benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed with the ixazomib regimen, as compared with the placebo regimen, in all prespecified patient subgroups, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. The overall rates of response were 78% in the ixazomib group and 72% in the placebo group, and the corresponding rates of complete response plus very good partial response were 48% and 39%. The median time to response was 1.1 months in the ixazomib group and 1.9 months in the placebo group, and the corresponding median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15.0 months. At a median follow-up of approximately 23 months, the median overall survival has not been reached in either study group, and follow-up is ongoing. The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups (47% in the ixazomib group and 49% in the placebo group), as were the rates of death during the study period (4% and 6%, respectively); adverse events of at least grade 3 severity occurred in 74% and 69% of the patients, respectively. Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 and grade 4 severity occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group (12% and 7% of the patients, respectively) than in the placebo group (5% and 4% of the patients, respectively). Rash occurred more frequently in the ixazomib group than in the placebo group (36% vs. 23% of the patients), as did gastrointestinal adverse events, which were predominantly low grade. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy was 27% in the ixazomib group and 22% in the placebo group (grade 3 events occurred in 2% of the patients in each study group). Patient-reported quality of life was similar in the two study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ixazomib to a regimen of lenalidomide and dexamethasone was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival; the additional toxic effects with this all-oral regimen were limited. (Funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals; TOURMALINE-MM1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01564537.).
Mateos MV, Masszi T, Grzasko N, Hansson M, Sandhu I, Pour L, Viterbo L, Jackson SR, Stoppa AM, Gimsing P, Hamadani M, Borsaru G, Berg D, Lin J, Di Bacco A, van de Velde H, Richardson PG, Moreau P.
Impact of prior therapy on the efficacy and safety of oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in TOURMALINE-MM1.
Haematologica. 2017 Oct;102(10):1767-1775. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.170118. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
Abstract/Text
Prior treatment exposure in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma may affect outcomes with subsequent therapies. We analyzed efficacy and safety according to prior treatment in the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd. Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma received ixazomib-Rd or placebo-Rd. Efficacy and safety were evaluated in subgroups defined according to type (proteasome inhibitor [PI] and immunomodulatory drug) and number (1 vs. 2 or 3) of prior therapies received. Of 722 patients, 503 (70%) had received a prior PI, and 397 (55%) prior lenalidomide/thalidomide; 425 patients had received 1 prior therapy, and 297 received 2 or 3 prior therapies. At a median follow up of ~15 months, PFS was prolonged with ixazomib-Rd vs. placebo-Rd regardless of type of prior therapy received; HR 0.739 and 0.749 in PI-exposed and -naïve patients, HR 0.744 and 0.700 in immunomodulatory-drug-exposed and -naïve patients, respectively. PFS benefit with ixazomib-Rd vs. placebo-Rd appeared greater in patients with 2 or 3 prior therapies (HR 0.58) and in those with 1 prior therapy without prior transplant (HR 0.60) versus those with 1 prior therapy and transplant (HR 1.23). Across all subgroups, toxicity was consistent with that seen in the intent-to-treat population. In patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib-Rd was associated with a consistent clinical benefit vs. placebo-Rd regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib or immunomodulatory drugs. Patients with 2 or 3 prior therapies, or 1 prior therapy without transplant seemed to have greater benefit than patients with 1 prior therapy and transplant. TOURMALINE-MM1 registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01564537.
Copyright© 2017 Ferrata Storti Foundation.
Zonder JA, Mohrbacher AF, Singhal S, van Rhee F, Bensinger WI, Ding H, Fry J, Afar DE, Singhal AK.
A phase 1, multicenter, open-label, dose escalation study of elotuzumab in patients with advanced multiple myeloma.
Blood. 2012 Jul 19;120(3):552-9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-360552. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
Abstract/Text
This multicenter, first-in-human study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the anti-CS1 monoclonal antibody elotuzumab. A standard 3 + 3 design was used to determine maximum tolerated dose; dose-limiting toxicities were assessed during cycle 1. Thirty-five patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma were treated with intravenous elotuzumab at doses ranging from 0.5 to 20 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients who achieved at least stable disease after 4 treatments could receive another 4 treatments. No maximum tolerated dose was identified up to the maximum planned dose of 20 mg/kg. The most common adverse events, regardless of attribution, were cough, headache, back pain, fever, and chills. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and adverse events attributed to study medication were primarily infusion-related. Plasma elotuzumab levels and terminal half-life increased with dose whereas clearance decreased, suggesting target-mediated clearance. CS1 on bone marrow-derived plasma cells was reliably saturated (≥ 95%) at the 10-mg/kg and 20-mg/kg dose levels. Using the European Group for Bone and Marrow Transplantation myeloma response criteria, 9 patients (26.5%) had stable disease. In summary, elotuzumab was generally well tolerated in this population, justifying further exploration of this agent in combination regimens.
Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, White D, Grosicki S, Spicka I, Walter-Croneck A, Moreau P, Mateos MV, Magen H, Belch A, Reece D, Beksac M, Spencer A, Oakervee H, Orlowski RZ, Taniwaki M, Röllig C, Einsele H, Wu KL, Singhal A, San-Miguel J, Matsumoto M, Katz J, Bleickardt E, Poulart V, Anderson KC, Richardson P; ELOQUENT-2 Investigators.
Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 13;373(7):621-31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654. Epub 2015 Jun 2.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival.
RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).
Dimopoulos MA, Lonial S, White D, Moreau P, Palumbo A, San-Miguel J, Shpilberg O, Anderson K, Grosicki S, Spicka I, Walter-Croneck A, Magen H, Mateos MV, Belch A, Reece D, Beksac M, Bleickardt E, Poulart V, Sheng J, Sy O, Katz J, Singhal A, Richardson P.
Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: ELOQUENT-2 follow-up and post-hoc analyses on progression-free survival and tumour growth.
Br J Haematol. 2017 Sep;178(6):896-905. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14787. Epub 2017 Jul 5.
Abstract/Text
The randomized phase III ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab + lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 30% versus Ld (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70). Median time from diagnosis was 3·5 years. We present extended 3-year follow-up data. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and interim overall survival (OS). Exploratory post-hoc analyses included impact of time from diagnosis and prior lines of therapy on PFS, and serum M-protein dynamic modelling. ORR was 79% (ELd) and 66% (Ld) (P = 0·0002). ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 27% versus Ld (HR 0·73; P = 0·0014). Interim OS demonstrated a trend in favour of ELd (P = 0·0257); 1-, 2- and 3-year rates with ELd versus Ld were: 91% versus 83%, 73% versus 69% and 60% versus 53%. In patients with ≥ median time from diagnosis and one prior therapy, ELd resulted in a 53% reduction in the risk of progression/death versus Ld (HR 0·47). Serum M-protein dynamic modelling showed slower tumour regrowth with ELd. Adverse events were comparable between arms. ELd provided a durable and clinically relevant improvement in efficacy, with minimal incremental toxicity.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Lonial S, Weiss BM, Usmani SZ, Singhal S, Chari A, Bahlis NJ, Belch A, Krishnan A, Vescio RA, Mateos MV, Mazumder A, Orlowski RZ, Sutherland HJ, Bladé J, Scott EC, Oriol A, Berdeja J, Gharibo M, Stevens DA, LeBlanc R, Sebag M, Callander N, Jakubowiak A, White D, de la Rubia J, Richardson PG, Lisby S, Feng H, Uhlar CM, Khan I, Ahmadi T, Voorhees PM.
Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1551-1560. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4. Epub 2016 Jan 7.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: New treatment options are needed for patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. We assessed daratumumab, a novel CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial done in Canada, Spain, and the USA, patients (age ≥18 years) with multiple myeloma who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous daratumumab 8 mg/kg or 16 mg/kg in part 1 stage 1 of the study, to decide the dose for further assessment in part 2. Patients received 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 16 mg/kg per week for 8 weeks (cycles 1 and 2), then every 2 weeks for 16 weeks (cycles 3-6), and then every 4 weeks thereafter (cycle 7 and higher). The allocation schedule was computer-generated and randomisation, with permuted blocks, was done centrally with an interactive web response system. In part 1 stage 2 and part 2, patients received 16 mg/kg dosed as in part 1 stage 1. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (partial response [PR] + very good PR + complete response [CR] + stringent CR). All patients who received at least one dose of daratumumab were included in the analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01985126.
FINDINGS: The study is ongoing. In part 1 stage 1 of the study, 18 patients were randomly allocated to the 8 mg/kg group and 16 to the 16 mg/kg group. Findings are reported for the 106 patients who received daratumumab 16 mg/kg in parts 1 and 2. Patients received a median of five previous lines of therapy (range 2-14). 85 (80%) patients had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation, 101 (95%) were refractory to the most recent proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs used, and 103 (97%) were refractory to the last line of therapy. Overall responses were noted in 31 patients (29.2%, 95% CI 20.8-38.9)-three (2.8%, 0.6-8.0) had a stringent CR, ten (9.4%, 4.6-16.7) had a very good PR, and 18 (17.0%, 10.4-25.5) had a PR. The median time to first response was 1.0 month (range 0.9-5.6). Median duration of response was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.5-not estimable) and progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-4.6). The 12-month overall survival was 64.8% (95% CI 51.2-75.5) and, at a subsequent cutoff, median overall survival was 17.5 months (95% CI 13.7-not estimable). Daratumumab was well tolerated; fatigue (42 [40%] patients) and anaemia (35 [33%]) of any grade were the most common adverse events. No drug-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation.
INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab monotherapy showed encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated and refractory patients with multiple myeloma, with a favourable safety profile in this population of patients.
FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, San-Miguel J, Bahlis NJ, Usmani SZ, Rabin N, Orlowski RZ, Komarnicki M, Suzuki K, Plesner T, Yoon SS, Ben Yehuda D, Richardson PG, Goldschmidt H, Reece D, Lisby S, Khokhar NZ, O'Rourke L, Chiu C, Qin X, Guckert M, Ahmadi T, Moreau P; POLLUX Investigators.
Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 6;375(14):1319-1331. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751.
Abstract/Text
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 105 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 .).
Dimopoulos MA, San-Miguel J, Belch A, White D, Benboubker L, Cook G, Leiba M, Morton J, Ho PJ, Kim K, Takezako N, Moreau P, Kaufman JL, Sutherland HJ, Lalancette M, Magen H, Iida S, Kim JS, Prince HM, Cochrane T, Oriol A, Bahlis NJ, Chari A, O'Rourke L, Wu K, Schecter JM, Casneuf T, Chiu C, Soong D, Sasser AK, Khokhar NZ, Avet-Loiseau H, Usmani SZ.
Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of POLLUX.
Haematologica. 2018 Dec;103(12):2088-2096. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.194282. Epub 2018 Sep 20.
Abstract/Text
In the POLLUX study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone significantly reduced risk of progression/death versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We provide one additional year of follow up and include the effect on minimal residual disease and in clinically relevant subgroups. After 25.4 months of follow up, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone (median not reached vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53; P<0.0001). The overall response rate was 92.9% versus 76.4%, and 51.2% versus 21.0% achieved a complete response or better, respectively (both P<0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, 26.2% versus 6.4% were minimal residual disease-negative, respectively (P<0.0001). Post hoc analyses of clinically relevant patient subgroups demonstrated that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Patients previously treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide and those refractory to bortezomib received similar benefits (all P<0.01). Treatment benefit with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone was maintained in high-risk patients (median progression-free survival 22.6 vs 10.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.13; P=0.0921) and patients with treatment-free intervals of >12 and ≤12 months and >6 and ≤6 months. No new safety signals were observed. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone continued to improve progression-free survival and deepen responses versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02076009.
Copyright© 2018 Ferrata Storti Foundation.
Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, Nooka AK, Masszi T, Beksac M, Spicka I, Hungria V, Munder M, Mateos MV, Mark TM, Qi M, Schecter J, Amin H, Qin X, Deraedt W, Ahmadi T, Spencer A, Sonneveld P; CASTOR Investigators.
Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):754-66. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival.
RESULTS: A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).
Spencer A, Lentzsch S, Weisel K, Avet-Loiseau H, Mark TM, Spicka I, Masszi T, Lauri B, Levin MD, Bosi A, Hungria V, Cavo M, Lee JJ, Nooka AK, Quach H, Lee C, Barreto W, Corradini P, Min CK, Scott EC, Chanan-Khan AA, Horvath N, Capra M, Beksac M, Ovilla R, Jo JC, Shin HJ, Sonneveld P, Soong D, Casneuf T, Chiu C, Amin H, Qi M, Thiyagarajah P, Sasser AK, Schecter JM, Mateos MV.
Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR.
Haematologica. 2018 Dec;103(12):2079-2087. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.194118. Epub 2018 Sep 20.
Abstract/Text
Daratumumab, a CD38 human monoclonal antibody, demonstrated significant clinical activity in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in the primary analysis of CASTOR, a phase 3 study in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. A post hoc analysis based on treatment history and longer follow up is presented. After 19.4 (range: 0-27.7) months of median follow up, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival (median: 16.7 versus 7.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.39; P<0.0001) and improved the overall response rate (83.8% versus 63.2%; P<0.0001) compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. The progression-free survival benefit of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was most apparent in patients with 1 prior line of therapy (median: not reached versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% con fidence interval, 0.12-0.29; P<0.0001). Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone was also superior to bortezomib and dexamethasone alone in subgroups based on prior treatment exposure (bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide), lenalidomide-refractory status, time since last therapy (≤12, >12, ≤6, or >6 months), or cytogenetic risk. Minimal residual disease-negative rates were >2.5-fold higher with daratumumab across subgroups. The safety profile of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone remained consistent with longer follow up. Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone demonstrated significant clinical activity across clinically relevant subgroups and provided the greatest benefit to patients treated at first relapse. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02136134.
Copyright© 2018 Ferrata Storti Foundation.
Dimopoulos M, Quach H, Mateos MV, Landgren O, Leleu X, Siegel D, Weisel K, Yang H, Klippel Z, Zahlten-Kumeli A, Usmani SZ.
Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.
Lancet. 2020 Jul 18;396(10245):186-197. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30734-0.
Abstract/Text
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.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E, Boccadoro M, Delimpasi S, Beksac M, Katodritou E, Moreau P, Baldini L, Symeonidis A, Bila J, Oriol A, Mateos MV, Einsele H, Orfanidis I, Ahmadi T, Ukropec J, Kampfenkel T, Schecter JM, Qiu Y, Amin H, Vermeulen J, Carson R, Sonneveld P; APOLLO Trial Investigators.
Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jun;22(6):801-812. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00128-5.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1-21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736.
FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4-20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3-19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5-9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47-0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group.
INTERPRETATION: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting.
FUNDING: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Siegel DS, Schiller GJ, Samaras C, Sebag M, Berdeja J, Ganguly S, Matous J, Song K, Seet CS, Talamo G, Acosta-Rivera M, Bar M, Quick D, Anz B, Fonseca G, Reece D, Pierceall WE, Chung W, Zafar F, Agarwal A, Bahlis NJ.
Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment.
Leukemia. 2020 Dec;34(12):3286-3297. doi: 10.1038/s41375-020-0813-1. Epub 2020 May 6.
Abstract/Text
Patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg daily from days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N = 112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.
Attal M, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV, San-Miguel J, Beksac M, Spicka I, Leleu X, Schjesvold F, Moreau P, Dimopoulos MA, Huang JS, Minarik J, Cavo M, Prince HM, Macé S, Corzo KP, Campana F, Le-Guennec S, Dubin F, Anderson KC; ICARIA-MM study group.
Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.
Lancet. 2019 Dec 7;394(10214):2096-2107. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32556-5. Epub 2019 Nov 14.
Abstract/Text
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 (<75 years vs ≥75 years). Treatments were assigned based on a permuted blocked randomisation scheme with a block size of four. The isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group received isatuximab intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 in each cycle, and oral or intravenous dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Dose reductions for adverse reactions were permitted for pomalidomide and dexamethasone, but not for isatuximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by an independent response committee and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02990338.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, we randomly assigned 307 patients to treatment: 154 to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone, and 153 to pomalidomide-dexamethasone. At a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 10·1-13·9), median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·9-13·9) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6·5 months (4·5-8·3) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group; hazard ratio 0·596, 95% CI 0·44-0·81; p=0·001 by stratified log-rank test. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone vs pomalidomide-dexamethasone) were infusion reactions (56 [38%] vs 0), upper respiratory tract infections (43 [28%] vs 26 [17%]), and diarrhoea (39 [26%] vs 29 [20%]). Adverse events with a fatal outcome were reported in 12 patients (8%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group and 14 (9%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (<1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).
INTERPRETATION: The addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Isatuximab is an important new treatment option for the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, particularly for patients who become refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.
FUNDING: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Moreau P, Dimopoulos MA, Mikhael J, Yong K, Capra M, Facon T, Hajek R, Špička I, Baker R, Kim K, Martinez G, Min CK, Pour L, Leleu X, Oriol A, Koh Y, Suzuki K, Risse ML, Asset G, Macé S, Martin T; IKEMA study group.
Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
Lancet. 2021 Jun 19;397(10292):2361-2371. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00592-4. Epub 2021 Jun 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved in combination with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and carfilzomib-dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. This phase 3, open-label study compared the efficacy of isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study done at 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged at least 18 years who had received one to three previous lines of therapy and had measurable serum or urine M-protein were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). Patients in the isatuximab group received isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. Both groups received the approved schedule of intravenous carfilzomib and oral or intravenous dexamethasone. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population according to assigned treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose according to treatment received. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285.
FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients with a median of two previous lines of therapy were enrolled. 179 were randomly assigned to the isatuximab group and 123 to the control group. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the isatuximab group compared with 19·15 months (95% CI 15·77-not reached) in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0·53 (99% CI 0·32-0·89; one-sided p=0·0007). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of grade 3 or worse occurred in 136 (77%) of 177 patients in the isatuximab group versus 82 (67%) of 122 in the control group, serious TEAEs occurred in 105 (59%) versus 70 (57%) patients, and TEAEs led to discontinuation in 15 (8%) versus 17 (14%) patients. Fatal TEAEs during study treatment occurred in six (3%) versus four (3%) patients.
INTERPRETATION: The addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival and depth of response in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, representing a new standard of care for this patient population.
FUNDING: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Munshi NC, Anderson LD Jr, Shah N, Madduri D, Berdeja J, Lonial S, Raje N, Lin Y, Siegel D, Oriol A, Moreau P, Yakoub-Agha I, Delforge M, Cavo M, Einsele H, Goldschmidt H, Weisel K, Rambaldi A, Reece D, Petrocca F, Massaro M, Connarn JN, Kaiser S, Patel P, Huang L, Campbell TB, Hege K, San-Miguel J.
Idecabtagene Vicleucel in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):705-716. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, also called bb2121), a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has shown clinical activity with expected CAR T-cell toxic effects in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.
METHODS: In this phase 2 study, we sought to confirm the efficacy and safety of ide-cel in patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. Patients with disease after at least three previous regimens including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 antibody were enrolled. Patients received ide-cel target doses of 150 × 106 to 450 × 106 CAR-positive (CAR+) T cells. The primary end point was an overall response (partial response or better); a key secondary end point was a complete response or better (comprising complete and stringent complete responses).
RESULTS: Of 140 patients enrolled, 128 received ide-cel. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) had a response, and 42 of 128 (33%) had a complete response or better. Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status (<10-5 nucleated cells) was confirmed in 33 patients, representing 26% of all 128 patients who were treated and 79% of the 42 patients who had a complete response or better. The median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% confidence interval, 5.6 to 11.6). Common toxic effects among the 128 treated patients included neutropenia in 117 patients (91%), anemia in 89 (70%), and thrombocytopenia in 81 (63%). Cytokine release syndrome was reported in 107 patients (84%), including 7 (5%) who had events of grade 3 or higher. Neurotoxic effects developed in 23 patients (18%) and were of grade 3 in 4 patients (3%); no neurotoxic effects higher than grade 3 occurred. Cellular kinetic analysis confirmed CAR+ T cells in 29 of 49 patients (59%) at 6 months and 4 of 11 patients (36%) at 12 months after infusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Ide-cel induced responses in a majority of heavily pretreated patients with refractory and relapsed myeloma; MRD-negative status was achieved in 26% of treated patients. Almost all patients had grade 3 or 4 toxic effects, most commonly hematologic toxic effects and cytokine release syndrome. (Funded by bluebird bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company; KarMMa ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03361748.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Berdeja JG, Madduri D, Usmani SZ, Jakubowiak A, Agha M, Cohen AD, Stewart AK, Hari P, Htut M, Lesokhin A, Deol A, Munshi NC, O'Donnell E, Avigan D, Singh I, Zudaire E, Yeh TM, Allred AJ, Olyslager Y, Banerjee A, Jackson CC, Goldberg JD, Schecter JM, Deraedt W, Zhuang SH, Infante J, Geng D, Wu X, Carrasco-Alfonso MJ, Akram M, Hossain F, Rizvi S, Fan F, Lin Y, Martin T, Jagannath S.
Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): a phase 1b/2 open-label study.
Lancet. 2021 Jul 24;398(10297):314-324. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00933-8. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: CARTITUDE-1 aimed to assess the safety and clinical activity of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with two B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with poor prognosis.
METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, phase 1b/2 study done at 16 centres in the USA enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, who received 3 or more previous lines of therapy or were double-refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug, and had received a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody. A single cilta-cel infusion (target dose 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg) was administered 5-7 days after start of lymphodepletion. The primary endpoints were safety and confirmation of the recommended phase 2 dose (phase 1b), and overall response rate (phase 2) in all patients who received treatment. Key secondary endpoints were duration of response and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548207.
FINDINGS: Between July 16, 2018, and Oct 7, 2019, 113 patients were enrolled. 97 patients (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) received a cilta-cel infusion at the recommended phase 2 dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg. As of the Sept 1, 2020 clinical cutoff, median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·6-15·2). 97 patients with a median of six previous therapies received cilta-cel. Overall response rate was 97% (95% CI 91·2-99·4; 94 of 97 patients); 65 (67%) achieved stringent complete response; time to first response was 1 month (IQR 0·9-1·0). Responses deepened over time. Median duration of response was not reached (95% CI 15·9-not estimable), neither was progression-free survival (16·8-not estimable). The 12-month progression-free rate was 77% (95% CI 66·0-84·3) and overall survival rate was 89% (80·2-93·5). Haematological adverse events were common; grade 3-4 haematological adverse events were neutropenia (92 [95%] of 97 patients), anaemia (66 [68%]), leukopenia (59 [61%]), thrombocytopenia (58 [60%]), and lymphopenia (48 [50%]). Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 92 (95%) of 97 patients (4% were grade 3 or 4); with median time to onset of 7·0 days (IQR 5-8) and median duration of 4·0 days (IQR 3-6). Cytokine release syndrome resolved in all except one with grade 5 cytokine release syndrome and haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T-cell neurotoxicity occurred in 20 (21%) patients (9% were grade 3 or 4). 14 deaths occurred in the study; six due to treatment-related adverse events, five due to progressive disease, and three due to treatment-unrelated adverse events.
INTERPRETATION: A single cilta-cel infusion at the target dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg led to early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma with a manageable safety profile. The data from this study formed the basis for recent regulatory submissions.
FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, Munshi N, Lonial S, Bladé J, Mateos MV, Dimopoulos M, Kastritis E, Boccadoro M, Orlowski R, Goldschmidt H, Spencer A, Hou J, Chng WJ, Usmani SZ, Zamagni E, Shimizu K, Jagannath S, Johnsen HE, Terpos E, Reiman A, Kyle RA, Sonneveld P, Richardson PG, McCarthy P, Ludwig H, Chen W, Cavo M, Harousseau JL, Lentzsch S, Hillengass J, Palumbo A, Orfao A, Rajkumar SV, Miguel JS, Avet-Loiseau H.
International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma.
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):e328-e346. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6.
Abstract/Text
Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
