Search

8042 Background: A prespecified interim efficacy analysis of the Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) + carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (d) (Isa-Kd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Kd in patients (pts) with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (HR 0.531; 99% CI, 0.318–0.889; P= 0.0007), with a clinically meaningful increase in minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) (29.6% vs 13.0%) and complete response (CR) (39.7% vs 27.6%) rates, and a manageable safety profile. This subgroup analysis of IKEMA examined efficacy and safety in pts with high-risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), del(17p), and t(14;16)] and/or gain(1q21). Methods: Pts with 1–3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 to receive Isa-Kd (n = 179) or Kd (n = 123). High-risk cytogenetics was assessed by central laboratory analysis and defined as ≥1 of the following: del(17p): 50% cutoff; t(4;14) or t(14;16): 30% cutoff. Assessment of gain(1q21) was prespecified as ≥3 copies: 30% cutoff. Results: Of the randomized pts, 23.5% (Isa-Kd) and 25.2% (Kd) had ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality (CA); 26.3% (Isa-Kd) and 25.2% (Kd) had isolated gain(1q21). The addition of Isa to Kd improved PFS for pts with ≥1 high-risk CA and standard-risk pts (Table); pts with t(4;14) (HR 0.549; 95% CI, 0.232–1.301) had a more pronounced treatment effect than pts with del(17p) (HR 0.837; 95% CI, 0.281–2.496). A clear PFS benefit with Isa-Kd was also seen for pts with isolated gain(1q21) and gain(1q21) combined with other high-risk CA (Table). The trend toward improved CR, ≥very good partial response (VGPR), and MRD- rates with the addition of Isa was more pronounced in pts with gain(1q21) than in pts with high-risk CA alone. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common with Isa-Kd vs Kd, but the incidence of serious and fatal TEAEs was similar with both arms for high-risk pts (Table). Conclusions: The addition of Isa to Kd improved PFS in pts with high-risk CA and disease response in pts with gain(1q21) isolated or combined with high-risk CA, with a manageable safety profile, consistent with the benefit observed in the overall IKEMA population. Isa-Kd is a potential new treatment option for the difficult-to-treat subgroup of pts with RMM and high-risk cytogenetics. Funding: Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT03275285. [Table: see text]

Paul G Richardson,1 Shaji Kumar,2 Jacob P Laubach,1 Claudia Paba-Prada,1 Neeraj Gupta,3 Deborah Berg,3 Helgi van de Velde,3 Philippe Moreau4 1Division of Hematologic Malignancy, Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; 2Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Cambridge, MA, USA; 4Hematology Department, University Hospital Hotel-Dieu, Nantes, France Abstract: Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was on the basis of results from the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM1 study, which demonstrated a 35% improvement in progression-free survival with the all-oral combination of ixazomib plus lenalidomide–dexamethasone versus lenalidomide–dexamethasone alone (median: 20.6 vs 14.7 months; hazard ratio: 0.74, p=0.012; median follow-up 14.7 months). The addition of ixazomib to the lenalidomide–dexamethasone regimen was associated with limited additional toxicity and had no adverse impact on patient-reported quality of life. Common grade ≥3 adverse events with ixazomib include gastrointestinal adverse events, rash, and thrombocytopenia. Here, we review the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported quality of life data seen with ixazomib, and discuss the role of this oral agent in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and those with multiple prior therapies. Keywords: ixazomib, multiple myeloma, proteasome inhibitor, clinical, efficacy, tolerability, pharmacokinetics&nbsp

Details of all sitesâ ethics committee approvals. (DOC 44 kb)

Supplementary methods. Hou C16010 China Continuation study J Hematol Oncol. (DOCX 38 kb)

Supplementary results. Hou C16010 China Continuation study J Hematol Oncol. (DOCX 40 kb)

Interleukin-6 (IL-6), a multifunctional cytokine, exists in several forms ranging from a low molecular weight (MW 20-30 kDa) non-complexed form to high MW (200-450 kDa), complexes. Accurate baseline IL-6 assessment is pivotal to understand clinical responses to IL-6-targeted treatments. Existing assays measure only the low MW, non-complexed IL-6 form. The present work aimed to develop a validated assay to measure accurately total IL-6 (complexed and non-complexed) in serum or plasma as matrix in a high throughput and easily standardized format for clinical testing.Commercial capture and detection antibodies were screened against humanized IL-6 and evaluated in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay format. The best antibody combinations were screened to identify an antibody pair that gave minimum background and maximum recovery of IL-6 in the presence of 100% serum matrix. A plate-based total IL-6 assay was developed and transferred to the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform for large scale clinical testing.The top-performing antibody pair from 36 capture and four detection candidates was validated on the MSD platform. The lower limit of quantification in human serum samples (n = 6) was 9.77 pg l(-1) , recovery ranged from 93.13-113.27%, the overall pooled coefficients of variation were 20.12% (inter-assay) and 8.67% (intra-assay). High MW forms of IL-6, in size fractionated serum samples from myelodysplastic syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis patients, were detected by the assay but not by a commercial kit.This novel panoptic (sees all forms) IL-6 MSD assay that measures both high and low MW forms may have clinical utility.

Background: the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma. We investigated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) could improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. Methods: in this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 487 adults with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantation to receive six to eight 21-day cycles of R-CHOP intravenously on day 1 (with prednisone administered orally on days 1 to 5) or VR-CAP (R-CHOP regimen, but replacing vincristine with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results: after a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (according to independent radiologic review) was 14.4 months in the R-CHOP group versus 24.7 months in the VR-CAP group (hazard ratio favoring the VR-CAP group, 0.63; P

We compared the safety and efficacy of siltuximab (S), an anti-interleukin-6 chimeric monoclonal antibody, plus bortezomib (B) with placebo (plc) + B in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a randomized phase 2 study. Siltuximab was given by 6 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks. On progression, B was discontinued and high-dose dexamethasone could be added to S/plc. Response and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed pre-dexamethasone by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. For the 281 randomized patients, median PFS for S + B and plc + B was 8.0 and 7.6 months (HR 0.869, P = 0.345), overall response rate was 55 versus 47% (P = 0.213), complete response rate was 11 versus 7%, and median overall survival (OS) was 30.8 versus 36.8 months (HR 1.353, P = 0.103). Sustained suppression of C-reactive protein, a marker reflective of inhibition of interleukin-6 activity, was seen with S + B. Siltuximab did not affect B pharmacokinetics. Siltuximab/placebo discontinuation (75 versus 66%), grade ≥3 neutropenia (49 versus 29%), thrombocytopenia (48 versus 34%), and all-grade infections (62 versus 49%) occurred more frequently with S + B. The addition of siltuximab to bortezomib did not appear to improve PFS or OS despite a numerical increase in response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

This analysis, using data from the bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) arm of the Phase III VISTA study, investigated whether increased cumulative bortezomib dose could improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. Median cumulative bortezomib dose received by the 340 patients was 39 mg/m(2); this was selected as the cut-off for defining the dose groups to be compared for OS. Patient characteristics were well balanced between dose groups except for age. OS was significantly longer in the higher (39 mg/m(2)) versus lower (

Background We investigated if bortezomib during induction and maintenance improves survival in newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM).\r\n\r\nMethods 827 eligible patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM were randomized to receive induction therapy with VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone; n=414) or PAD (bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone; n=413) followed by high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Maintenance consisted of daily thalidomide 50 mg (VAD) or 2-weekly bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 i.v. (PAD) for 2 years. The primary analysis was progression-free survival (PFS) adjusted for ISS stage. We here report long-term results of this trial ( P. Sonneveld et al., J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2946-2955 ).\r\n\r\nResults The number of eligible patients, patient characteristics and disease characteristics are similar to those reported before. The response rates during protocol treatment have improved slightly since all patients have now completed treatment: CR+nCR 49% vs 35%, VGPR 26% vs 21% and ≥PR 91% vs 83% (PAD vs VAD).\r\n\r\nAfter a median follow-up of 67 months, 111 of patients treated with VAD and 131 of patients treated with PAD were progression-free and alive. Progression-free survival (PFS) defined as time from randomization until progression, relapse or death (censored at date of alloSCT, if applicable), was superior with PAD when adjusted for ISS, (HR=0.78, 95% CI [0.66-0.91], P=.002) and in multivariate analysis (HR=0.76 (95% CI [0.64-0.90], P=.001). For the secondary endpoint overall survival (OS) the PAD arm was superior when adjusted for ISS (HR=0.80, 95% CI [0.65-1.00], P=.047) as well as in multivariate analysis (HR=0.78, 95% CI [0.63-0.97], P=.027). Landmark analysis from start of maintenance for PFS did not show a significant difference between Thalidomide and Bortezomib maintenance, however, for OS the PAD arm was superior (P=.035) (HR=0.71, 95% CI [0.52-0.98]). Subgroup analysis performed on patients with renal failure at presentation (serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL; 45 VAD, 36 PAD) showed that the PAD arm was significantly superior for PFS (HR=0.44, 95% CI [0.26-0.75], P=.003) and OS (HR=0.38, 95% CI [0.21-0.69], P

P>Although haematological toxicities, such as anaemia, are common in multiple myeloma (MM), no clear consensus exists on the use and impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) on outcomes in MM. This analysis characterizes haematological toxicities and associated interventions in the phase III VISTA (Velcade (R) as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone) study of bortezomib plus melphalan/prednisone (VMP, n = 344) versus MP (n = 338) in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for high-dose therapy, and evaluates the impact of ESA use or red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusions on outcomes and thromboembolic risk. Incidence of haematological toxicities was similar with VMP and MP; similar rates of interventions and associated complications (e.g. bleeding, febrile neutropenia) were observed. Two hundred thirty three patients received ESA; 204 had RBC transfusions. Frequency of thromboembolic events was low and not affected by ESA use. Median time-to progression (TTP) was similar between ESA/non-ESA [hazard ratio: 1 center dot 03 (95% confidence interval 0 center dot 76-1 center dot 39); P = 0 center dot 8478] in both arms (VMP: 19 center dot 9/not reached; MP: 15 center dot 0/17 center dot 5 months). Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were similar between ESA/non-ESA in each arm. Patients receiving RBC transfusions had significantly shorter OS (P < 0 center dot 0001) versus non-RBC-transfusion patients. In conclusion, bortezomib did not add to melphalan haematological toxicity. Concomitant ESA use with VMP/MP in previously untreated MM patients did not adversely affect TTP or OS, or increase thromboembolic risk. However, RBC transfusion was associated with significantly shorter survival.

Purpose To assess bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and melphalan and prednisone (MP) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) with renal impairment enrolled on the phase III VISTA study, and to evaluate renal impairment reversibility. Patients and Methods Patients received nine 6-week cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), melphalan 9 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)) or MP. Patients with serum creatinine higher than 2 mg/dL were excluded. Results In the VMP/MP arms, 6%/4%, 27%/30%, and 67%/66% of patients had baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 60 mL/min) was seen in 49 (44%) of 111 patients receiving VMP versus 40 (34%) of 116 patients receiving MP. By multivariate analysis, younger age (< 75 years; P = .006) and less severe impairment (GFR >= 30 mL/min; P = .027) were associated with higher reversal rates. In addition, treatment with VMP approached significance (P = .07). In both arms, rates of grade 4 and 5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs appeared higher in patients with renal impairment; with VMP, rates of discontinuations/bortezomib dose reductions due to AEs did not appear affected. Conclusion VMP is a feasible, active, and well-tolerated treatment option for previously untreated patients with MM with moderate renal impairment, resulting in 44% renal impairment reversal.

Certain cytogenetic abnormalities are known to adversely impact outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) compared with placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo-Rd). This preplanned analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd according to cytogenetic risk, as assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16); additionally, patients were assessed for 1q21 amplification. Of 722 randomized patients, 552 had cytogenetic results; 137 (25%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and 172 (32%) had 1q21 amplification alone. PFS was improved with IRd vs placebo-Rd in both high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.321-0.918; P = .021), with median PFS of 21.4 vs 9.7 months; in standard-risk patients, HR was 0.640 (95% CI, 0.462-0.888; P = .007), with median PFS of 20.6 vs 15.6 months. This PFS benefit was consistent across subgroups with individual high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including patients with del(17p) (HR, 0.596; 95% CI, 0.286-1.243). PFS was also longer with IRd vs placebo-Rd in patients with 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.492-1.240), and in the “expanded high-risk” group, defined as those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.664; 95% CI, 0.474-0.928). IRd demonstrated substantial benefit compared with placebo-Rd in relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics, and improves the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537.