Search

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0–2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60–72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61–72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2–5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4–22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1–23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1–25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0–25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1–31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8–23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85–1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). Interpretation Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Oncopeptides AB

NA

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) have a shorter survival as compared to the standard-risk ones. In the FORTE study, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction/consolidation with ASCT (KRd-ASCT) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs KRd without ASCT (KRd12) or carfilzomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd) plus ASCT (KCd-ASCT). KR maintenance also prolonged PFS vs R. The primary aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of treatment on PFS and 1-year sustained MRD negativity (1y-MRD neg) rates according to pt cytogenetic risk. Methods Pts were randomized to KRd-ASCT vs KCd-ASCT vs KRd12 and, thereafter, to KR vs R maintenance. High risk (HiR) was defined as the presence of ≥1 HiR CA [del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), del1p and 1q gain (3 copies) or amp1q (≥4 copies)], double hit (DH) as the presence of ≥2 HiR CA, standard risk (SR) as the absence of all evaluated HiR CA. Results 396 out of 474 enrolled pts with complete fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) data were included in the analysis: 243 HiR, 105 DH and 153 SR pts. Among HiR pts, 60 had del17p, 65 t(4;14), 20 t(14;16), 44 del1p, 126 1q gain and 49 amp1q. SR pts benefited from intensification with KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.47, p=0.05) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.38, p=0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 80%, 67% and 57%, respectively. In HiR pts, KRd-ASCT improved PFS vs KRd12 (HR 0.6, p=0.04) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.57, p=0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 62%, 45% and 45%, respectively. The advantage with KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.53, p=0.07) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.49; p=0.03) was also observed in DH pts (4-year PFS 55%, 31% and 33%, respectively). Despite the limited number of patients in each subgroup, a trend towards a PFS benefit from KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 was observed in pts with del17p (HR 0.61, p=0.3), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p=0.2) and 1q gain (HR 0.45, p=0.02). In pts with del1p, KRd-ASCT (HR 0.24, p=0.06) and KRd12 (HR 0.33, p=0.09) showed superiority over KCd-ASCT, while amp1q pts had the worst outcome regardless of treatment (KRd-ASCT vs KCd-ASCT, HR 1.16, p=0.73; KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT, HR 1.34, p=0.45). KR improved PFS vs R in SR (3-year PFS 90% vs 73%, HR 0.42, p=0.06), HiR (3-year PFS 69% vs 56%, HR 0.6, p=0.04) and DH pts (3-year PFS 67% vs 42%, HR 0.53, p=0.1). Despite the small subgroups, a beneficial trend with KR vs R was observed in pts with del17p (HR 0.59, p=0.37), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p=0.3), 1q gain (HR 0.54, p=0.07) and del1p (HR 0.23, p=0.08), while amp1q pts showed the worst outcome and no benefit from KR vs R (HR 0.83, p=0.7). Conclusion KRd-ASCT and KR maintenance are highly effective in SR and also in HiR and DH pts, with impressive 4-year PFS from diagnosis (KRd-ASCT: HiR 62%, DH 55%) and 3-year PFS from maintenance (KR: HiR 69%, DH 67%), thus providing an effective option in HiR pts, who still represent an unmet medical need.

For many years, the oral combination melphalan-prednisone (MP) has been considered the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. In the era of novel agents, the introduction of immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors has challenged the role of MP and led to new standards of care for this disease. Five randomized phase III studies compared the traditional MP with the MP plus thalidomide (MPT). All these studies showed a prolonged time to progression (TTP) with the 3-drug combination. However, in only two of these trials this advantage translated into an improvement in overall survival (OS). In another randomized trial, MP plus bortezomib (VMP) was correlated with an increase in both TTP and OS compared with MP. Preliminary data showed the superiority of the association of VMP plus thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) vs VMP and melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) compared to MP. Promising results have also been reported with the combination of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. The availability of different efficacious regimens provided clinicians with the opportunity of tailoring the proper and specific approach for each patient. The choice should be based on patients' comorbidities and biologic age, while taking into account the expected toxicity profiles of each treatment regimen. Moreover, an accurate management of therapy-related adverse events and a gentler approach, particularly for patients older than 75 years, with appropriate age-adjusted dose reductions, should be considered to further improve outcome.