Search

Objectives: Daratumumab-treated myeloma patients may face increased seasonal influenza risk due to weakened postvaccination immune responses, especially with daratumumab treatment. We aimed to assess humoral responses to boosted influenza vaccination in daratumumab-treated or -untreated patients., Methods: In a single-center study, we evaluated humoral responses (hemagglutination-inhibition assay) one month following a two-injection (4-weeks apart) influenza vaccination (standard dose) in 84 patients with multiple myeloma (40 with daratumumab in the past year)., Results: Seroprotection rates (titer ≥1/40) after the second vaccine injection were low across vaccinal subtypes (except for A-H3N2): 71.3% (A-H3N2), 19.7% (A-H1N1pdm09), 9.9% (B-Victoria), 11.3% (B-Yamagata). Only A-H3N2 seroprotection rates significantly increased with the booster in daratumumab-treated patients (30% (12/40) after one injection vs 55% (22/40) after the boost; P = 0.01).After propensity score weighting, daratumumab was not significantly associated with a reduced likelihood of seroprotection against at least one vaccine strain (OR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.22-1.88])., Conclusion: While daratumumab treatment did not lead to a significant reduction in seroprotection rates following influenza vaccination, a booster vaccine injection demonstrated potential benefit for specific strains (A-H3N2) in patients undergoing daratumumab treatment. Nevertheless, the overall low response rates in patients with multiple myeloma necessitates the development of alternative vaccination and prophylaxis strategies., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: F. Lemonnier received research funding from Institut Roche and travel grant from Gilead, G. Melica received honoraria from lectures from Astellas, Pfizer, Gilead, MSD, Janssen. S. Fourati received research grants from Moderna, and consulting fees from Moderna, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, GSK and Cepheid, as well as support for traval from Astellas, Gilead and Pfizer. C. Haioun received research funding and consulting honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Celgen, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, F.Hoffmann-La Roche, Servier, Takeda, Miltenyi. F. Lemonnier received research funding from La Roche Institute and support for attending meetings from Gilead. F. Le Bras received research funding from Takeda and Celgene BMS, and honoraria from Takeda, Kite Gilead and Novartis. K. Belhadj received nonfinancial research support from AbbVie., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA., Methods: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383., Findings: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM served on advisory boards for and received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Pfizer. CH received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, AbbVie, and Pfizer. AP served in a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Takeda. BA received research funding (paid to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb; received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and GSK; received travel funding from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi; and served on an advisory board for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Takeda. KB has a direct financial relationship with Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. SZ received research support from Janssen and Takeda; and served on advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Amgen, and Takeda. MD received honoraria from and served in a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Stemline; and received research funding from Janssen. CS received consulting fees or honoraria from Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. MMo received honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi. LK received honoraria from, served on advisory boards for, or received travel funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. MMa received honoraria from and served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Sanofi, and Takeda; received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; and received travel, accommodations, or expenses from Janssen and Sanofi. FO-P served on boards for Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer. MR served on an advisory board for Janssen and Pfizer; received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi; gave lectures for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed by Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. JMSdC served on an advisory board and received honoraria from Janssen, Sanofi, GSK, and AbbVie; and received accommodations from Pfizer and Amgen. NWCJvdD received research support from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Cellectis, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and serves on advisory boards for Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Adaptive, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Servier (all paid to institution). AB served on advisory boards for Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. CT served on an advisory board for and received honoraria from Janssen. NM served on an advisory board for Janssen. M-CV received travel support from Janssen and Sanofi. M-DL received travel expenses from Janssen. WH is an employee of Cytel and is a contractor for Johnson & Johnson. JW, CdB, MR, VV, RC, and JV are employees of Janssen and hold stock in Johnson & Johnson. AT is an employee of Janssen. JC served on advisory boards for Sanofi and Bristol Myers Squibb; served as a consultant for Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Adaptive; received research support from Sanofi and Bristol Myers Squibb; and received travel support from Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. PS served on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Pfizer; and received research funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Karyopharm. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

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

Background: Donor-specific antibodies are associated with increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection and decreased allograft survival. Therefore, reducing the risk of these antibodies remains a clinical need in transplantation. Plasma cells are a logical target of therapy given their critical role in antibody production., Methods: To target plasma cells, we treated sensitized rhesus macaques with daratumumab (anti-CD38 mAb). Before transplant, we sensitized eight macaques with two sequential skin grafts from MHC-mismatched donors; four of them were also desensitized with daratumumab and plerixafor (anti-CXCR4). We also treated two patients with daratumumab in the context of transplant., Results: The animals treated with daratumumab had significantly reduced donor-specific antibody levels compared with untreated controls (57.9% versus 13% reduction; P <0.05) and prolonged renal graft survival (28.0 days versus 5.2 days; P <0.01). However, the reduction in donor-specific antibodies was not maintained because all recipients demonstrated rapid rebound of antibodies, with profound T cell-mediated rejection. In the two clinical patients, a combined heart and kidney transplant recipient with refractory antibody-mediated rejection and a highly sensitized heart transplant candidate, we also observed a significant decrease in class 1 and 2 donor-specific antibodies that led to clinical improvement of antibody-mediated rejection and to heart graft access., Conclusions: Targeting CD38 with daratumumab significantly reduced anti-HLA antibodies and anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies in a nonhuman primate model and in two transplant clinical cases before and after transplant. This supports investigation of daratumumab as a potential therapeutic strategy; however, further research is needed regarding its use for both antibody-mediated rejection and desensitization., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

We report the outcome of patients included in the LNH-98.5 study, which compared cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) to rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) therapy in 399 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) aged 60 to 80 years, with a median follow-up time of 10 years. Clinical event information was updated in all living patients (with the exception of 3 patients) in 2009. Survival end points were improved in patients treated with R-CHOP: the 10-year progression-free survival was 36.5%, compared with 20% with CHOP alone, and the 10-year overall survival was 43.5% compared with 27.6%. The same risk of death due to other diseases, secondary cancers, and late relapses was observed in both study arms. Relapses occurring after 5 years represented 7% of all disease progressions. The results from the 10-year analysis confirm the benefits and tolerability of the addition of rituximab to CHOP. Our findings underscore the need to treat elderly patients as young patients, with the use of curative chemotherapy.

Background: Revised response criteria for aggressive lymphomas have been proposed (Cheson, J Clin Oncol, 2007) stressing the role of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET) in posttreatment evaluation. The value of PET after four cycles compared with the International Workshop Criteria (IWC) remains to be established., Patients and Methods: In all, 103 patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were prospectively enrolled to evaluate the prognostic impact of PET after two and four cycles., Results: Median age was 53 years (19-79), 68% male. The International Prognostic Index was low=22%, low-intermediate=19%, intermediate-high=33% and high risk=26%. Treatment consisted of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) (30%) or dose-intensified CHOP (70%), with rituximab (49%) or without (51%). Ninety-nine patients were evaluated by PET and IWC at four cycles: 77 (78%) had a negative PET, while 22 (22%) remained positive. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 36% for patients with a positive PET versus 80% with a negative examination, whatever the response [complete response (CR) versus partial response (PR)] according to IWC (P<0.0001). Positive PET patients had a 5-year EFS of 58% if in CR/CR unconfirmed by IWC and 0% if not (P<0.0001). The same observations could be made in patients treated with and without rituximab., Conclusion: The integration of PET in treatment evaluation offers a powerful tool to predict outcome.

Background: Rituximab induces clinical response in advanced B-cell lymphoma and is efficient in removing circulating B-cell from peripheral blood. We therefore postulated that rituximab might be a useful in vivo purging agent before high-dose therapy in this setting., Patients and Methods: Fourteen patients with relapsed follicular, marginal zone and mantle cell lymphomas (11, two and one cases, respectively) and a PCR-detectable molecular marker were treated first with rituximab, then a mobilization chemotherapeutic regimen, followed by high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. PCR analyses were performed in peripheral blood before rituximab and during follow-up, and in harvest., Results: Harvests were free of PCR-detectable molecular marker in nine of the 11 studied cases (82%). After high-dose therapy, clinical complete remission was obtained in 13 (93%) patients and molecular remission in 11 (79%). With a median follow-up of 3 years, the 14 transplanted patients were alive, 11 of them remaining in clinical complete remission and eight in molecular remission at last follow-up., Conclusion: Rituximab treatment followed by high dose therapy appears to be effective in achieving complete clinical and molecular response. In vivo harvest purging is predictive of prolonged clinical and molecular remission.