Search

Background: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear., Methods: In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response., Results: A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals., (© 2024 The Author(s). American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The randomized, phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present final post hoc analyses (median follow-up, 49.6 months) of clinically relevant subgroups, including patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per revised definition (del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], and/or gain/amp[1q21]). Patients received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd/RVd), high-dose therapy/transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd/RVd), and lenalidomide±daratumumab maintenance (≤ 2 years). Minimal residual disease-negativity (10 -5 ) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd in patients ≥ 65 years (67.9% vs 17.9%), with HRCAs (54.8% vs 32.4%), and with gain/amp(1q21) (61.8% vs 28.6%). D-RVd showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival versus RVd (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) in patients ≥ 65 years (0.29 [0.06-1.48]), with HRCAs (0.38 [0.14-1.01]), and with gain/amp(1q21) (0.42 [0.14-1.27]). In the functional high-risk subgroup (not MRD negative at the end of consolidation), the hazard ratio was 0.82 (0.35-1.89). Among patients ≥ 65 years, grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates were higher for D-RVd versus RVd (88.9% vs 77.8%), as were TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥ 1 treatment component (37.0% vs 25.9%). One D-RVd patient died due to an unrelated TEAE. These results support the addition of daratumumab to RVd in transplant-eligible patients with high-risk NDMM. Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM., (© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

In the MASTER study (NCT03224507), daratumumab+carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) demonstrated promising efficacy in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In GRIFFIN (NCT02874742), daratumumab+lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved outcomes for transplant-eligible NDMM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs; del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], or gain/amp[1q21]). Among 123 D-KRd patients, 43.1%, 37.4%, and 19.5% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Among 120 D-RVd patients, 55.8%, 28.3%, and 10.8% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Rates of complete response or better (best on study) for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs were 90.6%, 89.1%, and 70.8% for D-KRd, and 90.9%, 78.8%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. At median follow-up (MASTER, 31.1 months; GRIFFIN, 49.6 months for randomized patients/59.5 months for safety run-in patients), MRD-negativity rates as assessed by next-generation sequencing (10 -5 ) were 80.0%, 86.4%, and 83.3% for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs for D-KRd, and 76.1%, 55.9%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. PFS was similar between studies and superior for 0 or 1 versus ≥2 HRCAs: 36-month PFS rates for D-KRd were 89.9%, 86.2%, and 52.4%, and 96.7%, 90.5%, and 53.5% for D-RVd. These data support the use of daratumumab-containing regimens for transplant-eligible NDMM with HCRAs; however, additional strategies are needed for ultra-high-risk disease (≥2 HRCAs). Video Abstract., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 is a phase 3 open-label, randomized trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer with progression after platinum-based therapy. Primary endpoints of superiority for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were met for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all-comers (ie, regardless of mismatch repair [MMR] status) and patients with MMR proficiency (pMMR). We present results for the Japanese subset. Patients were randomized to oral lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W; up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab) or TPC (intravenous doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 QW [3 weeks on/1 week off]). Primary endpoints were PFS by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1 and OS. One hundred four patients were randomized in Japan (data cutoff, October 26, 2020; median follow-up, 11.8 [range, 1.1-26.9] months). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus TPC were 1.04 (95% CI, 0.63-1.73) in patients with pMMR and 0.81 (0.50-1.31) in all-comers. Hazard ratios for OS were 0.74 (0.41-1.34) with pMMR and 0.59 (0.33-1.04) for all-comers. Adverse events were manageable and led to discontinuation of one/both study drugs in 36.5% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 7.8% in the TPC group. Similar to the global Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 results, this analysis suggested favorable efficacy and manageable safety with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab after platinum-based chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced endometrial cancer and supports this combination as a new standard of care in this population., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65)., Conclusions: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) induction is standard prior to autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) in newly diagnosed, high-risk multiple myeloma (ND-HRMM). Carfilzomib (K) is another proteasome inhibitor approved for MM. In this single-center, retrospective analysis, we compared outcomes in ND-HRMM with pre-transplant KRD or VRD induction. High-risk was defined by t(4:14), t(14:16), 1q21 gain/amplification, or del(17p). Primary endpoints were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 121 ND-HRMM patients, 63 received KRD, and 58 received VRD. Post-induction, complete (CR), very good partial (VGPR), partial response (PR), and overall response (ORR) rates were 23.8%/49.2%/25.4%/98.4% with KRD, and 19%/46.6%/27.6%/93.1% with VRD. At day 100 post-auto-HCT, these were 38.1%/42.9%/19%/100% with KRD, versus 35.1%/49.1%/12.3%/94.8% with VRD. Pre-auto-HCT, 11 (18.3%) KRD and 7 (12.5%) VRD patients had minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR (p = 0.45). Post-auto-HCT, 14 (41.2%) and 13 (43.3%) patients had MRD-negative CR (p = 1.000). Median PFS was 38.2 (95%CI 28.7-NA) and 45.9 months (95%CI 43.2-NA) for KRD and VRD, respectively (p = 0.25). Respective 3-year PFS and OS were 53.5% (95%CI 41.1-69.6) and 95.2% (95%CI 90-100) for KRD and 64% (95%CI 51.6-79.5) and 84.2% (95%CI 73.5-96.3, p = 0.30) for VRD. Overall, KRD induction pre-auto-HCT does not improve outcomes. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Standard therapy for advanced endometrial cancer after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy remains unclear., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced endometrial cancer who had previously received at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg, administered orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy of the treating physician's choice (doxorubicin at 60 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered intravenously every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel at 80 mg per square meter, administered intravenously weekly [with a cycle of 3 weeks on and 1 week off]). The two primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed on blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival. The end points were evaluated in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease and in all patients. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 827 patients (697 with pMMR disease and 130 with mismatch repair-deficient disease) were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (411 patients) or chemotherapy (416 patients). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 6.6 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.72; P<0.001; overall: 7.2 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66; P<0.001). The median overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (pMMR population: 17.4 vs. 12.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001; overall: 18.3 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 88.9% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 72.7% of those who received chemotherapy., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with advanced endometrial cancer. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck]; Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03517449.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival., Methods: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172., Findings: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group., Interpretation: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TF received payment or honoraria for speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Roche, and Takeda. SKK received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen, Janssen, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Roche-Genentech, Takeda, and TeneoBio; and consulted for or participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Antengene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Epizyme, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche-Genentech, Secure Biotherapeutics, and Takeda. TP received consulting fees from Celgene and Janssen; received payment or honoraria for educational events from Janssen; received payment for expert testimony from CSL Behring, Oncopeptides, and Takeda; and holds stock or stock options in Novo Nordisk. RZO received support for the present manuscript from Janssen; received laboratory research funding from Asylia Therapeutics, BioTheryX, and Heidelberg Pharma; received clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; received royalties or licenses for, has patents planned, issued or pending for, and holds stock or stock options in Asylia Therapeutics; received consulting fees from EcoR1 Capital; and participated on an advisory board for Amgen, BioTheryX, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm, Kite, Neoleukin, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Takeda. PM received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. NB received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, and Pfizer; participated on an independent review committee for Janssen, Karyopharm, and Legend Biotech; received honoraria for educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen; and participated on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. HQ received grants or contracts from Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, and Sanofi; and had a leadership or fiduciary role in advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, and Takeda. HG received grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation, Janssen, Johns Hopkins University, and Sanofi; received consulting fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Art Tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Incyte, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Molecular Partners, MundiPharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. MOD received consulting fees from Janssen; has several patents planned, issued, or pending relating to the use of natural killer cells and sialyltransferase inhibition in the treatment of cancer; participated on an advisory board for Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; serves as a director of ONK Therapeutics; and holds stock or stock options in ONK Therapeutics and Carrick Therapeutics. AP received grants or contracts from Sanofi and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for presentations and educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; received payment or honoraria for a speakers bureau from Janssen and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen and Sanofi. CPV received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda. KW received honoraria from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. NR served in an advisory role for Amgen, bluebird bio, Caribou, GlaxoSmithKline, and Immuneel. MM received research funding from Janssen and Takeda; received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and received travel accommodations from Janssen and Takeda. LF received support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Amgen and Janssen; and received payment or honoraria for educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. TA is an employee of and holds equity in Genmab. JW and RVR are employees of Janssen. CMU, BT, MD, and JV are employees of Janssen; and hold equity in Johnson & Johnson. SZU received grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda; and received personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, MundiPharma, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SkylineDX, and Takeda. SB, HN, CH, JRM, MT, and XL declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in treatment of advanced endometrial carcinoma (that is not microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient) following prior systemic therapy in any setting in the open-label, single-arm, phase Ib/II Study 111/KEYNOTE-146. With the exception of hypothyroidism, the safety profile of the combination was comparable to that of each monotherapy. Given the medical complexity and fragility of patients with endometrial carcinoma, further characterization of adverse reactions (ARs) associated with treatment will help health care professionals to optimize treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination therapy., Patients and Methods: In Study 111/KEYNOTE-146, patients received lenvatinib at a starting dose of 20 mg orally once daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. Selected ARs (hypertension, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight loss, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, musculoskeletal pain, stomatitis, and proteinuria) were chosen for detailed post hoc analyses., Results: Median times to first onset of the selected ARs in this analysis all occurred within the first 10 weeks of treatment. Of the selected ARs, grade ≥3 severity of fatigue, hypertension, and nausea occurred in ≥5% of patients. Overall incidence of hypothyroidism was 51%, primarily of grade 2 severity (46%). Most of the ARs assessed were managed with a combination of study drug dose modifications and concomitant medications., Conclusion: No new safety signals were identified and the toxicity profile in this study was manageable with supportive medications, dose interruptions, and/or lenvatinib dose reductions. This analysis provides AR management guidance for patients with endometrial cancer receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination therapy., Implications for Practice: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has shown efficacy in the treatment of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma (that is, not microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient) following at least one prior systemic therapy in any setting. Patients may experience toxicity associated with this combination, including adverse reactions of hypertension, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight loss, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, musculoskeletal pain, stomatitis, and proteinuria. These adverse reactions may be managed with a combination of concomitant supportive care medications and judicious lenvatinib dose modifications. This article provides context and guidance for the recognition and management of adverse reactions in patients receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study., Patients and Methods: PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs., Results: A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score., Conclusion: D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients with high-risk multiple myeloma have a poor long-term prognosis. We aimed to address optimal treatment for these patients., Methods: SWOG-1211 is a randomised phase 2 trial comparing eight cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-14 every 21 days), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 every 21 days; RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance (bortezomib 1 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 15 mg orally on days 1-21; dexamethasone 12 mg orally on days 1, 18, and 15 every 28 days) until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-8, and on days 1 and 15 during maintenance). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either RVd or RVd-elotuzumab. High-risk multiple myeloma was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high risk (GEP hi ), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) or amp1q21, primary plasma cell leukaemia and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (two times the upper limit of normal or more). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668719., Findings: 100 (RVd n=52, RVd-elotuzumab n=48) patients were enrolled between Oct 27, 2013, and May 15, 2016, across 26 cooperative group institutions in the USA. Median age was 64 years (IQR 57-70, range 36-85). 74 (75%) of 99 had International Staging System stage II or stage III disease, 47 (47%) of 99 had amp1q21, 37 (37%) of 100 had del17p, 11 (11%) of 100 had t(14;16), eight (9%) of 90 were GEP hi , seven (7%) of 100 had primary plasma cell leukaemia, five (5%) of 100 had t(14;20), four (4%) of 100 had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase, and 17 (17%) had two or more features. With a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 46-59), no difference in median progression-free survival was observed (RVd 33·64 months [95% CI 19·55-not reached], RVd-elotuzumab 31·47 months [18·56-53·98]; hazard ratio 0·968 [80% CI 0·697-1·344]; one-sided p=0·45]. 37 (71%) of 52 patients in the RVd group and 37 (77%) of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. No significant differences in the safety profile were observed, although some notable results included grade 3-5 infections (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, eight [17%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), sensory neuropathy (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, six [13%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), and motor neuropathy (one [2%] of 52 in the RVd group, four [8%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group). There were no treatment-related deaths in the RVd group and one death in the RVd-elotuzumab group for which study treatment was listed as possibly contributing by the investigator., Interpretation: In the first randomised study of high-risk multiple myeloma reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, progression-free survival in both study groups exceeded the original statistical assumptions and supports the role for continuous proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drug combination maintenance therapy for this patient population., Funding: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT)., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m 2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m 2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing., Findings: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5-23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8-37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1-not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death)., Interpretation: The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs., Funding: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma have limited treatment options. We report final primary efficacy analysis results for a patient cohort with advanced endometrial carcinoma receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in an ongoing phase Ib/II study of selected solid tumors., Methods: Patients took lenvatinib 20 mg once daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks, in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORR Wk24 ); secondary efficacy end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Tumor assessments were evaluated by investigators per immune-related RECIST., Results: At data cutoff, 108 patients with previously treated endometrial carcinoma were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 18.7 months. The ORR Wk24 was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.8%). Among subgroups, the ORR Wk24 (95% CI) was 63.6% (30.8% to 89.1%) in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors (n = 11) and 36.2% (26.5% to 46.7%) in patients with microsatellite-stable tumors (n = 94). For previously treated patients, regardless of tumor MSI status, the median DOR was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable), median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.7 months), and median OS was 16.7 months (15.0 months to not estimable). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83/124 (66.9%) patients., Conclusion: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma who have experienced disease progression after prior systemic therapy, regardless of tumor MSI status. The combination therapy had a manageable toxicity profile.

Prolonging overall survival (OS) remains an unmet need in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In ELOQUENT-2 (NCT01239797), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ERd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with RRMM and 1-3 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). We report results from the pre-planned final OS analysis after a minimum follow-up of 70.6 months, the longest reported for an antibody-based triplet in RRMM. Overall, 646 patients with RRMM and 1-3 prior LoTs were randomized 1:1 to ERd or Rd. PFS and overall response rate were co-primary endpoints. OS was a key secondary endpoint, with the final analysis planned after 427 deaths. ERd demonstrated a statistically significant 8.7-month improvement in OS versus Rd (median, 48.3 vs 39.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95.4% Cl, 0.68-1.00]; P = 0.0408 [less than allotted α of 0.046]), which was consistently observed across key predefined subgroups. No additional safety signals with ERd at extended follow-up were reported. ERd is the first antibody-based triplet regimen shown to significantly prolong OS in patients with RRMM and 1-3 prior LoTs. The magnitude of OS benefit was greatest among patients with adverse prognostic factors, including older age, ISS stage III, IMWG high-risk disease, and 2-3 prior LoTs.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard frontline therapy for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab (D) to RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM patients was evaluated. Patients (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to D-RVd or RVd induction (4 cycles), ASCT, D-RVd or RVd consolidation (2 cycles), and lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus D maintenance (26 cycles). The primary end point, stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation, favored D-RVd vs RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.82; 1-sided P = .068) and met the prespecified 1-sided α of 0.10. With longer follow-up (median, 22.1 months), responses deepened; sCR rates improved for D-RVd vs RVd (62.6% vs 45.4%; P = .0177), as did minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10-5 threshold) rates in the intent-to-treat population (51.0% vs 20.4%; P < .0001). Four patients (3.8%) in the D-RVd group and 7 patients (6.8%) in the RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more common with D-RVd. More infections occurred with D-RVd, but grade 3/4 infection rates were similar. Median CD34+ cell yield was 8.2 × 106/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 × 106/kg for RVd, although plerixafor use was more common with D-RVd. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were comparable. Daratumumab with RVd induction and consolidation improved depth of response in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Purpose: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved tremendously and optimal utilization of available therapies will ensure maximal patient benefits., Patients and Methods: We report the Southwest Oncology Group randomized phase II trial (S1304) comparing twice weekly low-dose (27 mg/m 2 ; arm 1) to high-dose carfilzomib (56 mg/m 2 ; arm 2), both with dexamethasone, administered for 12 cycles (11 months) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with up to six prior lines of therapy (NCT01903811). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and patients on arm 1 could cross-over to arm 2 after progression on treatment., Results: Among 143 enrolled patients, of whom 121 were eligible and analyzable, the overall response rate was 42.8%, with no significant difference between the arms ( P = 0.113). Also, neither the median PFS [5 months and 8 months, respectively; HR, 1.061; 80% Wald confidence interval (CI), 0.821-1.370; P = 0.384] nor the median overall survival were significantly different (26 and 22 months, respectively; HR, 1.149, 80% Wald CI, 0.841-.571; P = 0.284). Sixteen patients crossed over to arm 2 with a median PFS benefit of 3 months. Certain adverse events (AE) were more frequent in arm 2, including fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy, but there was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary AEs., Conclusions: This randomized trial did not support a benefit of fixed duration, twice weekly 56 mg/m 2 dosing of carfilzomib over the 27 mg/m 2 dose for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. However, treatment to progression in earlier patient populations with high-dose carfilzomib using different schedules should still be considered as part of the standard of care., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 to VRd. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients. Median follow up is 84 months. Median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003. Median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114. Both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Median duration of Rd maintenance was 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS. VRd continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) usually follows a clinical course leading to refractoriness and limited treatment options in advanced stages, which might need bridge therapies to either autologous stem cell transplantation or novel therapies. We report our experience with the high-dose chemotherapy mCBAD (modified cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) regimen in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), and plasma cell leukemia (PCL) patients., Patients and Methods: We searched our electronic records database for MM patients who received mCBAD from 2010 to 2016 for 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide 350 mg/m 2 intravenously (I.V.) twice daily with mesna 400 mg/m 2 I.V. daily (days 1-4), bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously/I.V. (days 1, 4, 8, 11), doxorubicin 9 mg/m 2 daily continuous infusion (days 1-4), dexamethasone 40 mg orally daily (on days 1-4, 9-12, 17-20). International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria were used for response assessment and diagnosis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test, χ 2 , Wilcoxon rank sum, and Kaplan-Meier were used for statistical purposes., Results: One hundred forty patients met the inclusion criteria. A median of 2 cycles of therapy was administered. The overall response rate was 85% in patients with RRMM (n = 116) and 100% in NDMM (n = 13) and PCL (n = 11) patients. Respective median progression-free survival (mPFS) for NDMM, PCL, and RRMM were 19.61 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.26 to not applicable [NA]), 7.56 months (95% CI, 4.7 to NA), and 4.64 months (95% CI, 3.75-6.73). Patients with RRMM who used mCBAD as a bridge to autologous transplant (36.2%) had mPFS (11.48 months; 95% CI, 7.52-15.9 months) compared with those who did not (mPFS: 3.19 months; 95% CI, 2.4-3.75 months). Cytopenias occurred in more than 90% of patients, and febrile neutropenia was noted in 26%. All cases of treatment-related mortality (8%) occurred in patients with RRMM, except for 1 patient with PCL., Conclusion: mCBAD results in high response rates in myeloma and PCL, however, with high treatment-related mortality. Its use in RRMM should be limited to patients who have immediate need for therapy without other treatment options and who have good performance status (score of 0-1) or NDMM if novel agents are not available depending on practice setting. mCBAD can be a treatment option for patients with PCL., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The phase III RandomizEd, OpeN Label, Phase 3 Study of Carfilzomib Plus DExamethAsone Vs Bortezomib Plus DexamethasOne in Patients With Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (ENDEAVOR) trial showed significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with carfilzomib (56 mg/m 2 ) and dexamethasone (Kd56) versus bortezomib and Kd56 (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated OS and safety data after 6 months of additional follow-up., Patients and Methods: Patients with RRMM (1-3 previous lines of therapy) were randomized 1:1 to Kd56 or Vd. Median OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; OS was compared between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: As of July 19, 2017, median follow-up was 44.3 months for Kd56 and 43.7 months for Vd. Median OS was 47.8 months (Kd56) versus 38.8 months (Vd; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.633-0.915). OS was longer with Kd56 versus Vd within age and cytogenetic subgroups, and according to number of previous lines of therapy, previous bortezomib exposure, previous lenalidomide exposure, and lenalidomide-refractory status. Exposure-adjusted incidences per 100 patient-years of adverse events (AEs) were 1352.07 for Kd56 and 1754.86 for Vd; for Grade ≥3 AEs, these values were 162.31 and 175.90., Conclusion: With median follow-up of approximately 44 months, clinically meaningful improvements in OS were observed with Kd56 versus Vd, including in all subgroups examined. The Kd56 safety profile was consistent with previous analyses., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population., Methods: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival., Results: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 10 5 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%)., Conclusions: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Retrospective studies suggest that conditioning therapy with busulfan plus melphalan could result in longer progression-free survival compared with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous haemopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). We aimed to test this hypothesis in a randomised trial., Methods: The primary objective of the study was to compare progression-free survival with conditioning of busulfan plus melphalan with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for cell transplantation, aged 70 years or younger, with at least stable disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment. Patients received either busulfan plus melphalan, with a test dose of busulfan 32 mg/m 2 followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days -7, -6, -5, and -4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve (AUC) of 5000 mmol-minute and melphalan 70 mg/m 2 per day on days -2 and -1 (total melphalan dose 140 mg/m 2 ), or a melphalan dose of 200 mg/m 2 on day -2. Randomisation was performed via a Clinical Trial Conduct Website at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The accrual is complete and final results are presented here. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01413178., Findings: Between Oct 12, 2011, and March 22, 2017, 205 patients were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to treatment. The primary analysis of progression-free survival was measured in 202 patients who received treatment: 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group and 98 patients in the melphalan alone group. 90 days after auto-HCT, 102 (98%) of 104 patients given busulfan plus melphalan and 95 (97%) of 98 patients given melphalan alone achieved partial response or better. The median follow-up in the busulfan plus melphalan group was 22·6 months (IQR 15·2-47·1) and 20·2 months (IQR 8·8-46·6) in the melphalan alone group. Median progression-free survival was 64·7 months (32·9-64·7) with busulfan plus melphalan versus 43·5 months (19·9-not estimated) with melphalan alone (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·30-0·91]; p=0·022). There were no treatment-related deaths by day 100 in either group. Grade 2-3 mucositis was observed in 77 (74%) of 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group versus 14 (14%) of 98 patients in the melphalan alone group., Interpretation: These findings, if confirmed in other ongoing studies, suggest that busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the conditioning regimen for auto-HCT in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma., Funding: This study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through MD Anderson's Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Multiple myeloma (MM) and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) are plasma cell disorders often treated with proteasome inhibitors. Recently, several studies evaluated carfilzomib as an initial treatment for these diseases and reported outstanding clinical outcomes. We conducted a retrospective study to report the efficacy and safety of frontline carfilzomib-based combinations in a standard of care setting. From 2014 until 2016 we identified newly diagnosed MM (n = 54) and WM (n = 6) patients treated with carfilzomib as initial therapy who met study inclusion criteria. The response rate for myeloma patients was 98% with 77% of patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant. The clinical benefit for WM was 100% with all patients having a resolution of B symptoms and anemia after treatment. Carfilzomib-based regimens are well tolerated and offer a neuropathy sparing approach with excellent responses both in newly diagnosed MM and WM making them a good choice for the frontline treatment of these diseases.

Background: Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard regimen for the front-line treatment of multiple myeloma. Panobinostat is approved in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with myeloma who 'have been given at least two previous regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of a new regimen combining VRd with panobinostat in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: In this phase 1 study, we enrolled patients from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were aged 18 years or older and eligible for autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) according to International Myeloma Working Group 2014 diagnostic criteria. Participants were allocated either to the dose-escalation cohort or the dose-expansion cohort. In the dose-escalation cohort, in a 3 + 3 design, patients were treated in cycles of 21 days with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 , subcutaneously) on days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide (25 mg, orally) on days 1-14; dexamethasone (20 mg, orally) on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12; and escalating doses of panobinostat (10-20 mg, orally) on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. The dose level exceeded the maximum tolerated dose if at any given dose more than one of three patients, or two of six patients, had a dose-limiting toxic event. In the dose-expansion cohort, patients were given the maximum tolerated dose of the drug combination as determined from the dose-escalation cohort. Patients could proceed with upfront ASCT after two to four cycles of initial therapy or store their stem cells and proceed with a delayed ASCT approach. Patients with delayed ASCT could continue therapy for up to eight cycles, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and panobinostat at their last tolerated dose for up to 2 years. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of VRd with panobinostat. Safety was assessed in all patients who completed at least one cycle of therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440582, and is no longer recruiting participants., Findings: Between Feb 18, 2013, and June 8, 2016, 55 patients were identified as eligible for enrolment. The dose-escalation cohort comprised 12 participants. The first three (25%) patients at dose level 1 (panobinostat 10 mg) did not encounter dose-limiting toxicity. Of six (50%) patients at dose level 2 (panobinostat 15 mg), two (33%) had dose-limiting toxic events during cycle 1; one (17%) had grade 4 thrombocytopenia with bleeding and the other had grade 3 diarrhoea, thus exceeding the maximum tolerated dose. Because the maximum tolerated dose had been exceeded, three more patients were accrued to dose level 1 and these patients did not experience dose-limiting toxic events. Dose level 1 (21 day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-14; dexamethasone 20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12; and panobinostat 10 mg orally on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12) was established as the maximum tolerated dose., Interpretation: The combination of VRd with panobinostat 10 mg is safe and effective in patients who are newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma and who are transplant eligible. Further studies in large randomised controlled settings are needed to confirm these results., Funding: Novartis and MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although the outcomes of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have improved, there is still no cure. Bortezomib has a 33% response rate in relapsed/refractory MCL and has shown additive and/or synergistic effects in preclinical trials with known effective agents., Methods: This is a report of a prospective phase 2 trial of bortezomib added to rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (BzR-hyperCVAD)/rituximab, high-dose methotrexate, and high-dose cytarabine (BzR-MA) for 95 patients with newly diagnosed MCL., Results: The overall and complete response rates were 100% and 82%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was high but expected and did not lead to an increased incidence of neutropenic fever or dose reductions in comparison with a similar reported regimen without bortezomib. After a median follow-up of 44 months, the median overall survival had not been reached, and the time to treatment failure (TTF) was 55 months, which is not different from that of historical controls., Conclusions: BzR-hyperCVAD/BzR-MA at the dose and schedule studied produced high rates of response and a TTF similar to that of historical reports without bortezomib. Cancer 2018;124:2561-9. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

This is a secondary analysis of the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study comparing relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients receiving carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Kd) with those receiving subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib with dexamethasone (Vd) or intravenous (IV) Vd. Of Kd-treated patients, 356 Kd were pre-selected (by physician prior to randomization if to be randomized to Vd) for SC Vd (Kd [SC Vd]) and 108 for IV Vd (Kd [IV Vd], respectively. Of Vd-treated patients, 360 received SC Vd and 75 IV Vd. Kd (SC Vd) median PFS was not reached; SC Vd was 9.5 months. Median PFS for Kd (IV Vd) and IV Vd were 22.2 and 8.5 months, respectively. Median PFS was significantly longer and response rates were higher for Kd versus retreatment with bortezomib (SC or IV Vd) and in bortezomib naive patients. Overall, Kd was superior to Vd in RRMM regardless of route of bortezomib administration or prior bortezomib exposure.

Background: Filanesib (ARRY-520) is a highly selective inhibitor of kinesin spindle protein, which has demonstrated preclinical antimyeloma activity., Methods: This open-label Phase 1/2 study determined the maximum tolerated dose of Filanesib administered on Days 1 and 2 of 14-Day Cycles in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and included expansion cohorts with and without dexamethasone (40 mg/week). Patients in the dose-escalation (N = 31) and Phase 2 single-agent (N = 32) cohorts had received prior bortezomib as well as prior thalidomide and/or lenalidomide. Patients in the Phase 2 Filanesib plus dexamethasone cohort (N = 55) had received prior alkylator therapy and had disease refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. Prophylactic filgrastim was incorporated during dose escalation and was used throughout Phase 2., Results: Patients in each cohort had received a median of ≥6 prior therapies. The most common dose-limiting toxicities were febrile neutropenia and mucosal inflammation. In Phase 2, Grade 3 and 4 cytopenias were reported in approximately 50% of patients. Nonhematologic toxicities were infrequent. Phase 2 response rates (partial responses or better) were 16% (single agent) and 15% (Filanesib plus dexamethasone). All responding patients had low baseline levels of α1-acid glycoprotein, a potential selective biomarker., Conclusions: Filanesib 1.50 mg/m 2 /day administered with prophylactic filgrastim has a manageable safety profile and encouraging activity in heavily pretreated patients This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00821249. Cancer 2017;123:4617-4630. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

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/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m 2 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/m 2 ) 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.)

Background: Despite the introduction of effective, novel agents, the outcome of patients with refractory multiple myeloma remains poor, particularly those who are refractory to both proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs). Limited data are available on the role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in this population., Methods: Patients with refractory myeloma who underwent first autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) between March 2000 and October 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Those who had primary refractory disease and those with relapsed and refractory disease were included. Disease that was refractory to at least 1 PI and at least 1 IMiD was classified as double-refractory multiple myeloma (DR-MM)., Results: In total, 233 patients were identified, including 105 (45%) classified with DR-MM and 128 (55%) classified with nondouble-refractory myeloma (NDR-MM). At a median follow-up of 42 months for surviving patients, at least a partial response was observed in 188 patients (81%; 83 patients in the DR-MM group [79%] and 105 patients in the NDR-MM [82%]; P = .77). A near complete response or better was observed in 52 patients (22%; 25 patients in the DR-MM group [24%] and 27 patients in the NDR-MM group [21%]; P = .77). The median progression-free survival was 17.6 months (14.4 months in the DR-MM group and 18.2 months in the NDR-MM group), and the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 38% (35% in the DR-MM group and 40% in the NDR-MM group; P = .40). The median overall survival was 48 months (38.9 months in the DR-MM group and 56.6 months in the NDR-MM group), and the 2-year overall survival rate was 74% (71% in the DR-MM group and 76% in the NDR-MM group; P = .27)., Conclusions: The current findings indicate that auto-HCT is an effective and safe therapy in patients with refractory multiple myeloma, including those who are refractory to IMiDs and PIs. Cancer 2017;123:3568-75. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction/background: Deacetylase inhibitors have synergistic activity in combination with proteasome inhibitors and anthracyclines in preclinical models of multiple myeloma (MM). We therefore evaluated the safety and efficacy of the deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bortezomib in relapsed/refractory MM., Patients and Methods: Thirty-two patients were treated with PLD and bortezomib in combination with escalating doses of vorinostat on days 4 to 11 or 1 to 14., Results: The maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat was 400 mg on days 4 to 11. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia attributable to protocol therapy were seen in 59% and 94% of patients, of which 37% and 47% were of grade 3 or higher severity, respectively. Constitutional and gastrointestinal adverse events of all grades were common, the majority of which were less than grade 3 in severity. The overall response rate (partial response rate or better) was 65% and the clinical benefit rate (minimal response rate or better) 74%. The overall response rate was 83%, 71%, and 45% for patients with bortezomib-naive, -sensitive, and -refractory MM, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 13.9 months and the 3-year overall survival 77%. Whole blood proteasome activity assays demonstrated a potential impact of vorinostat on the chymotryptic-like activity of the proteasome., Conclusion: Further evaluation of PLD, bortezomib, and deacetylase inhibitor combinations is warranted, with special attention directed toward strategies to improve tolerability., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 10 5 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 .).

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.)

Background: Previous results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 study demonstrated that bortezomib combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was superior to bortezomib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had previously received one or more lines of therapy. Protocol-defined final survival data from that study are provided here., Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either bortezomib alone (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of every 21-day cycle) or bortezomib-PLD (bortezomib plus PLD 30 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 4). The primary endpoint was the time to progression. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and the overall response rate., Results: In total, 646 patients (bortezomib-PLD, n = 324; bortezomib alone, n = 322) were randomized between December, 2004, and March, 2006. On the clinical cutoff date (May 16, 2014) for the final survival analysis, at a median follow-up of 103 months, 79% of patients had died (bortezomib-PLD group: 253 of 324 patients; 78%; bortezomib alone group: 257 of 322 patients; 80%). The median OS in the bortezomib-PLD group was 33 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.9-37.1) versus 30.8 months (95% CI, 25.2-36.5) in the bortezomib alone group (hazard ratio, 1.047; 95% CI, 0.879-1.246; P = .6068). Salvage therapies included conventional and novel drugs, which were well balanced between the two treatment groups., Conclusions: Despite inducing a superior time to progression, long-term follow-up revealed that PLD-bortezomib did not improve OS compared with bortezomib alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The inability to sustain the early observed survival advantage may have been caused by the effects of subsequent lines of therapy, and underscores the need for long-term follow-up of phase 3 trials while recognizing the challenge of having adequate power to detect long-term differences in OS. Cancer 2016;122:2050-6. © 2016 American Cancer Society., (© 2016 American Cancer Society.)

Pomalidomide is an IMiD(®) immunomodulatory agent, which has shown clinically significant benefits in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) patients when combined with dexamethasone, regardless of refractory status to lenalidomide or bortezomib. (Schey et al, ; San Miguel et al, 2013; Richardson et al, 2014; Scott, ) In this work, we present preclinical data showing that the combination of pomalidomide with dexamethasone (PomDex) demonstrates potent anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic activity in both lenalidomide-sensitive and lenalidomide-resistant MM cell lines. PomDex also synergistically inhibited tumour growth compared with single-agent treatment in xenografts of lenalidomide-resistant H929 R10-1 cells. Typical hallmarks of IMiD compound activity, including IKZF3 (Aiolos) degradation, and the downregulation of interferon regulatory factor (IRF) 4 and MYC, seen in lenalidomide-sensitive H929 MM cell lines, were also observed in PomDex-treated lenalidomide-resistant H929 MM cells. Remarkably, this resulted in strong, synergistic effects on the induction of apoptosis in both lenalidomide-sensitive and resistant MM cells. Furthermore, gene expression profiling revealed a unique differential gene expression pattern in PomDex-treated samples, highlighted by the modulation of pro-apoptotic pathways in lenalidomide-resistant cells. These results provide key insights into molecular mechanisms of PomDex in the lenalidomide-resistant setting., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866., Findings: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%])., Interpretation: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option., Funding: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In contrast to the upfront setting in which the role of high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as consolidation of a first remission in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is well established, the role of high-dose therapy with autologous or allogeneic HCT has not been extensively studied in MM patients relapsing after primary therapy. The International Myeloma Working Group together with the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, and the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation convened a meeting of MM experts to: (1) summarize current knowledge regarding the role of autologous or allogeneic HCT in MM patients progressing after primary therapy, (2) propose guidelines for the use of salvage HCT in MM, (3) identify knowledge gaps, (4) propose a research agenda, and (5) develop a collaborative initiative to move the research agenda forward. After reviewing the available data, the expert committee came to the following consensus statement for salvage autologous HCT: (1) In transplantation-eligible patients relapsing after primary therapy that did NOT include an autologous HCT, high-dose therapy with HCT as part of salvage therapy should be considered standard; (2) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any patients relapsing after primary therapy that includes an autologous HCT with initial remission duration of more than 18 months; (3) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT can be used as a bridging strategy to allogeneic HCT; (4) The role of postsalvage HCT maintenance needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials that should include new agents, such as monoclonal antibodies, immune-modulating agents, and oral proteasome inhibitors; (5) Autologous HCT consolidation should be explored as a strategy to develop novel conditioning regimens or post-HCT strategies in patients with short (less than 18 months remissions) after primary therapy; and (6) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role of salvage autologous HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy comparing it to "best non-HCT" therapy. The expert committee also underscored the importance of collecting enough hematopoietic stem cells to perform 2 transplantations early in the course of the disease. Regarding allogeneic HCT, the expert committee agreed on the following consensus statements: (1) Allogeneic HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any eligible patient with early relapse (less than 24 months) after primary therapy that included an autologous HCT and/or high-risk features (ie, cytogenetics, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high lactate dehydrogenase); (2) Allogeneic HCT should be performed in the context of a clinical trial if possible; (3) The role of postallogeneic HCT maintenance therapy needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials; and (4) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role salvage allogeneic HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Treatment options for patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma remain limited. We evaluated a novel therapeutic regimen consisting of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (CPD) in an open-label, multicenter, phase 1, dose-escalation study. Patients who relapsed after prior therapy or were refractory to the most recently received therapy were eligible. All patients were refractory to prior lenalidomide. Patients received carfilzomib IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose of 20/27 mg/m(2)), pomalidomide once daily on days 1 to 21 (4 mg as the initial dose level), and dexamethasone (40 mg oral or IV) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the regimen. A total of 32 patients were enrolled. The MTD of the regimen was dose level 1 (carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m(2), pomalidomide 4 mg, dexamethasone 40 mg). Hematologic adverse events (AEs) occurred in ≥60% of all patients, including 11 patients with grade ≥3 anemia. Dyspnea was limited to grade 1/2 in 10 patients. Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon and limited to grade 1/2. Eight patients had dose reductions during therapy, and 7 patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. Two deaths were noted on study due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism (n = 1 each). The combination of CPD is well-tolerated and highly active in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01464034., (© 2015 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Conventional cytogenetics and interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) identify a high-risk multiple myeloma population characterized by poor response and short survival., Patients and Methods: We compared outcomes between high-risk and standard-risk myeloma patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (auto-HCT) at our institution between January 2005 and December 2009. High-risk myeloma was defined as -13/del(13q) or hypodiploidy in at least 2 metaphases of conventional cytogenetics, or -17/del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), hypodiploidy (< 45 chromosomes excluding -Y), or chromosome 1 abnormalities (+1q, -1p, t(1;x)) on FISH or conventional cytogenetics., Results: Of 670 myeloma patients, 74 (11%) had high-risk myeloma. These high-risk patients had significantly lower overall response rates (74% vs. 85%; P < .01), shorter median progression-free survival (10.3 vs. 32.4 months; P < .001), and shorter overall survival (28 months vs. not reached; P < .001) than the standard-risk patients. Having only 1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality or experiencing at least very good partial remission after auto-HCT independently predicted improved progression-free survival and overall survival (P < .05) in high-risk patients., Conclusion: Even in an era of novel therapies, cytogenetically identified high-risk myeloma patients have worse prognoses than standard-risk myeloma patients after auto-HCT, and having more than 1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality further reduces survival., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Long-term outcomes and updated clinical efficacy and safety data were evaluated for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated on a phase II study of bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PegLD). Out of 61 patients, the overall response rate was 57% and the near-complete/complete response rate was 7%. Patients aged ≥65 years old had a higher incidence of treatment-related ≥Grade 3 non-haematological toxicity (80% vs. 51%, P = 0·020). Median overall survival was 5·6 years and negatively impacted by the presence of International Staging System stage III disease, underscoring the need for novel treatment strategies for this group of patients., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.).

Purpose of Review: Despite successful remission induction in 60-80% of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia, there remain a significant number of patients who exhibit primary refractory disease. Here we examine the data for predicting likelihood of having refractory disease, available therapeutic options, and how to decide the appropriate treatment option for a patient., Recent Findings: Recently identified recurrent molecular mutations and early response to chemotherapy as determined by kinetics of peripheral blast clearance or nadir bone marrow biopsy assist in determining the likelihood of primary refractory disease. Newer cytotoxic agents, used as salvage chemotherapy, or in novel conditioning regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplant may represent improvement over prior regimens. FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene inhibitors and other targeted therapies currently in clinical trials show promise for select patients. Hypomethylating agents provide benefit to patients who are not candidates for other therapies., Summary: Recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of acute myeloid leukemia have not yet translated to a significantly improved outlook for patients with refractory disease. While there are several therapeutic options, outcomes remain poor and further studies are needed to identify and validate novel approaches.

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., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)