Search

Background: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs), including carfilzomib, potentiate the activity of selinexor, a novel, first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in preclinical models of multiple myeloma (MM)., Methods: The safety, efficacy, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor (80 or 100 mg) + carfilzomib (56 or 70 mg/m 2 ) + dexamethasone (40 mg) (XKd) once weekly (QW) was evaluated in patients with relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) not refractory to carfilzomib., Results: Thirty-two patients, median prior therapies 4 (range, 1-8), were enrolled. MM was triple-class refractory in 38% of patients and 53% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain 1q. Common treatment-related adverse events (all/Grade 3) were thrombocytopenia 72%/47% (G3 and G4), nausea 72%/6%, anaemia 53%/19% and fatigue 53%/9%, all expected and manageable with supportive care and dose modifications. MTD and RP2D were identified as selinexor 80 mg, carfilzomib 56 mg/m 2 , and dexamethasone 40 mg, all QW. The overall response rate was 78% including 14 (44%) ≥ very good partial responses. Median progression-free survival was 15 months., Conclusions: Weekly XKd is highly effective and well-tolerated. These data support further investigation of XKd in patients with MM., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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.)

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data., Methods: The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020)., Results: The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange., Conclusions: High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020., Findings: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died., Interpretation: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy., Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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.)

Bortezomib is an active agent in AL amyloidosis and responses to this drug in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone are both rapid and deep. Here we present an international, multicenter series of 60 patients with Mayo Clinic stage III cardiac amyloidosis to assess the impact of this regimen in improving outcomes in this poor-risk group. The median follow-up for the entire cohort is 11.8 months. The overall response rate was 68%. In a landmark analysis, examining patients who survived more than 3 months, the overall response rate was 86%. A cardiac response was seen in 32% of patients. The estimated 1-year survival rate for the whole cohort was 57% and 24 patients (40%) died while on therapy. Although unable to save the poorest risk patients, the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone can achieve a high number of hematologic and cardiac responses, likely improving overall survival and justifying a prospective trial., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

The outcomes and responses to treatment remain poorly studied among patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who require further treatment following prior novel agent-based therapy. We report here treatment with lenalidomide-dexamethasone in 84 AL amyloidosis patients with relapsed/refractory clonal disease following prior treatment with thalidomide (76%) and/or bortezomib (68%). On an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, the overall haematological response rate was 61%, including 20% complete responses. The median overall survival (OS) has not been reached; 2-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) was 84% and 73%, respectively. Achieving a free light chain (FLC) response was an independent good prognostic factor for OS in multivariate analysis. There was no impact of prior thalidomide or bortezomib therapy on response rate, OS or PFS. 16% achieved an organ response at 6 months, with a marked improvement in organ responses in patients on long term therapy (median duration 11 months) and 55% achieving renal responses by 18 months. Lenalidomide/dexamethasone therapy achieves good haematological responses in patients with AL amyloidosis with relapsed/refractory clonal disease. The rate of renal responses among patients who received prolonged treatment was unexpectedly high, raising the possibility that immunomodulatory effects of lenalidomide therapy might enhance the otherwise slow natural regression of amyloid deposits., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Bortezomib has shown great promise in the treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. We present our experience of 43 patients with AL amyloidosis who received cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) upfront or at relapse. Of these, 74% had cardiac involvement and 46% were Mayo Cardiac Stage III. The overall hematologic response rate was 81.4%, including complete response (CR) in 41.9% and very good partial response with >90% decrease in difference between involved/uninvolved light chain (VGPR-dFLC) in 51.4%. Patients treated upfront had higher rates of CR (65.0%) and VGPR-dFLC (66.7%). The estimated 2-year progression-free survival was 66.5% for patients treated upfront and 41.4% for relapsed patients. Those attaining a CR or VGPR-dFLC had a significantly better progression-free survival (P=.002 and P=.026, respectively). The estimated 2-year overall survival was 97.7% (94.4% in Mayo Stage III patients). CVD is a highly effective regimen producing durable responses in AL amyloidosis; the deep clonal responses may overcome poor prognosis in advanced-stage disease.