Search

© 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology., [Purpose]: Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed., [Patients and Methods]: The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization., [Results]: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n = 425) or placebo (n = 281). TOURMALINE-MM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4 v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801; P < .001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6 v 12.9 months; HR, 0.586; P < .001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8% v 8.0%), vomiting (24.2% v 4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2% v 12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2% v 6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%., [Conclusio]:Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient population., This study was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. T

Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease.We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response.A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy.Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.).

Background: Despite recent advances in therapeutic options, there remains an unmet need for treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, especially in those previously exposed or refractory to lenalidomide. This updated efficacy and safety analysis from the phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: In this updated analysis of the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 CANDOR study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, at least a partial response to between one and three previous therapies, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were recruited from 102 medical centres globally and randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive voice or web response software to receive KdD or Kd. Participants were stratified by disease stage, previous proteasome inhibitor or anti-CD38 antibody exposure, and number of previous therapies. All patients received intravenous infusions of carfilzomib twice per week at 56 mg/m2 (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 during cycle 1) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3–6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients >75 years old). This analysis was a preplanned interim analysis for overall survival; however, at the time of data cutoff, overall survival data were not mature. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Here, we provide updated progression-free survival data, assessed centrally by Onyx Response Computer Algorithm in the intention-to-treat population, with 11 months additional follow-up. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of trial treatment. CANDOR is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688, and is active but not recruiting. Findings: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients were enrolled, of whom 312 received KdD and 154 received Kd. At data cutoff (June 15, 2020), median follow-up was 27·8 months (IQR 25·6–29·5) for KdD and 27·0 months (13·2–28·6) for Kd. Median progression-free survival was 28·6 months (95% CI 22·7–not estimable [NE]) in the KdD group and 15·2 months (11·1–19·9) in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·45–0·78], log-rank p

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in therapeutic options, there remains an unmet need for treating patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, especially in those previously exposed or refractory to lenalidomide. This updated efficacy and safety analysis from the phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this updated analysis of the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 CANDOR study, patients (aged =18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, at least a partial response to between one and three previous therapies, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 102 medical centres globally and randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive voice or web response software to receive KdD or Kd. Participants were stratified by disease stage, previous proteasome inhibitor or anti-CD38 antibody exposure, and number of previous therapies. All patients received intravenous infusions of carfilzomib twice per week at 56 mg/m(2) (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 during cycle 1) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg weekly for the remaining doses of the first two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients received 40 mg dexamethasone weekly (20 mg for patients >75 years old). This analysis was a preplanned interim analysis for overall survival; however, at the time of data cutoff, overall survival data were not mature. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Here, we provide updated progression-free survival data, assessed centrally by Onyx Response Computer Algorithm in the intention-to-treat population, with 11 months additional follow-up. Adverse events were assessed in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of trial treatment. CANDOR is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 466 patients were enrolled, of whom 312 received KdD and 154 received Kd. At data cutoff (June 15, 2020), median follow-up was 27·8 months (IQR 25·6-29·5) for KdD and 27·0 months (13·2-28·6) for Kd. Median progression-free survival was 28·6 months (95% CI 22·7-not estimable [NE]) in the KdD group and 15·2 months (11·1-19·9) in the Kd group (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·45-0·78], log-rank p

In the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial, patients treated with daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) had significantly higher rates of organ and hematologic response compared with patients who received VCd alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the ANDROMEDA trial. PROs were assessed through cycle 6 using three standardized questionnaires. Treatment effect through cycle 6 was measured by a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. The magnitude of changes in PROs versus baseline was generally low, but between-group differences favored the D-VCd group. Results were generally consistent irrespective of hematologic, cardiac, or renal responses. More patients in the D-VCd group experienced meaningful improvements in PROs; median time to improvement was more rapid in the D-VCd group versus the VCd group. After cycle 6, patients in the D-VCd group received daratumumab monotherapy and their PRO assessments continued, with improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported through cycle 19. PROs of subgroups with renal and cardiac involvement were consistent with those of the intent-to-treat population. These results demonstrate that the previously reported clinical benefits of D-VCd were achieved without decrement to patients' HRQoL and provide support of D-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Background Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease. Methods We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response. Results A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population. © 2021 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Vaccination is one of the most successful medical interventions that has saved the life of millions of people. Vaccination is particularly important in patients with multiple myeloma, who have an increased risk of infections due to the disease-inherent immune suppression, and because of the immune suppressive effects of therapy. Hence, all appropriate measures should be exploited, to elicit an effective immune response to common pathogens like influenza, pneumococci, varicella zoster virus, and to those bacteria and viruses (haemophilus influenzae, meningococci, and hepatitis) that frequently may pose a significant risk to patients with multiple myeloma. Patients after autologous, and specifically after allogeneic transplantation have severely reduced antibody titers, and therefore require a broader spectrum of vaccinations. Response to vaccination in myeloma often is less vigorous than in the general population, mandating either measurement of the postvaccination antibody titers and/or repeating the vaccination. Here, we compile the existing data on vaccination in multiple myeloma and provide recommendations for clinical practice. © 2020, The Author(s).

Background: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Subcutaneous bortezomib has replaced intravenous bortezomib as it is associated with a more favourable toxicity profile. We investigated the activity and safety of three different dosing regimens of oral panobinostat in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone for this indication. Methods: PANORAMA 3 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study being done at 71 sites (hospitals and medical centres) across 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (as per International Myeloma Working Group 2014 criteria), who had received one to four previous lines of therapy (including an immunomodulatory agent), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 20 mg twice weekly, or 10 mg three times weekly, plus subcutaneous bortezomib and oral dexamethasone. All study drugs were administered in 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive response technology provider, and stratified by number of previous treatment lines and age. The primary endpoint was overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles (analysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. No statistical comparisons between groups were planned. This trial is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654990. Findings: Between April 27, 2016, and Jan 17, 2019, 248 patients were randomly assigned (82 to panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly, 83 to panobinostat 20 mg twice weekly, and 83 to 10 mg panobinostat three times weekly). Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14·7 months (IQR 7·8–24·1). The overall response rate after up to eight treatment cycles was 62·2% (95% CI 50·8–72·7; 51 of 82 patients) for the 20 mg three times weekly group, 65·1% (53·8–75·2; 54 of 83 patients) for the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 50·6% (39·4–61·8; 42 of 83 patients) for the 10 mg three times weekly group. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 71 (91%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 69 (83%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 60 (75%) of 80 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common (≥20% patients in any group) grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [42%] of 78, 26 [31%] of 83, and 19 [24%] of 83 patients) and neutropenia (18 [23%], 13 [16%], and six [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 42 (54%) of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, 40 (48%) of 83 patients in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and 35 (44%) of 83 patients in the 10 mg three times weekly group; the most common serious adverse event (≥10% patients in any group) was pneumonia (nine [12%] of 78, ten [12%] of 83, and nine [11%] of 80 patients). There were 14 deaths during the study (five [6%] of 78 patients in the 20 mg three times weekly group, three [4%] of 83 in the 20 mg twice weekly group, and six [8%] of 80 in the 10 mg three times weekly group); none of these deaths was deemed treatment related. Interpretation: The safety profile of panobinostat 20 mg three times weekly was more favourable than in previous trials of this regimen with intravenous bortezomib, suggesting that subcutaneous bortezomib improves the tolerability of the panobinostat plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone regimen. The overall response rate was highest in the 20 mg three times weekly and 20 mg twice weekly groups, with 10 mg three times weekly best tolerated. Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Secura Bio. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

We have noticed an error in the progression-free survival of patients with extramedullary plasmacytoma in our article published in Haematologica in January 2020 (doi: HAEMATOL/2019/219295). The following sentence in the abstract: “Extramedullary plasmacytoma at relapse had the worst prognosis with a PFS of 13.6 months and overall survival of 11.4 months.” Should be replaced by: “Extramedullary plasmacytoma at relapse had the worst prognosis with a PFS of 9.1 months and overall survival of 11.4 months.” Likewise, on page 205, the following sentence: “However, if diagnosed at relapse, PFS and OS were 13.6 months and 11.4 months for EMP compared to 20.9 months (P=0.249) and 39.8 months (P=0.093) for PO, respectively (Table 2 and Figure 1).” Should be replaced by: “However, if diagnosed at relapse, PFS and OS were 9.1 months and 11.4 months for EMP compared to 20.9 months (P=0.249) and 39.8 months (P=0.093) for PO, respectively (Table 2 and Figure 1).” The error was also present in Table 2. The corrected Table 2 is shown below. © 2021 Ferrata Storti Foundation

This Policy Review presents the International Myeloma Working Group's clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Based on the results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials, these recommendations are proposed for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory disease who have received one previous line of therapy, and for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received two or more previous lines of therapy. These recommendations integrate the issue of drug access in both low-income and middle-income countries and in high-income countries to help guide real-world practice and thus improve patient outcomes. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m(2) carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m(2) carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option.

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)–adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option.