Rowlings, Philip

AbstractObjectivesHealth‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post‐transplant, when disease symptoms are limited.MethodsWe assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE‐MM3 (NCT02181413).ResultsThe characteristics at study entry were well‐balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ‐C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four‐week intervals using a linear mixed‐effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ‐C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ‐MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least‐squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma.ConclusionsIn addition to improvement in progression‐free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.

Abstract Abstract 1876 Poster Board I-901 Background: Multiple Myeloma (MM) remains incurable in spite of new effective agents and combination regimens. SRC family kinases (SFK) are potential targets for therapy in MM: Hck, Fyn and Lyn are implicated in IL6-induced proliferation. Dasatinib is a potent inhibitor of not only BCR-ABL, but also SFK, c-KIT, PDGFRb, and EPHA. In myeloma and endothelial cells (ECs) isolated from MM patients (pts), dasatinib blocked proliferation, survival, adhesion, migration, and angiogenic potential, through a combined targeting of PDGFRβ as well as VEGF-triggered phosphorylation of SRC. Lenalidomide has clinical efficacy in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) as a single agent and in combination with dexamethasone. The combination of dasatinib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone exhibits synergistic inhibition of MMIS cells. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase I, multicenter, open-label, non-randomized study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of dasatinib, with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with relapsed or refractory (RR) MM. Secondary objectives were to assess the tolerability of the combination, to establish the dose for future clinical investigations, and to assess the efficacy by International Uniform Response and EBMT Criteria. Pts ≥18 years with confirmed RR MM, measurable disease (at least 1 g/dL for IgG or 0.5 g/dL for IgA in serum or urinary excretion of 200 mg monoclonal light chain/24 hours), and at least one prior treatment were enrolled sequentially into increasing dose cohorts (using a 3+3 design). Pts received oral dasatinib daily on a continuous schedule, oral lenalidomide daily for 21 days, and oral dexamethasone 40 mg/day (Days 1, 8, 15, and 22). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in the first cycle. If there was no DLT, dose escalation continued to MTD, followed by an expansion phase of the established dose. Results: Enrollment is ongoing. 16 pts (6 M, 10 F; median age 70.5 years, range 51–80) were treated in cohorts 1, 2, 3 and 4; MTD has not been established (as by July 2009). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1–6). Seven pts had prior autologous stem cell transplantation; 8 pts had prior thalidomide, 4 prior lenalidomide and 3 pts both. Baseline β2 microglobulin levels of >3.5mg/L were reported in 4 pts. The most common (310%) treatment related adverse events (AEs) diarrhea 6 (38%); nausea 4 (25%); constipation 2 (13%); stomatitis 2 (13%); asthenia 3 (19%); weight decrease 5 (31%); dyspnea 2 (13%); rash 2 (13%); vertigo 2 (13%); insomnia 2 (13%). The most common grade 3 / 4 hematologic AEs included neutropenia 6 (38%), anemia 4 (25%) and thrombocytopenia 3 (19%). Two DLTs were identified in cohorts 1 and 4: 1 pt had 2 point decline in ECOG Performance Status and other pt had a drug interruption > 15 days due to nausea and vomiting, respectively. Six out of 16 pts discontinued treatment: 1 due to death in first cycle (D19); 3 for AEs (2 study drug related and 1 unrelated), 1 withdrawal of consent, 1 following maximal clinical benefit (minor response) after 12+ cycles. As of July 2009, 10 pts remain on treatment, with a median duration of treatment of 4.2 months (range 0.6–12). Responses were observed in 13 pts: 8 partial responses (PR), and 5 minor responses (MR). 1 pt had stable disease (SD) and 2 pts were not evaluable (1 pts died before completion of cycle 1 and other pt was too early for assessment). Conclusion: Dasatinib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone is well tolerated and preliminary activity has been observed. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria. Garzon:BMS: Employment. Bleickardt:BMS: Employment. Gialelis:BMS: Employment. Tuozzoli:BMS: Employment. Derreumaux:BMS: Employment. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria.

Background:Maintenance therapy (MT) in NDMM has been increasingly used to prolong duration of response achieved by ASCT. TOURMALINE‐MM3 is a phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study, where ixazomib improved PFS, and is the first study to evaluate the impact of MT on HRQoL post ASCT in NDMM (Dimopoulos et al., Lancet 2019;393:253). HRQoL is an important consideration during MT in NDMM patients with minimal disease burden post ASCT (Anderson et al., Leukemia 2008;22:231).Aims:To assess HRQoL in patients randomized to ixazomib vs. placebo MT in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:In TOURMALINE‐MM3, NDMM patients post ASCT were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo. HRQoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ‐C30 (overall/subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every cycle (1–26), end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. MM‐specific symptoms were assessed by EORTC QLQ‐MY20 (subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every 3 cycles between cycles 1–25, end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. For both instruments, higher scores for global and functional domains indicate better HRQoL, while higher scores on symptom scales represent higher levels of symptomatology. Change from study entry in subscale scores, defined in terms of 30 four‐week intervals, was analyzed using a linear mixed‐effects model among patients who reported HRQoL outcomes at study entry and completed at least one post‐study entry assessment.Results:Characteristics at study entry were well balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms; median age: 58 years; ECOG performance status 0–1: 97%; 79% had at least a very good partial response post ASCT at study entry. At study entry, least squares (LS) mean scores for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 were: Global Health Status/QoL, 69.8 vs. 69.1; Physical Functioning, 82.1 vs. 82.0; Pain, 25.3 vs. 25.7; Nausea/Vomiting, 2.3 vs. 2.0; Diarrhea, 5.9 vs. 6.0; and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 20.3 vs. 19.2; Peripheral Neuropathy, 25.0 vs. 25.6. Compliance with study assessments, averaged across cycles, was high in the treatment phase (≥94%) and similar between treatment groups.Changes in subscale scores across the 4‐week intervals were generally similar between the ixazomib and placebo groups, with treatment differences not reaching the established minimal important difference (MID) of 10 in MM (Kvam et al., Eur J Haematol 2011;87:330). LS mean (95% CI) score changes at interval 24 (week 96) for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 included: Global Health Status/QoL, –0.4 (–3.4, 2.7) vs. 1.8 (–1.7, 5.2); Physical Functioning, 0.7 (–1.8, 3.1) vs. 3.0 (0.3, 5.8); Pain, 4.1 (0.5, 7.7) vs. –1.4 (–5.5, 2.7); and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 5.1 (2.4, 7.9) vs. 0.8 (–2.3, 3.8); Peripheral Neuropathy, –0.7 (–5.1, 3.7) vs. –6.2 (–11.1, –1.3). EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhea subscales, while consistently worse for ixazomib than placebo (LS mean [95% CI] change at interval 24, 5.0 [3.0, 7.0] vs. 1.0 [–1.3, 3.3] and 4.0 [1.1, 6.8] vs. 0.5 [–2.8, 3.8], respectively), were in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile; treatment differences did not exceed the MID.Summary/Conclusion:In addition to improvements in PFS with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained during the protocol‐defined treatment period in both arms, and active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.