Voog, Éric

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Abstract Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and >4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and >6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (>4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415–0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300–0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174–0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor–directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

Abstract Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

80 Background: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with BRCA+ mCRPC based on results from the phase 2 TRITON2 study (NCT02952534). The TP53 tumor suppressor gene is among the most frequently mutated genes in human cancers, including mCRPC, and alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 are associated with poor prognosis in patients with prostate cancer and other tumor types. We present data on co-occurring alterations in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib in TRITON2. Methods: Patients had progressed on 1–2 lines of androgen receptor-directed therapy and 1 taxane-based chemotherapy and were treated with rucaparib 600 mg BID. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA extracted from plasma samples were profiled comprehensively for genomic alterations using Foundation Medicine, Inc., next-generation sequencing assays. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria by independent radiologic review of patients with measurable disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline) was assessed in all patients. Results: Tissue and/or plasma samples were available for 114/115 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC (visit cutoff date: Dec. 23, 2019). Among patients with BRCA+ mCRPC who had samples available for comprehensive genomic profiling, 36.8% (42/114) had a co-occurring alteration in TP53. Deleterious alterations in PTEN were observed in 34.2% (39/114) of patients, 44% (17/39) of which were homozygous deletions of PTEN. RB1 loss was observed in 12.3% (14/114) of patients and was seen more frequently in patients with measurable disease (18.0%, 11/61) than in patients with non-measurable disease (5.7%, 3/53). Although patients with and without TP53 mutations had generally similar baseline demographics and disease characteristics, visceral disease was more prevalent in patients with TP53 mutations (54.8%; 23/42) than in those without them (29.2%; 21/72). Similar ORR and PSA response rates were seen in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC with or without TP53 mutation, with a non-significant trend towards lower response rates in patients with co-occurring TP53 alterations. Conclusions: Results from TRITON2 showed antitumor activity for rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC associated with or without co-occurring alterations in TP53. Demographics and additional efficacy analyses in genomic subgroups with co-occurring alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.

5061 Background: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56, 0.84; P < 0.001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 51.4% vs 25.7%) with avelumab + axitinib vs sunitinib (Motzer RJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1103-15). NLR has emerged as a potential prognostic biomarker in aRCC; elevated NLR is associated with poorer prognosis. Here, we describe the association of NLR with the efficacy of avelumab + axitinib from JAVELIN Renal 101. Methods: We examined baseline NLR and its association with efficacy outcomes. PFS, best overall response (per blinded independent central review using RECIST 1.1), and overall survival (OS) data from the avelumab + axitinib arm from the first interim analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101 were analyzed (data cutoff, June 20, 2018). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were also conducted. Results: In the avelumab + axitinib arm, patients with < median NLR (N = 217) had longer observed PFS (stratified HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.634, 1.153) and longer observed OS (stratified HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300, 0.871) than patients with ≥ median NLR (N = 217). The ORR was 57.1% in patients with < median NLR vs 47.5% in patients with ≥ median NLR, with complete response in 5.5% vs 1.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that low NLR was associated with longer PFS and OS by treating baseline NLR as either a continuous variable or a binary variable (dichotomized by median). Conclusions: Low NLR was associated with better observed treatment outcomes in patients with aRCC who received avelumab + axitinib. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 .

Abstract Purpose: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. Patients and Methods: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). Results: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. Conclusions: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition. See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439