Burbano, Gaby E Perez

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare and understudied plasma cell disorder. It is caused by abnormal misfolding of monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains, leading to extracellular deposition of amyloid, ultimately resulting in organ dysfunction and death. Since AL amyloidosis is uncommon, therapies are adapted from the more common plasma cell disorders like multiple myeloma. Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, was first tested in several prospective and retrospective studies in AL patients with relapsed refractory disease. The ANDROMEDA study (Kastritis E et al, NEJM 2021) established daratumumab in combination with CyBorD (Cyclophosphamide-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone) followed by daratumumab maintenance as the new standard of care compared to CyBorD alone for newly diagnosed patients. Consequently, daratumumab maintenance has become universally offered to all newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients. Notably, there was no second randomization before the initiation of maintenance therapy in ANDROMEDA. Hence, a critical question that remains is whether the superior efficacy observed in the investigational arm of the ANDROMEDA trial is solely a result of the addition of daratumumab during the induction phase or if the maintenance phase contributed to the favorable outcomes in the investigational arm. We hypothesize that a shorter duration of maintenance would prove non-inferior to the standard duration of daratumumab maintenance in patients with AL amyloidosis that have responded to Daratumumab-CyBorD induction. To answer this question we are conducting a pragmatic phase 2 randomized trial assessing the optimal duration of daratumumab maintenance in patients with AL amyloidosis who have responded to Daratumumab-CyBorD induction. Study Design, Patients and Methods: We use broadened eligibility criteria consistent with pragmatic trial design. The estimated total enrollment is up to 96 patients. The main eligibility criteria are patients with biopsy-proven AL Amyloidosis who have completed 6 cycles of Dara-CyBorD-based induction treatment and achieved an adequate response to induction (defined as hematological complete response (CR), hematological very good partial response (VGPR), or hematological partial response (PR) with at least one organ response). Patients in whom bortezomib and/or cyclophosphamide were omitted from induction due to toxicity concerns or adverse effects are allowed. The major exclusion criteria are patients who were concomitantly diagnosed with multiple myeloma based on International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. This phase II, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT05898646) randomizes patients who have attained an adequate response to 6 cycles of Dara-CyBorD-based induction in a 1:1 ratio, using a dynamic allocation procedure that balances the marginal distributions of the stratification factors (age, cardiac stage, and t(11;14) status). Randomization is to either single-agent daratumumab maintenance of 6 cycles duration (experimental arm) or 18 cycles of daratumumab maintenance (control arm) (cycle = 28 days). Treatment is allowed to be given at a local facility After completing maintenance treatment, patients will follow up every 3 months for up to 36 months from registration. The primary endpoint of the trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of a shorter (6 cycles) daratumumab maintenance measured by event-free survival (EFS) compared to the standard maintenance of 18 cycles in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis who receive 6 cycles of daratumumab-CyBorD based induction. EFS in this study is defined as time from registration to any of the following events: hematological progression, organ progression, subsequent anti-plasma cell therapy in the absence of hematological progression but with persistent organ dysfunction or death, whichever occurs first. Secondary endpoints are depth of hematological and organ response, bone marrow measurable residual disease negativity rate, duration of response, quality of life, and survival. By investigating whether a shorter duration of maintenance is non-inferior to the standard duration, we aim to inform clinical practice and potentially reduce the toxicities associated with prolonged maintenance therapy, including hypogammaglobulinemia, recurrent infections, the need for intravenous gammaglobulin replacement, and financial toxicity.

Introduction: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) is an antibody targeting CD22 conjugated with a cytotoxic antitumor antibiotic (calicheamicin) approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory CD22 positive B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (Kantarjian et al. NEJM 2017). CD22 is expressed on the surface of lymphoblasts in ALL (~95%). Young adult patients (pts) 18-39 years (yrs) treated on the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403 resulted in a 3-yr event-free survival (EFS) of 59% (95% CI: 52-67%) and an estimated 3-yr overall survival (OS) of 73% (95% CI: 68-78%) (Stock et al. Blood 2019). Alliance A041501(NCT03150693), a phase 3 NCTN sponsored cooperative group trial was conducted to determine if the addition of INO to the CALGB 10403 pediatric regimen would significantly improve EFS. Methods: Eligibility included pts 18-39 years with newly diagnosed CD22 positive ALL, defined as baseline expression in > 20% of lymphoblasts by local institution. Pts with Burkitt-type ALL, BCR::ABL1 positive ALL, or Down syndrome were excluded. Eligible pts received the CALGB 10403 regimen modified to omit extended induction, include dexamethasone as opposed to prednisone as steroid backbone, cap the pegaspargase dose to 3750 units, and adding rituximab for pts with CD20 expression (> 20%). An amendment added blinatumomab for minimal residual disease (MRD) positivity. Pts achieving a complete remission (CR/CRi) or partial remission (PR) were eligible for randomization. Following a 6 pt safety run-in with INO, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive INO or continue CALGB 10403 backbone. Two cycles of INO (1.5 mg/m2/cycle) were administered following induction in the experimental arm. Pts were stratified by age, disease status post induction (M0/M1 vs M2), CD20 status, and LDA Card, which tests for the Ph-like status. The primary endpoint was to determine if the addition of INO would improve the EFS of the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403 without censoring for stem cell transplant (SCT). Key secondary endpoints included the impact of INO on disease-free survival (DFS), OS, and MRD. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board halted enrollment after 273 out of a planned 341 pts were registered because of increased grade (gr) 5 events in the INO arm compared with the control arm. Results: 273 pts were enrolled between 6/15/2018, and 5/24/2022. Median age was 27.0 yrs, 65.2% were White, 30.4% were Hispanic, and 63.4% were male. Baseline CSF analysis revealed 14% with CNS-2/3 disease. The overall CR rate was 86.8% (82.8-90.8%). 46 pts were not randomized due to death (5), withdrawal (6), ineligibility (3), toxicity (5), receipt of non-protocol therapy (8), progression (5), and other (14). 227 eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to receive INO (N=111) or not (N=116)). For randomized pts, 92.5% achieved M0/M1 marrow status, 48.9% had a positive LDA Card defining Ph-like ALL, 50.7% were CD20 positive. Only 36 pts (13%) received a SCT. With a median follow up of 28.3 months for randomized pts, 3-yr EFS was 69.0% (59.1-80.5%) for the INO arm and 66.7% (57.1-78.1%) for the control (HR=0.97; 0.58-1.63). Similarly, the 3-yr OS was 79.4% (71.0-88.7%) for the INO arm and 80.3% (71.9-89.6%) for the control (HR=1.05; 0.55-2.01). The MRD undetectable rate at Course II Day 56 was 80.6% in the INO arm and 74.2% in the control arm. Univariate analysis suggests improved EFS with INO in pts with a positive LDA card (Ph-like ALL) and of Hispanic ethnicity. There were 22 gr 5 events, 7 occurred prior to randomization. Of the 15 gr 5 events on the randomized cohort, 12 were reported in the INO arm and 3 in the control arm. Of the 12 gr 5 events in the INO arm, all occurred during intensive consolidation courses complicated by prolonged pancytopenia infection/sepsis (8), hepato-biliary in setting of infection (2), multi-organ failure (1), or post-surgical complication (1). These events occurred after INO during Course II (3), Course III (5), or Course IV (4). Conclusions: Although this trial did not meet the primary EFS endpoint for the addition of INO to the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403, these data provide compelling evidence for continued use of pediatric regimens in young adults with ALL as the EFS and OS compares favorably with prior published results. INO may still be efficacious if late toxicity can be mitigated. A pilot study is planned that will decrease INO dose, add 2 cycles of blinatumomab and strict infectious prophylaxis guidelines. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882

Background: GLUT4 inhibition via the use of a protease inhibitor, such as nelfinavir (NEL), is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM), given the dependence of MM cells on glucose. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor, such as metformin (MET), may counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition in MM cells, showing synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al., Clin Can Res 2015). In addition to GLUT4 inhibition, NEL also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (BOR) (Driessen et al., Blood 2018). Thus, this study evaluated the safety and tolerability of repurposing MET and NEL, in combination with BOR for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) that had progressed on all standard of care (SOC) therapies. Methods: This trial utilized a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned for up to a maximum of six (21-day) cycles. MET was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 500 mg BID with plans to be investigated at a maximum dose of 1000 mg BID. NEL was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 1250 mg BID with plans to be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg BID. SubQ BOR was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose of 1.3 mg/m 2 to a portion of patients. Patients with RRMM were required to have had 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators (IMiDs), and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. The primary objective was to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of this combination. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety as well as the overall response rate (ORR) of this combination. This trial was funded by the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Results: From 4/2019 until 9/2022, nine patients were accrued with a median age of 65 (range: 42-81) that received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy (Range: 6-13). All but one patient had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Only one patient was not triple-class refractory, and 2/3 rd (n = 6) also had prior anti-BCMA therapy. The first three patients received only MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level for up to one cycle before experiencing progressive disease and coming off the study. Given the limited activity of MET and NEL in the initial treatment of these three patients, two subsequent amendments to the protocol allowed for the upfront addition of BOR 1.3 mg/m2 to the original combination, as well as shortened the DLT evaluation period from two cycles to just one. Thus, the following six patients received MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level in addition to weekly BOR at 1.3 mg/m2. Four (44%) patients experienced grade 3+ hematological AEs and six (67%) experienced grade 3+ non-hematological AEs. The most common hematologic grade 3+ AE observed was anemia (44%). The nonhematologic grade 3+ AEs observed were dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting (11% each). None of the AEs were possibly related to treatment, suggesting good overall safety of the combination. While eight of nine patients have since died of progressive disease, no deaths were attributable to the treatment. All six patients who received BOR upfront with MET and NEL were previously refractory to BOR in prior lines of therapy; however, none had received BOR as their last line of therapy prior to accrual to this study. Four of these six patients had progressive disease after one cycle of therapy and went off study. However, the remaining two were able to receive 2 or more cycles of therapy, with one experiencing an unconfirmed minor response (MR) in the first cycle and the other experiencing stable disease (SD) for all six cycles. The patient who experienced SD was safely able to transition to a subsequent clinical trial utilizing an anti-BCMA bispecific antibody therapy and remains alive at the time of this analysis. The study was closed before accrual to the next dose level was started. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this repurposed drug combination in this very difficult-to-treat population of RRMM. While no ORR was observed, identification of biomarkers used for selection of patients with no other SOC options who could experience at least SD responses may be beneficial in allowing this combination to slow or stabilize the disease progression until other novel therapies or clinical trials are available.