Mateos, María‐Victoria

AbstractWe performed analyses of the randomized phase 3 ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR trials to investigate the efficacy of carfilzomib among subgroups of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients who had early or late disease relapse following initiation of the immediately prior therapy. In ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, patients had received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Patients in ASPIRE received carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), and patients in ENDEAVOR received carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) or bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). Patients with relapse ≤1 year after initiating the most recent prior line of therapy were categorized as early relapsers, and patients with relapse after >1 year were categorized as late relapsers. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) in ASPIRE for early relapsers was 21.4 months for KRd vs 10.7 months for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.714; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.508–1.004; P = 0.0257), and for late relapsers was 29.7 months for KRd vs 18.2 months for Rd (HR: 0.675; 95% CI: 0.533–0.854; P = 0.0005). The overall response rate (ORR) for early relapsers was 83.2% for KRd vs 54.8% for Rd, and for late relapsers was 89.0% for KRd vs 69.7% for Rd. The median PFS in ENDEAVOR (Kd vs Vd) for early relapsers was 13.9 months vs 5.7 months (HR: 0.598; 95% CI: 0.423–0.846; P = 0.0017), and for late relapsers was 22.2 months vs 10.2 months (HR: 0.486; 95% CI: 0.382–0.620; P < 0.0001). The ORR (Kd vs Vd) for early relapsers was 63.4% vs 49.1% and for late relapsers was 81.8% vs 66.8%. In conclusion, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received carfilzomib‐containing regimens had improved PFS and ORR compared with control groups, regardless of whether they had an early or late relapse following the most recent prior therapy.

LBA4 Background: Daratumumab (D), a human anti-CD38 IgGκ mAb, induces deep and durable responses with a favorable safety profile in RRMM pts. We report a pre-specified interim analysis of the first randomized controlled study of D (CASTOR; NCT02136134). Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of bortezomib (V)/dexamethasone (d) (V: 1.3 mg/m2sc on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; d: 20 mg po on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) ± D (16 mg/kg iv qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Primary endpoint was PFS. Results: 498 pts (DVd, 251; Vd, 247) were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-10). 66% received prior V; 76% received prior IMiD; 48% received prior PI and IMiD; 33% were IMiD-refractory; 32% were refractory to last line of prior therapy. With median follow-up of 7.4 months, D significantly improved median PFS (61% reduction in risk of progression) and TTP for DVd vs Vd (Table). D significantly increased ORR (83% vs 63%, P <0.0001), and doubled rates of ≥VGPR (59% vs 29%, P <0.0001), and ≥CR (19% vs 9%, P= 0.0012) for DVd vs Vd, respectively; median duration of response was NR vs 7.9 months, respectively. Most common (>25%) AEs (DVd/Vd) were thrombocytopenia (59%/44%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (47%/ 38%), diarrhea (32%/22%) and anemia (26%/31%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (>10%) were thrombocytopenia (45%/33%), anemia (14%/16%), neutropenia (13%/4%). 7%/9% of pts discontinued due to a TEAE. D-associated infusion-related reactions (45% of pts) mostly occurred during the first infusion; most were grade 1/2 (grade 3/4, 9%/0%). Conclusions: D significantly improved PFS, TTP, and ORR in combination with Vd vs Vd alone. DVd doubled both VGPR and sCR/CR rates vs Vd alone. Safety of DVd is consistent with the known safety profile of D and Vd. The addition of D to Vd should be considered a new standard of care for RRMM pts currently receiving Vd alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134. [Table: see text]

SummaryThe oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is approved in the United States, European Union and other countries, in combination with oral lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on the global, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled Phase III TOURMALINE‐MM1 study of ixazomib‐Rd (IRd) versus placebo‐Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. IRd resulted in a significant improvement in progression‐free survival versus placebo‐Rd (median: 20·6 vs. 14·7 months; hazard ratio 0·74). Common toxicities observed more commonly with IRd versus placebo‐Rd were thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, rash, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral oedema and back pain; these were generally grade 1/2 in severity except for thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 9% grade 3/4), which appeared manageable and reversible, with no differences between arms in significant bleeding or dose discontinuations. No cumulative toxicities were observed, indicating the potential feasibility of long‐term IRd treatment. Safety data from TOURMALINE‐MM1 are reviewed and guidance for managing clinically relevant adverse events associated with IRd is provided. Most toxicities were manageable with supportive care and dose delays or reductions as needed. Clinicians should be aware of and understand these potential side effects to optimise and prolong patient benefit.

Key Points KRd has a favorable benefit-risk profile compared with Rd, regardless of baseline cytogenetic risk status, in patients with relapsed MM. KRd improves but does not abrogate the poor prognosis associated with high-risk cytogenetics in patients with relapsed MM.

AbstractThe International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the definition for high-risk (HR) multiple myeloma based on cytogenetics Several cytogenetic abnormalities such as t(4;14), del(17/17p), t(14;16), t(14;20), nonhyperdiploidy, and gain(1q) were identified that confer poor prognosis. The prognosis of patients showing these abnormalities may vary with the choice of therapy. Treatment strategies have shown promise for HR cytogenetic diseases, such as proteasome inhibition in combination with lenalidomide/pomalidomide, double autologous stem cell transplant plus bortezomib, or combination of immunotherapy with lenalidomide or pomalidomide. Careful analysis of cytogenetic subgroups in trials comparing different treatments remains an important goal. Cross-trial comparisons may provide insight into the effect of new drugs in patients with cytogenetic abnormalities. However, to achieve this, consensus on definitions of analytical techniques, proportion of abnormal cells, and treatment regimens is needed. Based on data available today, bortezomib and carfilzomib treatment appear to improve complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p), whereas lenalidomide may be associated with improved progression-free survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p). Patients with multiple adverse cytogenetic abnormalities do not benefit from these agents. FISH data are implemented in the revised International Staging System for risk stratification.

Abstract Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic clonal plasma cell disorder. SMM is distinguished from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance by a much higher risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM). There have been major advances in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of SMM in the last few years. These include a revised disease definition, identification of several new prognostic factors, a classification based on underlying cytogenetic changes, and new treatment options. Importantly, a subset of patients previously considered SMM is now reclassified as MM on the basis of biomarkers identifying patients with an ≥80% risk of progression within 2 years. SMM has assumed greater significance on the basis of recent trials showing that early therapy can be potentially beneficial to patients. As a result, there is a need to accurately diagnose and risk-stratify patients with SMM, including routine incorporation of modern imaging and laboratory techniques. In this review, we outline current concepts in diagnosis and risk stratification of SMM, and provide specific recommendations on the management of SMM.