Dimopoulos, Meletios A

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.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation.MethodsData were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once‐ or twice‐weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan‐prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide‐dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single‐agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsA total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice‐weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice‐weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug‐related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance.ConclusionsIxazomib maintenance following ixazomib‐based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long‐term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

SummaryThere is a need for efficacious, convenient treatments with long‐term tolerability for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This phase 2 study evaluated the all‐oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICd). Patients with RRMM received ixazomib 4 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 in 28‐day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Seventy‐eight patients were enrolled (median age 63·5 years). At data cut‐off, patients had received a median of 12 treatment cycles; 31% remained on treatment. ORR was 48% [16% very good partial response or better (≥VGPR)]. ORR was 64% and 32% in patients aged ≥65 and <65 years (25% and 16% ≥VGPR), respectively. At a median follow‐up of 15·2 months, median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 14·2 months, with a trend towards better PFS in patients aged ≥65 years vs. <65 years (median 18·7 months vs. 12·0 months; hazard ratio 0·62, P = 0·14). ICd was well tolerated. The most common treatment‐emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (33%), nausea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (24%), and thrombocytopenia (22%); 10 patients (13%) had peripheral neuropathy (one grade 3). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02046070).

AbstractA population pharmacokinetic (PK) model and exposure–response (E‐R) analysis was developed using data collected from 5 phase 1b/2 and 2 phase 3 studies in subjects with multiple myeloma. Subjects receiving intravenous infusion on 2 consecutive days each week for 3 weeks (days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) in each cycle at doses ranging from 15 to 20/56 mg/m2 (20 mg/m2 in cycle 1 and, if tolerated, escalated to 56 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1). The population PK analysis indicated that among all the covariates tested, the only statistically significant covariate was body surface area on carfilzomib clearance; however, this covariate was unlikely to be clinically significant. Despite inclusion of different populations (relapsed or relapsed/refractory), treatments (carfilzomib monotherapy or combination therapy), infusion lengths (2 to 10 minutes or 30 minutes), and different doses, the E‐R analysis of efficacy showed that after adjusting for baseline characteristics, higher area under the concentration–time curve was associated with improved overall response rate (ORR), from 15 to 20/56 mg/m2. No positive relationships between maximum concentration and ORR were identified, indicating that ORR would not be expected to be impacted by infusion length. For safety end points, no statistically significant relationship between exposure and increasing risk of adverse events was identified. The results of an E‐R analysis provided strong support for a carfilzomib dose at 20/56 mg/m2 as a 30‐minute infusion for monotherapy and combination therapy. This article illustrates an example of application of E‐R analysis to support labeling dose recommendation in the absence of extensive clinical data.

Purpose To determine the effects of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in the Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (ASPIRE) trial. Methods Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to receive KRd or Rd. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and myeloma-specific module were administered at baseline; day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 12, and 18; and after treatment. The Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QoL) scale and seven subscales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, physical functioning, role functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment) were compared between groups using a mixed model for repeated measures. The percentages of responders with ≥ 5- or 15-point GHS/QoL improvement at each cycle were compared between groups. Results Baseline questionnaire compliance was excellent (94.1% of randomly assigned patients). KRd patients had higher GHS/QoL scores versus Rd patients over 18 treatment cycles (two-sided P < .001). The minimal important difference was met at cycle 12 (5.6 points) and approached at cycle 18 (4.8 points). There was no difference between groups for the other prespecified subscales from ASPIRE. A higher proportion of KRd patients met the GHS/QoL responder definition (≥ 5-point improvement) with statistical differences at cycle 12 (KRd v Rd patients, 25.5% v 17.4%, respectively) and 18 (KRd v Rd patients, 24.2% v 12.9%, respectively). Conclusion KRd improves GHS/QoL without negatively affecting patient-reported symptoms when compared with Rd. These data further support the benefit of KRd in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

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.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a distinct B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder for which clearly defined criteria for the diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and treatment strategy have been proposed as part of the consensus panels of the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM). At IWWM-8, a task force for treatment recommendations was impanelled to review recently published and ongoing clinical trial data as well as the impact of new mutations (MYD88 and CXCR4) on treatment decisions, indications for B-cell receptor and proteasome inhibitors, and future clinical trial initiatives for WM patients. The panel concluded that therapeutic strategies in WM should be based on individual patient and disease characteristics. Chemoimmunotherapy combinations with rituximab and cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone, bendamustine, or bortezomib-dexamethasone provide durable responses and are still indicated in most patients. Approval of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in the United States and Europe represents a novel and effective treatment option for both treatment-naive and relapsing patients. Other B-cell receptor inhibitors, second-generation proteasome inhibitors (eg, carfilzomib), and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors are promising and may increase future treatment options. Active enrollment in clinical trials whenever possible was endorsed by the panel for most patients with WM.

SummaryThe diagnosis of Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) can be challenging given the variety of signs and symptoms patients can present. Furthermore, once the diagnosis of WM is established, the initial evaluation should be thorough as well as appropriately directed. During the 8th International Workshop for WM in London, United Kingdom, a multi‐institutional task force was formed to develop consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and initial evaluation of patients with WM. In this document, we present the results of the deliberations that took place to address these issues. We provide recommendations for history‐taking and physical examination, laboratory studies, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy analysis and imaging studies. We also provide guidance on the initial evaluation of special situations, such as anaemia, hyperviscosity, neuropathy, Bing‐Neel syndrome and amyloidosis. We hope these recommendations serve as a practical guidance to clinicians taking care of patients with a suspected or an established diagnosis of WM.