Grosicki, Sebastian

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).

LBA7005 Background: The phase III HELIOS study evaluated the first-in-class, oral covalent BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in combination with BR (BR+ibr) vs BR plus placebo (BR+plb) in patients (pts) with previously treated CLL/SLL. The preplanned interim analysis reported here showed that the primary end point was met, upon which the IDMC recommended unblinding the study. Methods: Pts received BR ( ≤ 6 cycles) and were randomized 1:1 to ibr (420 mg daily) or plb. Purine analog refractoriness was a stratification factor. Pts with del17p ( > 20% of cells) were excluded. Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) per IRC. Results: 578 pts were randomized (289 per arm); median age 64 yrs; 38% Rai Stage III/IV; median 2 prior therapies. 6 cycles of BR were completed in 83% and 78% of pts in the ibr and plb arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 17.2 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with BR+ibr vs BR+plb (median not reached vs 13.3 months; HR: 0.203, 95% CI: 0.150-0.276, P< 0.0001); PFS results were consistent across high-risk subgroups. ORR and CR/CRi rates were 82.7% vs 67.8% (P< 0.0001) and 10.4% vs 2.8%. Median OS was not reached. 90 pts (31%) in the BR+plb arm with confirmed PD crossed over to receive ibr, as permitted per the protocol. Incidence of most AEs was similar between arms. The most common all-grade AEs with BR+ibr and BR+plb were neutropenia (58.2% vs 54.7%) and nausea (36.9% vs 35.2%); most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (53.7% vs 50.5%) and thrombocytopenia (15.0% each arm). Rates of grade 3/4 atrial fibrillation were 2.8% and 0.7%, and major hemorrhage were 2.1% and 1.7%. Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) was improved with BR+ibr vs BR+plb. Conclusions: The addition of ibr to BR reduced the risk of progression or death by 80% compared with BR+plb. ORR was also significantly improved. Safety of BR+ibr was consistent with the known profiles for BR and ibr. The data further support ibr as an important treatment option for pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Clinical trial information: EudraCT No. 2012-000600-15; UTN No. U1111-1135-3745.