Ammann, Eric M.

8037 Background: Both daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are endorsed by NCCN guidelines as preferred regimens for the treatment of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). DRd and VRd have each demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naive comparisons of efficacy across the 2 trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas S0777 enrolled a mixed transplant-not-intended (TNI) population, which included both TIE patients and patients choosing to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). Methods: The present study leveraged individual patient-level data (IPD) from both trials to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison of DRd vs VRd, adjusting for differences in trial eligibility criteria and baseline patient characteristics. Harmonized inclusion criteria (NDMM, age ≥65 years, ECOG performance status ≤2) were applied to both trial populations. Age ≥65 years served as a proxy for TIE status since S0777 enrolled a mixed TNI population. Propensity score (PS) reweighting was used to balance the 2 trial populations on key baseline prognostic factors including age, sex, ISS stage, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin, eGFR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and cytogenetic risk. Missing data were addressed with multiple imputation. After alignment of inclusion criteria and PS reweighting, an anchored indirect comparison was performed wherein within-trial progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) for DRd vs Rd and VRd vs Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for DRd vs VRd. Results: 727 MAIA participants and 198 S0777 participants were eligible for inclusion. After PS reweighting, the trial populations were balanced on the key baseline prognostic factors identified above (standardized difference < 0.1 for each). The adjusted PFS HRs were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.41–0.68; P< 0.0001) for DRd vs Rd in MAIA and 0.88 (0.63–1.23; P= 0.46) for VRd vs Rd in S0777. In the adjusted Rd-anchored indirect comparison, the PFS HR for DRd vs VRd was 0.60 (0.39–0.90; P= 0.02). Conclusions: In this adjusted indirect treatment comparison based on IPD from the MAIA and S0777 trials, PFS was significantly longer for DRd relative to VRd. In the absence of a head-to-head trial comparing DRd and VRd, the present study may help to inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

Abstract Background Because patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences. Patients and Methods We used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial. Results Using D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case. Conclusion Our simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.

Abstract Introduction: Despite recent treatment (tx) advances that have improved overall survival (OS), multiple myeloma (MM) remains a mostly incurable malignancy. Txs become less effective with each successive line of therapy (LOT). The rapidly evolving tx landscape has raised questions about the optimal tx sequence; recent trial data may be useful to develop and test hypotheses about tx sequencing. However, real-world (RW) data have shown that while most patients (pts) with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) receive first-line (1L) tx, attrition rates are high in later LOT, with up to 50% of transplant ineligible (TIE) pts receiving no tx beyond 1L. As many pts will not have an opportunity to be salvaged with later LOT, achieving the longest possible progression-free survival (PFS) upfront is critical. In the MAIA trial, daratumumab (DARA), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated significant PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.53, P&lt;0.0001) and OS (HR=0.68, P=0.0013) benefit vs Rd. In a subgroup of pts ≥65 years old in the SWOG S0777 study, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) had no significant OS benefit vs Rd. In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing different tx sequences, clinical trial data can be used to explore different scenarios. Published models suggest that delaying DARA until later LOT is a viable tx strategy. Limitations of these models include basing conclusions on tx sequences other than those recommended in clinical guidelines, not accounting for the attrition rates from 1L to subsequent LOT and relying on inappropriate clinical inputs for second-line (2L) tx and beyond. While addressing those limitations, we examined different clinical scenarios to explore the clinical value of using DARA first vs saving it until a later LOT. Methods: We examined 3 potential clinical tx sequences using a lifetime three-health state clinical simulation to estimate survival outcomes in pts with TIE NDMM. The 3 health states were: 1L (time on tx + any subsequent tx-free interval), 2L (time on 2L + any subsequent LOT), and death. Tx sequences were reflective of clinical guidelines: D-Rd in 1L followed by pomalidomide (POM)- or carfilzomib (CAR)-based regimens in 2L and VRd or Rd in 1L followed by DARA-based regimens in 2L (Figure). Pt characteristics were assumed to be similar to those of pts in MAIA. Time spent in the 1L health state with D-Rd and Rd was based on time to next tx or death (TTNT) curves derived from MAIA; TTNT curves with VRd were derived by applying PFS HRs estimated in the PEGASUS study. The attrition rate for the base case analysis (58.8%) was based on MAIA data. Although similar to published studies, it includes pts who were lost to follow-up and may be an overestimate. A sensitivity analysis evaluated a more conservative estimate (27.2%) excluding censored pts. Attrition rates were assumed to be the same across tx arms. Time spent in the 2L health state with DARA-based and POM- or CAR-based regimens was based on RW OS curves derived from the nationwide EHR-derived deidentified Flatiron Health database. RW data were used as pts in published 2L trials are younger than in MAIA and many have had prior ASCT. We evaluated median OS and 5- and 10-year survival rates. Results: Using D-Rd in 1L improved median OS by 2.5 or 3.5 years compared with delaying DARA-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (Table). The probability of being alive at 5 and 10 years was higher with D-Rd than with VRd or Rd as initial therapy (Table). Changes in attrition rates impacted the expected median OS, but the absolute difference in median OS was maintained, with an incremental OS benefit consistently &gt;2 years. Conclusions: Unlike previous attempts to examine outcomes with different tx sequences, we incorporated clinically representative sequences for pts with NDMM, included attrition rates, and explored their impact on OS with different tx sequences. Our approach shows that achieving the longest possible PFS in 1L drives OS outcomes. Saving agents until later LOT does not take into account that many pts do not reach 2L, as evidenced by published data on attrition rates in MM. Our findings show that in pts with TIE NDMM, starting with D-Rd may provide up to 3.5 years of additional OS gain with the currently available 2L tx. This gain could increase with new 2L agents currently in development, reinforcing the importance of using the best agents first, to increase the probability of pts benefitting from tx currently in development. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Fonseca: Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Hashim: Johnson and Johnson: Current Employment. Nair: Janssen Research & Development: Current Employment. He: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ammann: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wildgust: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: 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.

Abstract Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (D‐Rd) recently received FDA approval for the treatment of transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The present PEGASUS study compared progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients treated with D‐Rd in the MAIA trial and patients treated with common standard‐of‐care regimens from the Flatiron Health electronic health record‐derived deidentified database, which has data from patients treated primarily at community‐based oncology practices in the United States. Individual‐level patient data from both data sources were used to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of D‐Rd to bortezomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (VRd) and bortezomib‐dexamethasone (Vd); lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) was the common anchor for the ITC. Hazard ratios (HRs) reflecting direct comparisons of PFS within MAIA (D‐Rd vs Rd) and Flatiron Health (VRd vs Rd; Vd vs Rd) were used to make ITCs for D‐Rd vs VRd and Vd, respectively. After application of MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity‐score weighting, the Flatiron Health patients resembled the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics. Based on the direct comparison within MAIA, treatment with D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.71). Based on the ITCs, D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and Vd (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.69). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials comparing D‐Rd to VRd or Vd, the present ITC may help inform treatment selection in transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM.

BACKGROUNDPrior evidence of a possible link between vitamin D status and hematologic malignancy (HM) in humans comes from observational studies, leaving unresolved the question of whether a true causal relationship exists.METHODSThe authors performed a secondary analysis of data from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D (CaD) trial, a large randomized controlled trial of CaD supplementation compared with placebo in older women. Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards survival analysis methods were used to evaluate the relationship between treatment assignment and 1) incident HM and 2) HM‐specific mortality over 10 years following randomization. HMs were classified by cell type (lymphoid, myeloid, or plasma cell) and analyzed as distinct endpoints in secondary analyses.RESULTSA total of 34,763 Women's Health Initiative CaD trial participants (median age, 63 years) had complete baseline covariate data and were eligible for analysis. Women assigned to CaD supplementation had a significantly lower risk of incident HM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.65‐0.99) but not HM‐specific mortality (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.53‐1.11] for the entire cohort; and HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.70‐1.51] among incident HM cases after diagnosis). In secondary analyses, protective associations were found to be most robust for lymphoid malignancies, with HRs of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59‐1.01) and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.24‐0.89), respectively, for cancer incidence and mortality in those assigned to CaD supplementation.CONCLUSIONSThe current post hoc analysis of data from a large and well‐executed randomized controlled trial demonstrates a protective association between modest CaD supplementation and HM risk in older women. Additional research concerning the relationship between vitamin D and HM is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:4168–4177. © 2017 American Cancer Society.