Zahlten‐Kumeli, Anita

e19505 Background: CFZ combined with dexamethasone is approved to treat pts with RRMM, with CFZ given once-weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW) or twice-weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW). No randomized trials have directly compared Kd70 QW with Kd56 BIW. We performed a post hoc comparison between pts who received Kd56 BIW in the ENDEAVOR trial and pts who received Kd70 QW in the A.R.R.O.W. or CHAMPION-1 trials. Methods: Data were analyzed from 3 trials of CFZ in RRMM: A.R.R.O.W. (240 pts in Kd70 QW arm; 2–3 prior therapies and refractory to most recent therapy), CHAMPION-1 (104 pts received Kd70 QW; 1–3 prior therapies), and ENDEAVOR (464 pts in Kd56 BIW arm; 1–3 prior therapies). Pts who received Kd70 QW in A.R.R.O.W. and CHAMPION-1 were pooled and compared with pts who received Kd56 BIW in ENDEAVOR. As study populations slightly varied among the 3 trials, an analysis of safety and efficacy was performed in a subgroup of pts who received 2–3 prior therapy lines and were not refractory to bortezomib (BTZ). Also, we performed regression analyses (controlling for age, ISS stage, BTZ and lenalidomide refractory status, and number of prior regimens) among all pts in the trials who received Kd70 QW or Kd56 BIW. Results: Among BTZ non-refractory pts with 2–3 lines of prior therapy, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.4–14.3) for Kd70 QW (n = 146) and 14.5 months (95% CI 10.2–NE) for Kd56 BIW (n = 217), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% CI 61.7–77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI 65.9–78.2) for Kd56 BIW. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 67.6% and 85.3%; among adverse events of interest, the grade ≥3 rate was 1.4% and 5.1% for cardiac failure, 3.4% and 6.0% for renal failure, and 5.5% and 15.7% for hypertension. Kd70 QW represents a convenient and well-tolerated treatment modality for pts with RRMM. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for PFS (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.69–1.19), and in a logistic regression model the odds ratio for ORR (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.74–1.69). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis suggests that once-weekly Kd70 has a comparable benefit-risk profile to twice-weekly Kd56. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878, NCT01677858, NCT01568866.

Abstract Combination of carfilzomib with dexamethasone (Kd) is approved for use in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with carfilzomib administered twice weekly at 56 mg/m 2 (Kd56 BIW) or once weekly at 70 mg/m 2 (Kd70 QW). Post hoc cross‐trial comparisons were performed to compare efficacy and safety profiles of Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW dosing schedules using data from three trials of patients with RRMM: A.R.R.O.W., CHAMPION‐1, and ENDEAVOR. To select for comparable patient populations, side‐by‐side efficacy and safety comparisons were performed in subgroups of patients with 2‐3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to bortezomib. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7‐77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI, 65.9‐78.2) for Kd56 BIW. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.4‐14.3) for Kd70 QW and 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.2—not evaluable) for Kd56 BIW. Frequency of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 67.6% for Kd70 QW and 85.3% for Kd56 BIW. Regression analyses (adjusting for prognostic factors) of all patients in the trials who received Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW estimated a PFS hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69‐1.19; P = .47) and an ORR odds ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.74‐1.69; P = .61). These results suggest that Kd70 QW has a comparable efficacy profile compared with Kd56 BIW and represents a convenient and well‐tolerated treatment for patients with RRMM.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study (NCT02412878) has shown a favorable benefit-risk profile of once-weekly carfilzomib (K) at 70 mg/m2 over twice-weekly K at 27mg/m2 plus dexamethasone (d) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (Moreau. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:953-964). Once-weekly significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with twice-weekly (median 11.2 vs 7.6 months [mos]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.88; P=0.0014). Herein, we present a subgroup analysis of once-weekly vs twice-weekly Kd by previous therapy in pts with RRMM. Methods: 478 pts with RRMM, previously treated with 2 or 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent were randomized 1:1 to receive either once-weekly (n=240) or twice-weekly (n=238) Kd. The once-weekly group received K (30-min intravenous infusion [IV]) on days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 on D1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice-weekly group received K (10-min IV) on D1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 (20 mg/m2 on D1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All pts received d at 40 mg/m2 on D1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and 22 (cycle 1-9 only). Treatment was given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptably toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The study secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. PFS, ORR, and safety outcomes by prior lines of therapy are shown in the Table; PFS curves by prior lines are shown in the Figure. With a median follow-up time of 12.6 mos in the once-weekly group and 12.0 mos in the twice-week group, PFS for pts with 2 prior lines (N=241) was 12.1 mos vs 7.6 mos (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.86). Median PFS for pts with 3 prior lines (N=237) was 8.9 mos for once-weekly vs 7.9 mos for twice-weekly (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.15). ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.9% vs 40.8% (OR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.47, 4.14) in pts with 2 prior lines and 62.9% vs 40.7% (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.46, 4.17) in pts with 3 prior lines. In the 2 prior lines group, 9.5% vs 3.2% of pts had a complete response or better with once- vs twice-weekly Kd respectively. Complete responses or better in pts with 3 prior lines were obtained in 4.8% of pts receiving once-weekly and no pts with twice-weekly Kd. In A.R.R.O.W., 401 (83.9%) pts had prior lenalidomide (LEN) exposure. Median PFS for once- vs twice-weekly was 11.1 mos vs 7.4 mos (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94) for LEN exposed pts and NE (not estimable) vs 9.4 mos (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.21) for pts without prior LEN exposure. ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.3% vs 39.2% (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.72, 3.84) in pts with prior LEN exposure, and 66.7% vs 47.7% (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: (0.86, 5.58) in pts without prior LEN exposure. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59.1% vs 65.0% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, and 75.6% vs 58.0% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts with 3 prior lines of therapy. The incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs of interest by prior lines can be found in the Table. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 69.3% vs 60.2% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with prior LEN, and 57.6% vs 68.2% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts without prior LEN. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd resulted in a favorable benefit-risk profile regardless of the number of prior lines. Although the median PFS was prolonged in both groups, pts with 2 prior lines achieved a greater benefit, underlining the need for using once-weekly Kd early to optimize outcomes for pts with RRMM. Safety profiles were consistent with previous findings and reports. Importantly, low incidences of heart failure were reported across all subgroups and no additional toxicities were found. As described for other K-based regimens, efficacy of K can be further enhanced by being used in earlier lines of therapy for pts with RRMM. This subgroup analysis further confirmed the positive results from A.R.R.O.W. of using once-weekly Kd at 70 mg/m2 regardless of prior therapies and should be considered an additional option to treat pts with RRMM. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy. Lazzaro:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Cavo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Iskander:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zahlten-Kumeli:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mateos:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:Carfilzomib (CFZ) combined with dexamethasone is approved to treat patients (pts) with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with CFZ given once‐weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW) or twice‐weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW). No randomized trials have directly compared Kd70 QW with Kd56 BIW.Aims:We performed a post hoc comparison between pts who received Kd56 BIW in the ENDEAVOR trial and pts who received Kd70 QW in the A.R.R.O.W. or CHAMPION‐1 trials.Methods:Data were analyzed from 3 trials of CFZ in RRMM: A.R.R.O.W. (240 pts in Kd70 QW arm; 2–3 prior therapies and refractory to most recent therapy), CHAMPION‐1 (104 pts received Kd70 QW; 1–3 prior therapies), and ENDEAVOR (464 pts in Kd56 BIW arm; 1–3 prior therapies). Pts who received Kd70 QW in A.R.R.O.W. and CHAMPION‐1 were pooled and compared with pts who received Kd56 BIW in ENDEAVOR. As study populations slightly varied among the 3 trials, an analysis of safety and efficacy was performed in a subgroup of pts who received 2–3 prior therapy lines and were not refractory to bortezomib (BTZ). Also, we performed regression analyses (controlling for age, ISS stage, BTZ and lenalidomide refractory status, and number of prior regimens) among all pts in the trials who received Kd70 QW or Kd56 BIW.Results:Among BTZ non‐refractory pts with 2–3 lines of prior therapy, median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.4–14.3) for Kd70 QW (n = 146) and 14.5 months (95% CI 10.2–NE) for Kd56 BIW (n = 217), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% CI 61.7–77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI 65.9–78.2) for Kd56 BIW. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 67.6% and 85.3%; among adverse events of interest, the grade ≥3 rate was 1.4% and 5.1% for cardiac failure, 3.4% and 6.0% for renal failure, and 5.5% and 15.7% for hypertension. Kd70 QW represents a convenient and well‐tolerated treatment modality for pts with RRMM. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for PFS (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.69–1.19), and in a logistic regression model the odds ratio for ORR (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.74–1.69).Summary/Conclusion:This post hoc analysis suggests that once‐weekly Kd70 has a comparable benefit‐risk profile to twice‐weekly Kd56.© 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.