Schjesvold, Fredrik

AbstractVenetoclax (Ven) is a selective small‐molecule inhibitor of BCL‐2 that exhibits antitumoral activity against MM cells with t(11;14) translocation. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of Ven and dexamethasone (VenDex) combination in patients with t(11;14) positive relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). This open‐label, multicenter study had two distinct phases (phase one [P1], phase two [P2]). Patients in both phases received VenDex (oral Ven 800 mg/day + oral Dex 40 mg [20 mg for patients ≥75 years] on days 1, 8, and 15, per 21–day cycle). The primary objective of the P1 VenDex cohort was to assess safety and pharmacokinetics. Phase two further evaluated efficacy with objective response rate (ORR) and very good partial response or better. Correlative studies explored baseline BCL2 (BCL‐2) and BCL2L1 (BCL‐XL) gene expression, cytogenetics, and recurrent somatic mutations in MM. Twenty and 31 patients in P1 and P2 with t(11;14) positive translocation received VenDex. P1/P2 patients had received a median of 3/5 lines of prior therapy, and 20%/87% were refractory to daratumumab. Predominant grade 3/4 hematological adverse events (AEs) with ≥10% occurrence included lymphopenia (20%/19%), neutropenia (15%/7%), thrombocytopenia (10%/10%), and anemia (5%/16%). At a median follow‐up of 12.3/9.2 months, ORR was 60%/48%. The duration of response estimate at 12 months was 50%/61%, and the median time to progression was 12.4/10.8 months. In biomarker evaluable patients, response to VenDex was independent of concurrent del(17p) or gain(1q) and mutations in key oncogenic signaling pathways, including MAPK and NF‐kB. VenDex demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in heavily‐pre‐treated patients with t(11;14) R/R MM.

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

Background Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, small molecule inhibitor of anti-apoptosis protein Bcl-2 that has antitumoral activity against multiple myeloma (MM), notably those with translocation t(11;14). Dexamethasone (d) has shown to enhance the expression of BCL-2 and pro-apoptotic protein Bim, shifting its binding towards Bcl-2 and sensitizing MM cells to Ven. This Phase 1/2 open-label trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy of the combination of Ven+d as a therapeutic approach to improve clinical outcomes in patients with t(11;14) Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) MM. Methods This ongoing study (NCT01794520) has 2 distinct phases. Phase 1 (P1) consisted of separate dose escalation, safety expansion, and Ven+d combination cohorts. The phase 2 (P2) portion is an expansion cohort of Ven+d to further evaluate its efficacy. The safety and efficacy of the Ven+d cohorts from P1 and P2 are reported here. Eligible patients (pts) were adults with t(11;14) R/R MM ≥18 years of age. Key eligibility criteria for the Ven+d cohort in P1 included prior treatment with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMID), and an ECOG score ≤1. In P2, eligibility included an ECOG score ≤2, disease progression on or within 60 days from the last dose on previous treatment and having received at least two lines of therapy with a PI, IMID, daratumumab, and glucocorticoids. Additional inclusion criteria for both phases included measurable disease and adequate bone marrow function in all pts, and the presence of t(11;14) determined by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. In both phases, pts received oral Ven 800 mg/day + oral d 40 mg (20 mg for pts ≥75 years of age) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 21-day cycle. In P1, preliminary efficacy was assessed as the overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) of Ven+d based on the 2011 International Uniform Response Criteria for MM. Efficacy in P2 further evaluated ORR, very good partial response (VGPR) or better, PFS, DOR, TTP, and overall survival (OS) using 2016 IMWG response criteria. Results In P1, as of 15thApril, 2019, 20 pts were enrolled (17 [85%] male; median age, 63 years [range, 46-77]). The median number of prior therapies received was 2.5 (range: 1-7). Nineteen pts (95%) discontinued the study (18 due to progressive disease and 1 underwent transplant). The treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are summarized in the Table. Most frequent TEAEs were insomnia (45%), hypophosphatemia (40%), hyperglycemia (35%), diarrhea (35%), and thrombocytopenia (30%). Predominant Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs included neutropenia (21%), lymphopenia (29%), and hypophosphatemia (20%). The most common serious TEAE was tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) (10%). No deaths were reported in the treatment-emergent period. ORR was achieved by 13 (65%) and ≥VGPR was achieved by 6 (30%) pts respectively. Partial response (PR) was observed in 7 (35%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 4 (20%) pts. Median time to first response was 1.4 mos (95% CI: 0.7, 2.8). The DOR was 13.1 mos (95% CI: 10.9, 21.9). Median PFS and TTP were both 12.4 mos (95% CI 3.6, 20.9). In P2, as of March 18, 2019, 31 pts were enrolled (18 [58%] male; median age, 65 years [range, 48-80]). The median number of prior therapies received were 5 (range: 1-9). Eight (26%) pts discontinued the study (6 deaths, 1 withdrew consent, 1 due to physician's decision). The most frequent TEAEs reported were diarrhea (32%), nausea (26%) and lymphopenia (32%). The most frequent Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were lymphopenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (11%), and hypertension (10%). Most common serious TEAE was sepsis (10%). Six (19%) deaths were reported (5 due to progressive disease and 1 due to adverse event). In the intention to treat population, the median TTR was 0.7 mos (range: 0.6-1.5). ORR was achieved by 14 (45%) and &gt;VGPR was observed in 8 (26%) pts. PR was observed in 6 (13%) pts and SD in 8 (26%) pts. Median PFS, DOR, and OS were not reached at the time of data analysis. The 9-mo estimates for PFS, DOR, and OS were 57% (95% CI: 19% 82%), 66% (95% CI: 16%, 91%), and 71% (95% CI: 44%, 87%) respectively. Conclusion In both phases of this study, Ven+d was efficacious and demonstrated tolerable safety in pts with t(11;14) R/R MM. These results support further investigation of Ven combinations in this pt population. This combination is also being investigated in the ongoing Phase 3 trial M13-494 (CANOVA) in t(11;14) positive R/R MM. Disclosures Kaufman: Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Schjesvold:Takeda: 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; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkyliteDX: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boise:Genentech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Alzate:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Macartney:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Pesko:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Salem:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Pauff:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: may own stock or stock options. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment in multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

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.

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy has been extensively explored as a strategy for prolonging the duration of disease control and potentially survival following ASCT. To date, only lenalidomide has been approved for this indication. However, lenalidomide maintenance is associated with the development of second primary malignancies and tolerability issues. PIs are a backbone of MM treatment, and bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, yet the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Moreover, the feasibility of bortezomib maintenance in routine clinical practice is limited due to tolerability and the need for regular parenteral administration. There is a need for an oral PI maintenance therapy that can be administered for a prolonged period, improve depth of response without cumulative or late-onset toxicity, and improve convenience for patients. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) compared weekly ixazomib vs placebo maintenance in NDMM patients who had at least a partial response (≥PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) followed by single ASCT. Patients were randomized (3:2) to receive ixazomib or matched placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen (PI without IMiD vs IMiD without PI vs PI+IMiD), pre-induction ISS stage (I vs II or III), and post-ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good partial response [VGPR] vs PR). Patients were ineligible if they had received post-ASCT consolidation or tandem ASCT. The ixazomib dose was 3.0 mg during cycles 1-4, increasing to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC), who were blinded to treatment assignment. The key secondary endpoint was OS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 57 years (range, 24-73), 37% vs 63% had ISS I vs II or III, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without IMiD / IMiD without PI / PI+IMiD induction therapy, 34%/45%/21% had achieved CR / VGPR / PR following induction/ASCT, and 18% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)]. After a median follow-up of 31 months with 54% of PFS events, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). In a landmark analysis from ASCT, PFS was 30.7 vs 24.9 months (HR 0.684; 95% CI: 0.551, 0.848; p<0.001). Median PFS2 and OS have not yet been reached in either arm. Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response compared with placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented MRD positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib compared with placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including ISS III (HR 0.661), PI-exposed (HR 0.750), PI-naïve (HR 0.497), and patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625). Discontinuation due to AEs was low (7% ixazomib vs 5% placebo). With ixazomib vs placebo, 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%) including pneumonia (6% vs 4%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Global Quality of Life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) on ixazomib were similar to placebo. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib maintenance, with deepening of responses and increased conversions to MRD negativity over control, as well as a favorable safety profile, including an absence of risk of second primary malignancies and low rates of peripheral neuropathy, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Takeda Celgene, Amgen, BMS, and Roche: Other: Advisor; Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Beksac:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Maisnar: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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: 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; 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chng:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Aslan: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mateos:Celgene: 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; Amgen: 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; GSK: Consultancy, 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. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Iida:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Toyama Chemical: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Suryanarayan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Department of Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic: Other: Affiliation. Dash:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment.

Background:Despite recent advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and new treatment options are needed to continue to improve patient outcomes. This is the first randomized, phase 3 trial of an anti‐CD38 antibody in combination with pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d) in RRMM.Aims:The primary objective of this phase 3 trial (NCT02990338) was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody targeting a specific epitope, combined with Pd versus (vs) Pd in RRMM.Methods:Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4 mg PO days 1–21; 40 mg [20 mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36–86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2–11); estimated GFR: <60 ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high‐risk cytogenetics. At median follow‐up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44–0.81), P = 0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P < 0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10−5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461–1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3 h at 1st inf. and 2.8 h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3–4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd.Summary/Conclusion:Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone, with a manageable safety profile. Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM.

Background:Maintenance therapy (MT) in NDMM has been increasingly used to prolong duration of response achieved by ASCT. TOURMALINE‐MM3 is a phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study, where ixazomib improved PFS, and is the first study to evaluate the impact of MT on HRQoL post ASCT in NDMM (Dimopoulos et al., Lancet 2019;393:253). HRQoL is an important consideration during MT in NDMM patients with minimal disease burden post ASCT (Anderson et al., Leukemia 2008;22:231).Aims:To assess HRQoL in patients randomized to ixazomib vs. placebo MT in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:In TOURMALINE‐MM3, NDMM patients post ASCT were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo. HRQoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ‐C30 (overall/subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every cycle (1–26), end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. MM‐specific symptoms were assessed by EORTC QLQ‐MY20 (subscale score range, 1–100) at screening, the start of every 3 cycles between cycles 1–25, end of treatment, every 4 weeks until start of next line of therapy after progression and twice thereafter. For both instruments, higher scores for global and functional domains indicate better HRQoL, while higher scores on symptom scales represent higher levels of symptomatology. Change from study entry in subscale scores, defined in terms of 30 four‐week intervals, was analyzed using a linear mixed‐effects model among patients who reported HRQoL outcomes at study entry and completed at least one post‐study entry assessment.Results:Characteristics at study entry were well balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms; median age: 58 years; ECOG performance status 0–1: 97%; 79% had at least a very good partial response post ASCT at study entry. At study entry, least squares (LS) mean scores for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 were: Global Health Status/QoL, 69.8 vs. 69.1; Physical Functioning, 82.1 vs. 82.0; Pain, 25.3 vs. 25.7; Nausea/Vomiting, 2.3 vs. 2.0; Diarrhea, 5.9 vs. 6.0; and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 20.3 vs. 19.2; Peripheral Neuropathy, 25.0 vs. 25.6. Compliance with study assessments, averaged across cycles, was high in the treatment phase (≥94%) and similar between treatment groups.Changes in subscale scores across the 4‐week intervals were generally similar between the ixazomib and placebo groups, with treatment differences not reaching the established minimal important difference (MID) of 10 in MM (Kvam et al., Eur J Haematol 2011;87:330). LS mean (95% CI) score changes at interval 24 (week 96) for ixazomib vs. placebo on the EORTC QLQ‐C30 included: Global Health Status/QoL, –0.4 (–3.4, 2.7) vs. 1.8 (–1.7, 5.2); Physical Functioning, 0.7 (–1.8, 3.1) vs. 3.0 (0.3, 5.8); Pain, 4.1 (0.5, 7.7) vs. –1.4 (–5.5, 2.7); and on the EORTC QLQ‐MY20 were: Disease Symptoms, 5.1 (2.4, 7.9) vs. 0.8 (–2.3, 3.8); Peripheral Neuropathy, –0.7 (–5.1, 3.7) vs. –6.2 (–11.1, –1.3). EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhea subscales, while consistently worse for ixazomib than placebo (LS mean [95% CI] change at interval 24, 5.0 [3.0, 7.0] vs. 1.0 [–1.3, 3.3] and 4.0 [1.1, 6.8] vs. 0.5 [–2.8, 3.8], respectively), were in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile; treatment differences did not exceed the MID.Summary/Conclusion:In addition to improvements in PFS with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained during the protocol‐defined treatment period in both arms, and active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.