Citations 131

Changes in Expert Recommendations and Global Practice Patterns from 2012-2015: Results from an Annually Updated Online Decision Aid for Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 126 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 2105-2105

10.1182/blood.v126.23.2105.2105

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines for MM list many alternative therapeutic options with an equivalent category of evidence but lack recommendations on the best approaches for individual patient cases. To provide clinicians with expert guidance on treatment options for defined patient scenarios, we developed and updated an interactive, online decision aid that allows users to enter specific disease and patient characteristics, enter their planned treatment, and then compare their choice of therapy with those of an MM expert panel for that scenario. Here we report data from the most recent version (2015) of this tool, capturing changes in expert recommendations and treatment trends for MM over time and evaluating the impact of this online tool on clinical care. Methods Each of 3 annual updates to the tool were developed with input from a panel of 5 MM experts. The individual experts provided treatment recommendations for multiple patient scenarios across the settings of induction therapy, maintenance therapy, and therapy for relapsed/refractory MM. A series of pull-down menus allowed users to select individual patient and disease characteristics identified by experts as important to consider when making treatment choices. These characteristics included: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (for induction therapy only), results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, risk of renal insufficiency or peripheral neuropathy, previous therapy and depth of response (for maintenance and relapsed/refractory settings), and cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction (for relapsed/refractory setting). Users were then asked to state their intended management approach for that particular patient scenario. Once completed, recommendations for that scenario from each of the experts were displayed, and users were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their treatment choice. Results Expert recommendations spanning the continuum of care were compiled in October 2012, November 2013, and March 2015 for the 3 different MM tool updates. As for earlier versions of the MM tool, each of the experts in the 2015 update provided recommendations for 32 case scenarios for induction therapy, for a total of 160 possible induction recommendations. Comparing overall induction therapy recommendations the use of bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was approximately 40% in both 2013 and 2015, whereas the use of carfilzomib-containing regimens increased from 5% to 17%. None of the experts chose regimens with melphalan as induction therapy in 2015. In the relapsed/refractory setting, the use of newer therapeutic approaches continued to grow especially in the setting of patients who did not respond to induction therapy or relapsed within 6 months. For example, in those with prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, the selection of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone by experts rose from 11% to 38% from 2013 to 2015 with pomalidomide and lenalidomide selected for 20% to 25% of cases in the most recent tool. For prior IMiD and PI, the experts selected a new combination of pomalidomide with a PI (either bortezomib or carfilzomib) and dexamethasone in 55% of the case scenarios in 2015. To date, 170 different clinicians sought guidance on more than 259 patient case scenarios using the 2015 decision support tool. In the subset of cases (n = 104) in which users reported how the tool affected their management of patients with MM, 68% indicated the expert recommendations either confirmed or changed their intended treatment (22% changed; 46% confirmed), whereas 17% indicated that there would be barriers to implementing the expert recommendations, and 5% said they disagreed with the experts' recommendations. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence. Our data show that interactive online therapy decision aids that provide expert recommendations to clinicians for specific case scenarios can aid decision making and capture practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment. Preliminary data suggest that most clinicians using the online decision aid either confirmed or changed their treatment approaches for specific MM patient case scenarios based on expert recommendations. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Axiom: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Mortimer:AstraZeneca: Other: spouse is an employee of and has equity ownership in.
Diagnostic Evaluation of t[4;14] in Multiple Myeloma.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 108 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 3501-3501

10.1182/blood.v108.11.3501.3501

Abstract The t[4;14] simultaneously deregulates fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) and MMSET in 15% of patients (pts) with Multiple Myeloma (MM). Although oncogenic, FGFR3 expression is lost in ~25% of t[4;14] pts on gene expression profiling while MMSET is always retained. The t[4;14] is highly associated with poor prognosis, furthermore FGFR3 kinase inhibitors are in Phase I trials, thus detection of t[4;14] pts is increasingly important. The Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC) therefore evaluated 4 competing methodologies for the diagnostic detection of t[4;14]. Bone marrow (BM) samples were collected in uniform fashion from 85 pts. FGFR3 immunocytochemistry (ICC) and flow cytometry (FC) were performed at the retrieval site, while split samples were shipped to the MMRC tissue bank and processed under GLP conditions. Processed samples were analyzed by cIg-FISH and quantitative IgH-MMSET RT-PCR (QPCR) on unsorted BM and blood. Of 60 samples with sufficient plasma cells for analysis, 8 were FISH +ve [13.3%]. Low % BM plasma cells prevented successful FISH in 25% of samples reflecting large volume harvests and hemodilution. Analysis was conducted in a blinded fashion. With FISH as the gold standard for detection of t[4;14] the sensitivity and specificity of the other diagnostic tests are: BM QPCR is most sensitive (7 of 8 FISH positive detected) and specific (42/43 negatives correctly identified). QPCR on peripheral blood is ongoing. FC is more sensitive to the detection of FGFR3 protein than ICC. Correlation between FC and ICC was only 0.46. Interestingly, 6 of 7 evaluable pts here and 13/14 (92%) in an expanded analysis of FISH +ve patients also expressed the FGFR3 protein. Given the discrepancy between this finding and previously reported loss of FGFR3 expression in 25% of pts we further explored t[4;14] stability. Clonal selection/heterogeneity was determined by the % plasma cells in each pt. with an unbalanced translocation (loss of one der chromosome). In 42 t[4;14] pts, 13 (31%) had a balanced translocation(>75% of cells with a double fusion), 14 (33%) had an unbalanced translocation (>75% cells with only one signal), and 15 (36%) had a chimeric picture. This heterogeneous pattern is suggestive of an evolution towards an unbalanced translocation. Despite this survival did not differ between pts with balanced or unbalanced translocation. Conclusions: These results indicate that the t[4;14] is highly heterogeneous with respect to balanced versus unbalanced translocations, which likely evolve over time. For detection, cIg-FISH continues to be the gold standard diagnostic methodology but may be limited by low plasma cell numbers in dilute BM or during MM remission. QPCR and FC appear most sensitive and specific for presence of t[4;14] and FGFR3 protein expression respectively. Surprisingly (given prior evidence of loss of FGFR3 expression in 25% of pts) 92% of t[4;14] pts in this series expressed FGFR3 protein. # Analyzed % Positive Sensitivity Specificity FISH 60 13 - - QPCR 65 14 87.5 97.6 Flow 82 15 85.7 91 ICC 85 15 62.5 92
Phase II Trial of SCIO-469 as Monotherapy (M) or in Combination with Bortezomib (MB) in Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 108 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 3580-3580

10.1182/blood.v108.11.3580.3580

Abstract Background: p38a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) mediates production of proinflammatory cytokines and other factors including PGE-2 induced RANKL and IL-1 induced IL-6. SCIO-469 inhibits p38a MAPK blocking synthesis of Il-1ß, PGE2, VEGF, MIP-1α and TNFα thus reducing in vitro MM tumor growth and survival, and drug resistance. Objectives: Assess efficacy, safety, tolerability of SCIO-469 as M or MB in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: Pts were treated with SCIO-469 alone (60 mg po tid)and assessed on Days 15, 30, 52 and 73. Bortezomib (1.0–1.3mg/m2 d 1,4,8,11 q21d) was added to M for PD or SD. Pts who had clinical benefit on either M or MB at Day 73 were allowed to continue on extension study for up to a total of 168 d, to further evaluate efficacy and saftey of M or MB. Results: 62 pts were enrolled: 39 M, 23 F, median age was 63 years (range 48–84), D-S stage at Dx: I (6%), II (32), III (60%%); median time from diagnosis to treatment 3.1 years; median # prior Rx = 5; including 29% with > 6; 71% prior transplant. 27 had received prior bortezomib and 17 were considered refractory. All 62 pts received study drug; 34 pts received MB at some time during the treatment period. 5 of the 28 (18%) pts treated with M and 25 of 34 (74%) pts treated with MB continued on the extension study. Median time on study was 77.5 d (range 7–304) for M and 180.5 d (range 34–275) for MB. Best response (EBMT; Blade 1998) to M was stable disease in 24% of pts; the best response to MB was 9/34 PR (26%), 2/34 MR (6%),3/34 SD (9%). Median time to progression (TTP) was 50 days for M compared to 140 days for MB. Safety/Tolerability: Adverse events on M were tabulated separately from those on MB. Neutropenia was minimal, < 3% with either regimen; anemia (47 vs 29%) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 16%) were more prevalent with MB vs M, respectively. Epistaxis, fatigue and diarrhea were seen in > 15% of pts receiving M. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain, fatigue, pyrexia, anorexia, URI, arthralgia, muscle cramp, dizziness, peripheral neuropathy and headache occurred in > 15% pts receiving MB. 10 pts died on study, 9 during primary phase and 1 during extension phase. 3 deaths were the result of sepsis, the remaining 7 were due to progressive disease. Conclusions: SCIO-469, 60 mg tid, as monotherapy or in combination with Bortezomib was well tolerated. Although there were no objective responses in M (compared to 32% (11/34) in MB-including 4 patients who had failed prior bortezomib), 24% had stable disease at the end of monotherapy. Further studies to refine the dose of SCIO-469 as monotherapy and of SCIO-469 in combination with other agents are warranted.
Indatuximab Ravtansine (BT062) in Combination with Low-Dose Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide or Pomalidomide: Clinical Activity in Patients with Relapsed / Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 4486-4486

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4486.4486

Abstract Background: BT062 (Biotest AG, Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a CD138-binding chimerized antibody and the cytotoxic maytansinoid, DM4. It is designed to target and kill CD138-positive cancer cells. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly expressed on a number of solid tumors and hematological malignancies and is one of the most reliable markers for multiple myeloma (MM) cells. BT062 was previously evaluated as a monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM and found to have an acceptable tolerability profile with preliminary evidence of activity (Heffner et al, Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042). Phase I/IIa testing was initiated with BT062 in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex). The combination was well tolerated at BT062 doses up to 100 mg/m², defined to be the recommended Phase 2 dose (RPTD), and induced meaningful responses, including in patients previously treated with both Len and bortezomib (Bort) (Kelly et al, Blood. 2014; 124: Abstract 4736). Based on these promising results, further investigation of BT062 in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and dex was initiated in patients with prior Len and Bort exposure, a patient population known to have a poor outcome. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and activity of BT062 (on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 4-week cycle) used in combination with dex (20-40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) or Pom (4 mg, daily on days 1-21) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: This is a prospective, open label, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The RPTD of BT062 in combination with Len/dex was defined to be 100 mg/m², and 38 patients were treated with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD. An additional 17 patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex at the BT062 RPTD. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory MM were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len, Pom, and/or dexamethasone (any dose) was allowed. To qualify for treatment with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD, patients must have received at least one but no more than six prior therapies.To qualify for treatment with BT062/Pom/dex, patients must have received at least two prior therapies, including both Len and Bort, and progressed on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy, with no limit on number of prior therapies. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of disease progression) without unacceptable toxicities were eligible to receive additional treatment cycles. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4. Clinical response was assessed by the investigator according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: Sixty-four patients have received BT062 in combination with dex and Len or Pom in this ongoing study. The combinations have been generally well tolerated, with approximately 90% of adverse events (AEs) reported CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs reported are diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Forty-seven patients have received BT062 with Len/Dex (3 at 80 mg/m², 38 at 100 mg/m², 6 at 120 mg/m²), with 8 patients still on treatment. Among these 47 patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months. Forty-three patients completed at least two treatment cycles and were evaluable for response. Of these patients 33 achieved a partial response (PR) or better, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 77% and a median duration of response (DOR) of 21.0 months. Thirteen of the evaluable BT062/Len/dex-treated patients had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 54% among these patients, including 1 complete response (CR), 4 very good partial responses (VGPR) and 2 PRs. Seventeen patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex, all had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 79%, with 4 VGPR and 7 PR among the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy. Median PFS has not been reached after 7.5 months median follow up, with 7 patients still on treatment. Updated safety and activity data will be presented. Conclusion: BT062 has been found to be well tolerated when used in combination with Len/dex or Pom/dex, with encouraging activity even in patients with Len- and Bort-pretreated disease progressing on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy. Disclosures Kelly: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Somlo:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heffner:Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Madan:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Barmaki-Rad:Biotest AG: Employment. Rühle:Biotest AG: Employment. Herrmann:Biotest AG: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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.
High-Resolution Assessment of Gains and Losses of Chromosomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Bortezomib.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 110 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 4763-4763

10.1182/blood.v110.11.4763.4763

Abstract Multiple myeloma is a disease of the antibody producing plasma cells in the bone marrow. It has been characterized by frequent genomic alterations including gains and losses of chromosomes. Some of these alterations result in poor clinical prognosis. Bortezomib, a first in class proteasome inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. To better understand how the genome wide changes observed in myeloma relate to prognosis and treatment response, we have used single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array technology to assess genotypes and DNA copy number at up to 100,000 genomic loci. DNA from 147 bone marrow tumor biopsies collected in multi-center phase II and III clinical trials of relapsed multiple myeloma patients prior to treatment with Bortezomib were hybridized on SNP arrays to assess genomic aberrations. Commonly seen genomic alterations in myeloma were observed, including deletions of chromosome 13 (37%), 1p (25%), 6q (23%), and amplifications on 1q (35%). We found that 35% of this relapsed myeloma population exhibited a hyperdiploid genome characterized by gains of chromosomes 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 19. Other notable genomic deletions included 17p (22%), 8p (27%) and 10p (16%). A correlation of response to bortezomib therapy in patients with differential gains and losses at the chromosomal level is ongoing. Consistent with previous reports, response to bortezomib was observed in patients with poor prognostic chr 13 deletions. A more in-depth analysis of specific loci associated with clinical outcome will be discussed. In summary, this data will help further define genomic aberrations in multiple myeloma and their association with treatment outcome.
Areas of Consensus and Differences Among a Panel of Experts on the Optimal Use of Newly Approved Agents to Treat Multiple Myeloma (MM): Results from an Annually Updated Online Decision Support Tool

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 2379-2379

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2379.2379

Abstract Background In 2015, the FDA approved 5 new agents and/or combination regimens for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. In addition, new clinical data support using new regimens in the first-line setting. This rapid expansion of available treatment options has greatly increased the complexity of treatment decisions for patients in this disease setting. Clinical practice guidelines list multiple preferred treatment options for MM and can be challenging to apply to specific patients with a mixture of presenting features. Since 2013, we have developed and updated an MM online decision support tool designed to provide clinicians with expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the tool over the years has shown that experts rapidly integrate new data and available agents into practice whereas many tool users do not. Here we report data from the most recent version (2016) of this tool, capturing the impact of the rapid expansion of new therapies on expert treatment recommendations. Methods In June 2016, a panel of 5 experts provided treatment recommendations for 688 case scenarios across 3 settings: induction, maintenance, and R/R disease. These distinct scenarios were defined by key patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation, results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, previous therapy and response, and preexisting comorbidities. To use the tool, these patient and disease factors and the intended treatment for that specific patient were entered through drop-down menus to display the expert choices for that case. Users were then asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on planned treatment. Results We compared expert recommendations from the 2 most recent versions of our MM tool, compiled in March 2015 and June 2016, to assess the impact of the new data and FDA approvals on treatment patterns. The experts are generally not recommending these agents as induction or maintenance therapy. Three out of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone as induction therapy for preexisting peripheral neuropathy (PN) and 1 expert recommended ixazomib-based regimens as induction and maintenance therapy for patients with high-risk cytogenetics and both renal insufficiency and PN. The new agents did have a substantial impact on expert recommendation in the R/R setting. In the 2016 tool, the type of previous therapy was the primary factor affecting expert selections, whereas the number of previous lines of therapy (1-3 vs >3) had minimal impact in the R/R setting. For example, in patients refractory to previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, regimens containing either elotuzumab (30%) or daratumumab (25%) were selected frequently by experts with pomalidomide-containing regimens recommended in another 40% of these specific cases. In the 2016 tool, the use of lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone without a newly approved agent was not recommended by any expert in the R/R setting, although it had been recommended by experts in 25% of R/R case scenarios in the 2015 tool. For patient scenarios refractory to previous immunomodulatory drugs and PIs, the experts recommended daratumumab-based regimens in 67.5% of the cases in the 2016 tool whereas the use of carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone fell from 45% in 2015 to 10% of the cases in 2016. None of the experts recommended regimens with panobinostat as their preferred choice in any patient scenario in either 2015 or 2016. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence and FDA approvals. Our data show that newly approved therapies are having a large impact on expert recommendations for specific case scenarios in the relapsed/refractory MM setting. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data that captures practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Kesios: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Acetylon: Other: Scientific Founder; Sonofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Final Analysis of Overall Survival from the First Trial

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 241-241

10.1182/blood.v128.22.241.241

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of eighteen 28-day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42-day cycles); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol: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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker: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; Janssen: 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.
Preliminary Results from a Phase Ib Study of Isatuximab in Combination with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood | October 10, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 2123-2123

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2123.2123

Abstract Background: Isatuximab (ISA) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with multiple modes of action for killing tumor cells through immune cell engagement and direct tumor targeting. In preclinical studies, pomalidomide (Pom) enhanced both the direct and indirect anti-tumor activity of ISA to a greater degree than lenalidomide (Len) (Jiang et al. Leukemia 2016). Here, we report the preliminary results of an ongoing Phase Ib dose-escalation study of ISA plus Pom and dexamethasone (Dex) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (NCT02283775). Methods: Patients with RRMM (≥2 prior MM therapies, including Len and a proteasome inhibitor) with adequate bone marrow reserve/organ function were sequentially enrolled to receive ISA 5, 10 or 20 mg/kg (weekly × 4 doses, then every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity) in combination with Pom 4 mg (days 1-21) and Dex 40 mg (days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg if ≥75 years old), in 28-day cycles. Pom or Dex dose reductions were permitted after Cycle 1, or during Cycle 1 in response to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose, based on the occurrence of treatment-related DLTs. Secondary objectives included evaluation of efficacy (by objective response assessment according to IMWG criteria), safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: At data cut-off (May 11, 2016), 14 patients had been treated in the first 2 dose-escalation cohorts: 8 patients at 5 mg/kg and 6 patients at 10 mg/kg. Overall, median age was 65.5 (range, 42-77) years and median time from diagnosis was 4.25 (1.0-12.5) years. Half of the patients (7/14) had received at least 5 prior regimens (median 4.5 [2-11]; prior carfilzomib in 50% of patients). Ten patients (71%) had received at least one prior stem cell transplant. Median duration of dosing was 21.2 (4-42) and 8.1 (4-12) weeks in the 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg cohorts, respectively, with the latter cohort also having the shortest follow-up. Three patients discontinued treatment, all in the 5 mg/kg cohort: 2 due to confirmed disease progression (discontinuation after 2 and 4 treatment cycles, respectively) and 1 due to patient withdrawal (discontinuation in Cycle 1 and patient not evaluable for response). There were no discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in either cohort. Two DLTs were reported: one in the 5 mg/kg cohort (prolonged grade [Gr] 4 neutropenia), and the other in the 10 mg/kg cohort (Gr 4 neutropenic infection); both DLTs resolved with Pom dose delay/reduction. MTD has not yet been reached; the 20 mg/kg dose level is under enrollment. Overall, Gr 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 10 (71%) patients; serious TEAEs in 6 (43%) patients. The most frequent TEAEs were fatigue (64%), upper respiratory tract infection, tremor, dyspnea, and cough (29% each). The most common Gr 3/4 hematologic abnormality (laboratory assessment) was neutropenia (Gr 1, 0%; Gr 2, 7%; Gr 3, 43%; Gr 4, 43%). Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 4 (29%) patients (Gr 3, n=2; Gr 4, n=2). Infusion-associated reactions (IARs) occurred in 8 (57%) patients, with all cases Gr 1/2 in severity. IARs occurred during the first infusion in most patients; 3/14 (21%) patients experienced IARs at a subsequent infusion, of whom only one had IARs after Cycle 1. Of the patients evaluable for confirmed response, 8/13 (62%) achieved at least partial response (PR), and 10/13 (77%) at least minimal response (MR). At 5 mg/kg, 1 patient achieved complete response (CR), 2 very good partial response (VGPR) and 2 PR. At 10 mg/kg, 2 patients achieved VGPR, 1 PR, and 2 MR. Of the eight patients who achieved at least PR, all continued to respond without confirmed disease progression at data cut-off. The PK parameters of ISA were not affected by co-administration with Pom/Dex. Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that the combination of ISA and Pom/Dex is generally well tolerated and clinically active in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM. Enrollment continues and longer term follow-up from this study, including data from the 20 mg/kg cohort, will be presented. A Phase III trial to evaluate ISA plus Pom/Dex is planned. Disclosures Richardson: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Usmani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Raje:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Bensinger:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Campana:Sanofi: Employment. Gao:Sanofi: Employment. Dubin:Sanofi Oncology: Employment. Wack:Sanofi: Employment. Anderson:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Combination of the mTOR Inhibitor Rapamycin and Revlimid™ (CC-5013) Has Synergistic Activity in Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood | October 10, 2019 | Volume: 104 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1492-1492

10.1182/blood.v104.11.1492.1492

Abstract Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) mediate growth of MM cells via activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), JAK2/STAT3, and phosphatidylinositol 3′-kinase/Akt kinase (PI3-K/Akt) signaling cascades. We have previously demonstrated the in vitro and in vivo activity of Revlimid™ (CC-5013), an immunomodulatory analog (IMiD) of thalidomide, in MM. In the present study, we have examined the anti-MM activity of rapamycin, a specific mTOR inhibitor, combined with Revlimid™. This combination was highly synergistic at 0.1nmol/L of rapamycin with 0.1mmol/L of Revlimid™, and remained synergistic at higher concentrations. Based on the Chou-Talalay method, combination indices of < 1 were noted for all dose ranges of Revlimid™ and rapamycin, suggesting strong synergism. Importantly, this combination was able to overcome drug resistance when tested against MM cell lines resistant to conventional (doxorubicin, melphalan, dexamethasone) chemotherapy. Moreover, the combination, but not rapamycin alone, was able to overcome the growth advantage conferred on MM cells by IL-6, IGF-1, or adherence to bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs). Cytotoxicity triggered by a combination of rapamycin with Revlimid™ resulted in apoptosis of MM cells. Furthermore, differential signaling cascades, including the MAPK and PI3-K/Akt pathways, were targeted by these drugs individually and in combination, suggesting the molecular mechanism by which they interfere with MM growth and survival. These studies therefore provide the framework for the clinical evaluation of targeted agents like mTOR inhibitors combined with immunomodulatory agents like Revlimid™ to improve patient outcome in MM.
Indatuximab Ravtansine (BT062) in Combination with Lenalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Activity in Patients Already Exposed to Lenalidomide and Bortezomib

Blood | October 10, 2019 | Volume: 124 | Issue: 21 | Pages: 4736-4736

10.1182/blood.v124.21.4736.4736

Abstract Background: BT062 (Biotest AG Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), comprising the anti-CD138 chimerized MAb (nBT062) and the maytansinoid DM4 as a cytotoxic agent. It is designed to bind to CD138 on cancer cells, and then release DM4 after internalization to cause cell death. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly overexpressed on various solid tumors and in hematological malignancies, and represents one of the most specific target antigens for identification of multiple myeloma (MM) cells. BT062 was investigated as a single agent and found to have an acceptable tolerability profile and evidence of activity in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and/or refractory MM (1). Preclinical studies showed enhanced anti-MM activity when BT062 was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len/Dex). Based on these data, a Phase I/IIa study in MM was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BT062 in combination with Len/Dex. Objectives: To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RPTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and anti-MM activity of increasing doses of BT062 (days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) used in combination with Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) and low dose Dex (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Methods: This is a prospective, open label, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The Phase I part includes dose escalation, and the Phase IIa the expansion of the RPTD cohort. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed and/or refractory MM who have failed at least one prior therapy were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len and/or Dex was allowed. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of progressive disease) and without unacceptable toxicities were eligible for additional treatment cycles. Patients were enrolled in cohorts of at least 3 at each dose level; DLT in the first cycle triggered cohort expansion. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4 and clinical response was assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: The maximum administered dose (MAD) was 120 mg/m². Two of six patients treated at this dose had a DLT: mucosal inflammation (CTC grade 3) and anemia (CTC grade 3). The MTD was defined as 100 mg/m² and selected as RPTD. Additional patients are being treated at this RPTD to further evaluate safety and efficacy. Enrollment into the study is ongoing. As of July 2014, a total of 45 patients had received BT062 at dose levels of 80 mg/m² (N=3), 100 mg/m² (N=36) or 120 mg/m² (N=6). Fifteen patients discontinued study treatment: 5 for disease progression, 7 for adverse events, 1 died (not treatment related) and 2 for withdrawal of consent. The other 30 patients remain on treatment. The median treatment duration was 123 days (range 1–597). The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–11). 68% of patients had prior exposure to both Len and bortezomib, 73% of patients had prior Len exposure, and 30% were Len-refractory. According to preliminary data from this ongoing study, about 89% of reported Adverse Events (AEs) were CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common reported AEs were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and hypokalemia. Amongst the 36 patients across all dose levels currently evaluable for efficacy, the overall response rate (ORR) is 78%; including 1 stringent complete response, 2 complete responses, 10 very good partial responses, and 15 partial responses. Two patients achieved a minor response and 6 patients disease stabilization, resulting in a clinical benefit in 100% of the evaluable patients. The ORR was 83% among the 30 evaluable patients receiving the RPTD. Interestingly, the ORR was 70% among the 23 patients with prior exposure to Len and bortezomib, and among 10 patients refractory to prior treatment with Len. Conclusion: Preliminary data from this ongoing study indicate that BT062 is well tolerated in combination with Len/Dex at dose levels that induce responses in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, including patients with prior exposure to both Len and bortezomib and patients refractory to prior treatment with Len. Updated results on safety and efficacy will be presented. References Heffner et al, BT062, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Directed Against CD138, Given Weekly for 3 Weeks in Each 4 Week Cycle: Safety and Further Evidence of Clinical Activity. Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042. Disclosures Kelly: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Heffner:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Research Funding; Dana Farber CI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Idera: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Talon Therapeutics: Research Funding. Somlo:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Munshi:Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Ocopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Barmaki-Rad:Biotest AG: Employment. Chavan:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Patel:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopep: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership.