Bahlis, Nizar Jacques

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: 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. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: 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; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract MYC dysregulation, the most common genetic aberration in multiple myeloma, is frequently due to the translocation of super-enhancers to the MYC locus. Several drugs target proteins that are enriched at many of these enhancers including BRD4 (BET inhibitors, BETi) and Ikaros (IMiDs), although their mechanism of action remains poorly understood. Here we present a characterization of the responses to these drugs in a collection of over sixty myeloma cell lines having a diversity of MYC rearrangements. We found that the anti-proliferative effects of these drugs significantly correlated with changes in MYC protein levels, consistent with both drugs targeting MYC expression. Despite this common target, there was no statistically significant correlation between the individual BETi and IMiD responses, suggesting that they act through different mechanisms. Of those lines having extremes of sensitivity or resistance, there were two major groups (BETiS/IMiDS and BETiS/IMiDR), a smaller group of four lines resistant to both drugs individually (BETiR/IMiDR) and only one line was BETiR/IMiDS. In the BETiR/IMiDR group, resistance to BETi was mediated by a BRD4-independent mechanism as BRD4 was efficiently released from the MYC-associated enhancers. In all three of BETiR/IMiDR cell lines that we examined, treatment with BETi and IMiD together abolished proliferation and down-regulated MYC, consistent with parallel BRD4- and Ikaros-dependent pathways driving MYC expression. These resistant lines all expressed high levels of the transcription factor ETV4 and knocking out its gene sensitized a line to each drug individually. Thus ETV4 appears to be necessary for the parallel pathways driving MYC expression. There were nine lines in the BETiS/IMiDR group. Sensitivity to BETi in these lines could be explained by either low ETV4 expression or by BETi repressing Ikaros levels (which was only observed in BETiS lines, suggesting that BRD4 drives IKZF1 expression in these lines). Thus, in ETV4-containing lines, BETi sensitivity is due to the simultaneously targeting of the BRD4- and Ikaros-dependent pathways. IMiD resistance likely was due to several reasons. In one cell line, OCIMY5, IMiD had little effect on Ikaros levels, likely due to the previously reported low levels of Cereblon. Seven of the eight remaining lines expressed high levels of either ETV4, or the other potential super-enhancer binding factors IRF4 or RUNX1. In the eight BETiS/IMiDS cell lines, IMiD strongly reduced both Ikaros and Aiolos protein levels, which likely caused IMiD sensitivity. As with the BETiS lines described above, the lines in this group either lacked ETV4 or BETi repressed Ikaros levels. In conclusion, by examining drug response in a collection of genetically annotated myeloma cell lines we have been able to identify factors that contribute the broad range of responses to BETi and IMiDs in myeloma cells. Citation Format: Daniel L. Riggs, Camille Herzog, Victoria M. Garbitt, Niamh Keane, Courtney J. Hillukka, Zachary J. Hammond, Julia E. Wiedmeier, Seth J. Welsh, Shulan Tian, Huihuang Yan, Ranjan Maity, Nizar Bahlis, Paola Neri, W Michael Kuehl, Marta Chesi, P Leif Bergsagel. IMiDs and BET inhibitors target distinct pathways of MYC dysregulation by super-enhancers in multiple myeloma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3015.

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.

Background:The pivotal FIRST trial, the largest study conducted in transplant‐ineligible (TNE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), examined lenalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18), and melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT). The study, conducted in 18 countries in Europe, North America, and Asia Pacific, demonstrated that Rd continuous significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) vs MPT (median 26.0 vs 21.9 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59‐0.79; P < .00001). PFS was similarly extended for Rd continuous vs Rd18 (median 21.0 mos; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.81). Furthermore, median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 59.1 vs 49.1 mos; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67‐0.92; P = .0023). These results support the use of frontline oral, alkylator‐free continuous therapy for TNE NDMM pts and established Rd continuous as a standard of care as reflected by clinical guidelines in Canada, the US, and Europe.Aims:To report outcomes in the subset of patients from Canada and the US.MethodsPts with TNE 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). Rd18 and MPT were both 72 weeks in duration. Stratification factors included country and Rd continuous vs MPT was the primary comparison. The primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints included OS, time to next therapy (TTNT) 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. Data is presented as of the January 21, 2016 cutoff used for the final OS analysis.Results:A total of 312 pts from Canada (n = 252) and the US (n = 60) were enrolled (104 in each arm). Consistent with results from the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, the Canada/US subgroup also demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 29.3 vs 20.2 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49‐0.97; P = .03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median 21.9 mos; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51‐1.02; Table). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 mos for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53‐1.11; P = .15346). Median PFS2 was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (median 39.3 vs 35.1 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.50‐0.95) as was TTNT (median 39.1 vs 24.6 mos; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.78). Additional details, including safety data, will be presented at the meeting.Summary/Conclusion:In the Canada/US subpopulation of pts from FIRST, Rd continuous extended median PFS by 9 mos vs MPT and > 7 mos vs Rd18. Rd continuous also delayed median TTNT > 14 mos and resulted in a longer PFS2 vs MPT, suggesting that the benefit from frontline Rd continuous is maintained at relapse. These results are consistent with that from the ITT population confirming the advantage of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canada/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for TNE pts with NDMM. The efficacy observed with Rd continuous raises the question on the role of immunostimulatory effects by the immunomodulatory agents in NDMM.image

Key Points Rd continuous significantly extended OS compared with MPT and resulted in comparable OS to that with Rd18 in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients achieving complete or very good partial response with Rd benefited greatly from continuous vs fixed treatment in terms of PFS.

Key Points IRd was associated with a consistent PFS benefit vs placebo-Rd in RRMM patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics. The addition of ixazomib to Rd overcomes the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetics in patients with RRMM.