Suryanarayan, Kaveri

Abstract Introduction: A number of cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in MM, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and amp1q21. There is a general consensus that treatment with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) benefits pts carrying these CAs (Sonneveld Blood 2016). This meta-analysis of four phase 3 studies assesses PFS benefit in pts receiving the oral PI ixa vs pbo regarding the specific adverse CAs. Methods: Pts in TOURMALINE-MM1 (N=722; relapsed/refractory MM; Moreau N Engl J Med 2016) and MM2 (N=705; newly diagnosed MM; Facon Blood 2021) received ixa plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs pbo-Rd (1:1). Pts in TOURMALINE-MM3 (N=656; Dimopoulos Lancet 2019) and TOURMALINE-MM4 (N=706; Dimopoulos J Clin Oncol 2020) received ixa vs pbo (3:2) as maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant or as post-induction maintenance in transplant-ineligible pts, respectively. In TOURMALINE-MM1/MM2, CAs were centrally assessed on CD138 positive sorted cells from bone marrow samples collected at study entry using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Cutoff values for defining the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were 5%, 3%, and 3% positive cells, respectively, based on the false-positive rates (technical cutoffs) of the FISH probes used, and cutoff values of 3% (MM1) and 20% (MM2) were used for amp1q21. In TOURMALINE-MM3/MM4, cytogenetic assessment was performed locally using FISH or conventional karyotyping with locally defined thresholds for positivity. Results: 270/1227 (22%) vs 227/1019 (22%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)]: 75 vs 62 in MM1, 60 vs 63 in MM2, 61 vs 54 in MM3, and 74 vs 48 in MM4. 957/1227 (78%) vs 792/1019 (78%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 200 vs 216 in MM1, 231 vs 234 in MM2, 252 vs 152 in MM3, and 275 vs 190 in MM4. 555/1142 (49%) vs 479/955 (50%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had expanded high-risk CAs (high-risk CAs ± amp1q21): 155 vs 154 in MM1, 134 vs 146 in MM2, 116 vs 88 in MM3, and 150 vs 91 in MM4. 587/1142 (51%) vs 476/955 (50%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 122 vs 126 in MM1, 164 vs 153 in MM2, 154 vs 89 in MM3, and 148 vs 108 in MM4. After a median follow-up in the pooled analysis of 25.6 months (mos; 12.7, 54.6, 29.7, and 21.3 mos in MM1, MM2, MM3, and MM4, respectively), the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts with high-risk CAs was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.93; median 17.8 vs 13.2 mos) and 0.70, (95% CI 0.62-0.80; median 26.3 vs 17.6 mos) in pts with standard-risk CAs. In the subgroup analyses of expanded high-risk CAs, the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts in the expanded high-risk group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.87; median 18.1 vs 14.1 mos; Figure 1) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.85; median 36.1 vs 21.4 mos) in the complementary standard-risk group. Analyses of PFS according to the presence of individual CAs (Figure 2) indicated differing magnitudes of PFS benefit. Notably, in pts with t(4;14) (n=124 vs n=102), the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy was 0.68 (95% CI 0.48-0.96; median 22.4 vs 13.2 mos), while for pts with amp1q21 (n=380 vs n=312), the HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.93; median 18.8 vs 14.5 mos) and for pts with del(17p) (n=141 vs n=107) the HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59-1.09; median 15.7 vs 13.2 mos). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrated a PFS benefit with ixa-based therapy vs pbo-based therapy regardless of the presence of specific adverse CAs, with a similar magnitude of benefit in pts with (expanded) high-risk CAs and the respective complementary standard-risk groups. However, due to the differences in study eligibility criteria and pt populations, ixa combined with Rd or as single-agent maintenance therapy may not abrogate the negative impact of high-risk CAs. Analyses of PFS in subgroups with specific CAs indicated that the greatest magnitudes of benefit (lowest HRs) with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy were in pts with t(4;14) (HR 0.68) and pts with amp1q21 (HR 0.77), suggesting that the improved outcome with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in the expanded high-risk subgroup was primarily driven by PFS differences in pts with these more common CAs. Further study is needed, and additional sensitivity analyses will be presented in subsequent publications. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chng: BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria. Morgan: Takeda: Honoraria. Iida: Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Moreau: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Dash: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib for the initial treatment of multiple myeloma and as maintenance treatment following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients

Abstract Background: Two global, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled phase 3 studies of single-agent ixazomib (ixa) maintenance therapy are currently ongoing for newly diagnosed MM patients following primary therapy that included autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (MM3, NCT02181413) or excluded ASCT (MM4, NCT02312258). Both trials have demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in their primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS): for MM3, median 26.5 months (mos) ixa vs 21.3 mos pbo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.720, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.582-0.890, P=0.002); for MM4, median 17.4 mos for ixa vs 9.4 mos for pbo (HR 0.659, 95% CI 0.542-0.801, P<0.001). Data for the key secondary endpoint, OS, have not previously been published. Methods: Full methods have previously been reported (Dimopoulos, Lancet 2019; Dimopoulos, J Clin Oncol 2020). Eligible patients (MM3, N=656; MM4, N=706) were randomized 3:2 to receive maintenance therapy with single agent ixa or pbo for a maximum of approximately 24 mos (26 cycles, to the nearest complete cycle) or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. Results: At the most recent data cut-off (MM3, 29 January 2021; MM4, 15 October 2020), with median follow up of 64 mos and 36 mos, respectively, 27% (MM3, 174/656) and 29% (MM4, 203/706) of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population had OS events. In MM3, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for OS was 74% for ixa and 73% for pbo, though the median OS had not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.008, 95% CI 0.744-1.367, P=0.958; Figure). In MM4, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier OS estimate was 55% for ixa and 56% for pbo, though the median OS had also not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.136, 95% CI 0.853-1.514, P=0.382; Figure). No new safety signals were identified, and the incidence of new primary malignancies in both studies was similar between ixa and pbo. Conclusions: These most current OS data for MM3 and MM4 have not demonstrated a statistically significant difference for the ixa or the pbo arm to date. After 64 mos of follow-up in MM3, the risk of OS does not differ between the study arms. After 36 mos of follow-up in MM4, the OS HR shows a trend that favors the pbo arm. Because interim analyses of OS may be overrepresented by deaths in patients who did not benefit from maintenance therapy, it is not known to what extent these results will be reflective of the ITT population at the time of the final analyses. As treatment options, including anti-CD38 mAb and other new mechanisms of action, for salvage therapies following progression continue to expand, OS is increasingly being confounded by subsequent therapies. Hence, demonstrating OS advantage for early line MM therapies is becoming increasingly challenging. OS data continue to be collected in these studies for later analyses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chng: Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Iida: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Mateos: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: 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; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Fergus: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib as maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

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: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.

Background:Deepened response has been associated with prolonged progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival in multiple myeloma, including in the maintenance therapy setting. In the Myeloma XI trial, post‐ASCT maintenance with lenalidomide vs observation resulted in improved responses in 15.8% vs 11.0% of patients (pts) and a median PFS of 56.9 vs 30.1 months (Jackson et al, ASH 2017). In the phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled TOURMALINE‐MM3 study (NCT02181413), post‐ASCT maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib vs placebo resulted in a 39% improvement in PFS (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58–0.89; p = 0.002), with a favorable safety profile (Dimopoulos et al, Lancet 2019). We report improvements in depth of response and the impact on outcomes in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Aims:To evaluate the rates and timing of response improvement during ixazomib vs placebo maintenance and the impact on PFS in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:Pts who had achieved ≥partial response (PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug followed by single ASCT were randomized 3:2 to receive ixazomib (N = 395) or placebo (N = 261) on day 1, 8, and 15 of 28‐d cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen, pre‐induction ISS stage, and post‐ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good PR [VGPR] vs PR). Ixazomib dose was 3 mg in cycles 1–4 and 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated in cycles 1–4. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed at screening by flow cytometry (10–5 sensitivity). The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC). Other endpoints included rate of response improvement in pts enrolled in VGPR or PR.Results:At study entry, 60 (15%), 213 (54%), and 89 (23%) pts in the ixazomib arm and 54 (21%), 152 (58%), and 35 (13%) in the placebo arm had CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively, by IRC. Deepening responses were seen in 139/302 (46%) ixazomib vs 60/187 (32%) placebo pts with VGPR/PR at enrollment (relative risk [RR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.1–1.8, p = 0.004), including 92/213 (43%) vs 48/152 (32%) VGPR to CR (RR 1.37, p = 0.025) and 47/89 (53%) vs 12/35 (34%) PR to VGPR/CR (RR 1.54, p = 0.063). On Kaplan‐Meier analysis of time to best deepened response in VGPR/PR pts (Figure), 24‐month rates of deepening response were 54.2% vs 41.4%, and there was a 38.4% improvement in the chance of deepening response over time with ixazomib vs placebo (HR 1.384, p = 0.034). A pooled analysis across arms among pts enrolled in VGPR/PR showed that deepening response vs no improvement was associated with prolonged PFS (median not reached vs 15.9 months; HR 0.245, 95% CI 0.184–0.325, p < 0.0001). Analysis by treatment arm showed that, in VGPR/PR pts with deepening response, 24‐month PFS rates were 77.4% vs 68.3% with ixazomib vs placebo (medians not reached; HR 0.875; 12.5% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.52–1.47; p = 0.615); in VGPR/PR pts without deepening response 24‐month PFS rates were 33.4% vs 23.6% (median 17.9 vs 14.1 months; HR 0.780; 22% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.59–1.03; p = 0.080). Baseline MRD status was a strong predictor of deepening response; deepening responses were seen in 63% (78/124) vs 32% (94/293) of MRD‐ vs MRD+ pts enrolled in VGPR/PR.Summary/Conclusion:Post‐ASCT maintenance with ixazomib resulted in a significantly higher rate of deepening response vs placebo; deepening response was associated with prolonged PFS. Ixazomib resulted in non‐significant PFS benefit vs placebo in VGPR/PR pts with and without deepening response; prolonged follow‐up would be needed to confirm these results.image