Citations

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.

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

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

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