Citations

Abstract Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignancy characterized by a complex genomic landscape with molecular and clinical heterogeneity. Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor currently under investigation as a potential targeted therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (RR) MM. Using a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based approach, the mutational landscape and gene expression profile (GEP) of patients (pts) with RRMM in BELLINI was evaluated for potential impact on observed clinical outcomes in key biomarker subgroups. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of bortezomib + dexamethasone (Bd) + either Ven or placebo (Pbo) in pts with RRMM who received 1-3 prior therapies and were sensitive or naïve to proteasome inhibitors. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/d or Pbo + Bd. The following biomarker analyses were performed by central laboratory assessments of CD138-enriched bone marrow mononuclear cells collected at baseline: BCL2 gene expression by quantitative PCR (qPCR), cytogenetic abnormalities by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), identification of somatic mutations by whole-exome sequencing (WES), and transcriptomic analysis by RNA sequencing (RNAseq). Correlation between mutational status, BCL2high status (Harrison et al. Blood. 2019:134 suppl:142), cytogenetics, GEP, and survival outcomes were examined by pairwise t-test and by hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazard model. Results: As of the data cutoff (13 Sep 2019), 291 pts were randomized (194 to Ven and 97 to Pbo); 262 pts (90.0%) were evaluable by FISH, 257 pts (88.3%) by qPCR, 197 pts (67.7%) by WES, and 184 pts (63.2%) by RNAseq. The mutational landscape of evaluable pts was highly heterogeneous (Figure 1A). MAPK pathway mutations were the most prevalent (62/197 pts; 31.5%); however, recurrent mutations in the NF-kB pathway (TRAF3 or CYLD) were also observed (12/197 pts; 6.1%). Within the MAPK pathway, the most frequently mutated genes were KRAS (39/197 pts; 19.8%), NRAS (8/197 pts; 4.1%), BRAF (8/197 pts; 4.1%), and NF1 (12/197 pts; 6.1%). Although a higher rate of pts with a MAPK mutation was observed in the t(11;14) and BCL2high subgroup compared to pts without these biomarkers (39/101 pts [38.6%] vs 23/95 pts [24.2%]; P=.04), improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with Ven+Bd was observed in pts with (HR=0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.31; P<.001) or without (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.16-0.63]; P=.001) a MAPK pathway mutation. High somatic mutation loads are associated with increased genomic instability, resistance to therapy, and decreased overall survival (OS) in MM. High tumor mutation burden (TMB), defined as ≥20 mutations/megabase of sequenced DNA, was observed in 12/197 pts (6.1%). Although there were a limited number of high TMB pts, reduced PFS (HR, 4.55 [95% CI, 2.33-8.88]; P<.001) and OS (HR, 3.89 [95% CI, 1.76-8.56]; P<.001) compared to low TMB pts was observed regardless of treatment arm. WES detected a recurrent BCL2 mutation (Ala43Thr) in 15/197 pts (7.6%). This BCL2 mutation has not previously been identified in MM and did not appear to affect survival outcomes among pts in either arm. Supervised clustering of RNAseq data grouped pts into respective MM GEP (Zhan et al. Blood. 2006;108:2020) at the following frequencies: CD-1 (2.7%), CD-2 (8.2%), HY (40.2%), MF (1.6%), MS (10.9%), LB (5.4%), and PR (31.0%). As shown in Figure 1B, 16/20 pts (80%) allocated to the CD-1/CD-2 cluster had a t(11;14) mutation, but 17/20 pts (85%) and 2/3 pts (67%) in MS and MF GEP groups had t(4;14) or t(14;16) mutations, respectively. The HY GEP group was primarily (56/74 pts; 76%) hyperdiploid by FISH. Though a higher rate of pts with a HY GEP (50/98 pts [51.0%] vs 24/86 pts [27.9%]; P<.001) and a lower rate of PR GEP (11/98 pts [11.2%] vs 46/86 pts [53.5%]; P<.001) were observed in the t(11;14) and BCL2high subgroups compared with non-t(11;14) and BCL2low subgroups, respectively, improvement in PFS with Ven+Bd was independent of GEP classification. Conclusion: Using an integrative approach of genomic and transcriptomic profiling, response to Ven+Bd in key biomarker subgroups was shown to be independent of concurrent mutations in key oncogenic signaling pathways and GEPs known to be prognostic in MM; however, high mutation load appears to be a clinically relevant risk factor that negatively affects survival in MM. Disclosures O'Dwyer: Celgene: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Research Funding; Carrick Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy; ONK Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Spencer:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; HaemaLogiX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding. Popat:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moreau:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Dail:Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Yang:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lu:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zha:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dunbar:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vishwamitra:AbbVie, Inc.: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Mantis:Abbvie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melhem-Bertrandt:AbbVie: Current Employment; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ross:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Harrison:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; Janssen: Honoraria; Haemalogix: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs >75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients >75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

AbstractTriple‐class‐refractory multiple myeloma (MM) describes MM refractory to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the Phase IIb STORM study (NCT02336815), oral selinexor plus low‐dose dexamethasone (Sel‐dex) demonstrated a 26.2% overall response rate in triple‐class‐refractory MM. Here, we compare overall survival (OS) of 122 patients with triple‐class‐refractory MM who received Sel‐dex in STORM Part 2 with that of 64 similar patients treated with other available therapies in a Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD) cohort. OS from the date that the patients’ MM became triple‐class‐refractory was longer in STORM versus FHAD, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (P = .0002; adjusted HR 0.35 [P = .011]). In a subset analysis of highly resistant patients receiving further therapies after their MM first became at least triple‐class‐refractory (i.e., who received Sel‐dex in STORM,n = 64, and non‐Sel‐dex in FHAD,n = 36), the OS was significantly longer in STORM with an unadjusted HR of 0.52 (P = .0331; adjusted HR 0.33 [P = .041]). Within the limits of this analysis, the OS of patients with at least triple‐class‐refractory MM was significantly better with Sel‐dex versus available therapies, suggesting that Sel‐dex may be associated with a meaningful OS benefit in these patients.

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

TPS8554 Background: BCL-2 is an anti-apoptotic protein important for myeloma cell survival. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, that has shown promise in clinical studies as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in patients with t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Kumar et al. Blood. 2017; Costa et al. ASH 2018. Abstr. #303; Harrison et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #142; Bahlis et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #925; Kaufman et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #926). Notably, t(11;14)-positive MM is more dependent on BCL-2 for cell survival, which, together with these clinical data, suggests that Ven combined with dexamethasone (Dex) may provide greater clinical benefit versus standard therapies, like pomalidomide (Pom), in this biomarker-defined patient population. This ongoing Phase 3 study (CANOVA; NCT03539744) aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VenDex vs PomDex in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) must have t(11;14)-positive RRMM per central lab, an ECOG performance status ≤2, received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, previously received a proteasome inhibitor, and must be refractory to lenalidomide and last line of therapy. Patients cannot have history of treatment with Ven, Pom, or other BCL-2 inhibitors. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to Ven (800 mg orally, once-daily) or Pom (4 mg orally, once-daily on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles). Patients in both groups will receive 40 mg Dex (20 mg for patients ≥75 years) once weekly. Treatment will continue until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. Patients will be stratified based on age at randomization ( < 65 vs ≥65 years), prior lines of therapy (2 to 3 vs ≥4), and International Staging System stage at screening (I vs II vs III). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee (IRC) assessment based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. The final PFS analysis will be performed when approximately 147 PFS events per IRC are observed. Secondary endpoints are response rate, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, duration of response, times to response and progression, minimal residual disease negativity rate, safety, and Ven pharmacokinetics. Approximately 244 patients will be enrolled; as of January 21, 2020, 28 patients have been randomized (from 19 sites in 12 countries) and enrollment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03539744 .

8547 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent BCL-2 inhibitor that has synergistic activity with bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to Bd significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates, including minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, but resulted in increased mortality vs placebo (Pbo). Here, we determine whether MRD negativity was associated with longer PFS and OS in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with Ven+Bd in the BELLINI dataset. Methods: In BELLINI (NCT02755597), RRMM patients (pts) sensitive or naïve to proteasome inhibitors with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo plus B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). Next-gen sequencing MRD assessments were done on bone marrow aspirates at the time of suspected CR/sCR, and 6- and 12-months post confirmation of CR/sCR. Patients with a missing or indeterminate assessment were considered MRD positive. Evaluation of MRD in biomarker-defined subgroups (cytogenetics and BCL2 expression) was also performed and will be presented. Results: In total, 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. As of 13 Sep 2019, the median follow-up was 29 months. Ven + Bd demonstrated significantly higher MRD negativity rates ( < 10−5), including a higher proportion of pts achieving sustained MRD negativity (Table). In the Ven arm, the median (m)PFS was not reached for MRD negative pts vs 16.2 months for MRD positive pts (HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.54, p < 0.001). While the mOS was not reached in the Ven arm, OS was significantly longer for MRD negative vs MRD positive pts (HR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.80, p = 0.0194). Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd resulted in deep and durable responses, including higher rates of MRD negativity. MRD negativity in the context of Ven was associated with prolonged survival in patients with RRMM, consistent with the broader MRD body of evidence with other therapies in MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]

8509 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor. In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to bortezomib (B) + dexamethasone (d) significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pbo) and showed significant efficacy in patients (pts) with either t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data from the prespecified second interim overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study (NCT02755597), pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo in combination with B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included overall response and overall survival (OS). Results: 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. Pt characteristics were well balanced among arms. In the Ven arm, median age was 66, 17% had high-risk cytogenetics, 11% had t(11;14), and 34% had BCL2high gene expression. As of 13 Sept 2019, 59 pts were still on study, 45 (23%) Ven vs 14 (14%) Pbo. At a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there were 64 (33%) deaths in the Ven arm vs 24 (25%) in Pbo. At the initial data cutoff (26 Nov 2018), PFS HR was 0.63 (0.44,0.90) and OS HR was 2.03 (1.04,3.95). Table shows updated PFS and OS. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with Ven were diarrhea (59%), nausea (37%), and constipation (35%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (Ven/Pbo) were neutropenia (21%/8%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), anemia (16%/15%), diarrhea (15%/12%), and pneumonia (18%/13%). Serious AEs occurred in 54% Ven and 52% Pbo pts. 24% discontinued Ven due to AEs vs 12% Pbo. There were 14 treatment-emergent deaths in the Ven arm and 1 in Pbo. Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd significantly improves PFS but resulted in increased mortality vs Pbo in the total population. Greatest PFS improvement with Ven was observed in pts with t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression, where Ven shows a favorable benefit-risk profile. The study continues for final OS analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]