scholarly journals Indirect Comparison Using Individual Patient Level Data Comparing Efficacy and Safety of a Daratumumab Monotherapy Vs. EU Approved Comparator Therapies in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3541-3541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Demmer ◽  
Susanne Huschens ◽  
Dietrich Potthoff ◽  
Jörg Tomeczkowski ◽  
Christian Englisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab monotherapy (DARA mono) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) has been shown in the single-arm phase I/II trial GEN501 and the single-arm phase II trial SIRIUS (1, 2). Since then, several indirect treatment comparisons of DARA mono versus comparator therapies have been published showing consistent results with an overall survival benefit for DARA mono (3, 4, 5, 6). This analysis compares efficacy and for the first time also safety of DARA mono data versus an international historic control group, adjusting for differences in patient populations based on individual patient level data (IPD). Methods. IPD from the SIRIUS trial and from the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-cohort (7), a retrospective, multicenter cohort, were compared using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, on the endpoints of efficacy (overall survival (OS)) and safety (discontinuation due to adverse events (DISCONAE)). The IMF-cohort included patients with rrMM who received at least three prior lines of therapy, were refractory to both an immunomodulator (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and were exposed to an alkylating agent. An inclusion criterion for the historic control group in this analysis was treatment with EU approved regimens. Baseline covariates adjusted for in the regression model included age, gender, prior lines of therapy, albumin, beta-2 microglobulin, prior exposure to pomalidomide and carfilzomib, and PI/IMiD refractory status. Several sensitivity analyses were run, including multiple imputation of missing values. Results. Data from 106 patients treated with DARA mono (16 mg/kg) were available from SIRIUS; 258 patients from the IMF chart review fulfilled the inclusion criteria; most frequent treatment regimens contained pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (PomDex) (n=172), bortezomib (n=31), carfilzomib (n=21), cyclophosphamide (n=14) and lenalidomide (n=9). The adjusted HR for OS was 0.41 [0.25, 0.69], p<0.001, and 0.23 [0.05, 1.00], p=0.050 for DISCONAE, in favor of daratumumab. Results were consistent across a range of sensitivity analyses and were similar when restricting the comparison to DARA vs. PomDex, with HR=0.35 [0.19, 0.64], p<0.001 for OS and 0.20 [0.03, 1.54], p=0.123 for DISCONAE. Conclusions. This comparison using real-world data of rrMM patients suggests improved efficacy and safety for DARA mono compared to approved therapy regimens used in clinical practice, including PomDex. References. Lokhorst, H. M., Plesner, T., Laubach, J. P., Nahi, H., Gimsing, P., Hansson, M., et al. Targeting CD38 With Daratumumab Monotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015. Lonial S, Weiss BM, Usmani SZ, Singhal S, Chari A, Bahlis NJ, et al. Daratumumab Monotherapy in Patients with Treatment-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (SIRIUS): An Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial. The Lancet. 2016. Usmani S, Ahmadi T, Ng Y, Lam A, Desai A, Potluri R, Mehra M. Analysis of Real-World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients With ≥3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) and an Immunomodulatory Drug (IMiD), or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The Oncologist. 2016. Van Sanden S, Ito T, Diels J, Vogel M, Belch A, Oriol A. Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison. The Oncologist. 2017. Usmani SZ, Diels J, Ito T, Mehra M, Khan I, Lam A. Daratumumab monotherapy compared with real-world historical control data in heavily pretreated patients with highly refractory multiple myeloma: An adjusted treatment comparison. American Journal of Heamtology. 2017. Jelínek T, Maisnar V, Pour L, Špička I, Minařík J, Gregora E, et al. Adjusted comparison of daratumumab monotherapy versus real-world historical control data from the Czech Republic in heavily pretreated and highly refractory multiple myeloma patients. Current Medical Research an Opinion. 2017. Kumar SK, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Terpos E, Nahi H, Goldschmidt H, et al. Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study. Leukemia. 2017. Disclosures Demmer: Janssen: Employment. Huschens:Janssen: Employment. Potthoff:Janssen: Employment. Tomeczkowski:Janssen: Employment. Englisch:Janssen: Employment. Thilakarathne:Janssen: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Kumar:AbbVie: 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; AbbVie: 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; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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. Durie:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Eisele:Janssen: Employment.

One Line Does Not Make a Picture: Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Of Multiple Myeloma Treatments Using a Full Disease Model

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2930-2930
Author(s):  
Hedwig M Blommestein ◽  
Silvia GR Verelst ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Peter C. Huijgens ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Disease Model ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Pathways

Abstract Background As with many types of cancer, treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is characterised by sequential treatment lines consisting of innovative expensive drugs such as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. While the cost-effectiveness of single treatments has been studied, a full disease model evaluating treatments sequentially is currently lacking. Therefore, we aimed to take a look at the big picture and calculate real-world costs and effects for commonly used treatment pathways for MM. Methods We developed a patient-level simulation (PLS) model for elderly (>65) MM patients diagnosed since 2004. Real-world data (N=621) including patient and disease characteristics, treatment information and outcomes as well as resource use was obtained from the Population based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies, PHAROS. Based on this information, a patient population was simulated. Parametric survival models including patient characteristics such as age, performance status, comorbidities, laboratory values and treatment were used to predict overall survival of commonly used treatment pathways. Five treatment categories were distinguished; Melphalan/Prednison, Thalidomide based regimens, Bortezomib based regimens, Lenalidomide based regimens and Other regimens not including a novel agent. Monthly costs, per treatment per line, were calculated based on real-world data. The sensitivity of parameters was explored through sensitivity analyses. Results Mean age of our simulated population was 76 [SD: 6.25, Range 66-93] and 19 commonly used treatment pathways were observed. Average total costs from diagnosis till death ranged from $54,200 [SD: $10,990] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) to $172,346 [SD: $27,887] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other) while overall survival ranged from 29 [SD: 1.02] to 50 [SD 1.75] months for Melphalan/Prednison-Bortezomib-Lenalidomide and Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other, respectively. Total costs were especially induced by drug costs and inpatient hospital days. Substantial variation among the treatment pathways was observed with drug costs ranging from 7% ($3,980) of the total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other compared to 53% ($88,058) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. In addition, inpatient day costs ranged from 68% ($37,113) of total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Bortezomib to 25% ($41,347) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. Costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) were between $29,060 [SD: $5,623] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) and $56,179 [SD: $9,190] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other). In addition to the 19 treatment pathways, we calculated the total costs and overall survival of treatment as observed in daily clinical practice, $79,203 [SD: $12,001] and 32 [SD: 1.33] months, respectively. Compared to real-world prescription, survival could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained (Lenalidomide-Thalidomide-Bortezomib). Conclusion Real-world costs and effects of 19 treatment pathways for MM patients were calculated and revealed that real-world treatment could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained. Our PLS model proved to be a reliable and robust approach to study entire treatment pathways for MM. Disclosures: Sonneveld: Jansssen: 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; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Vantage 088: Vorinostat in Combination with Bortezomib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Global, Randomized Phase 3 Trial

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 811-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
Sung-Soo Yoon ◽  
David S. Siegel ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Histone Deacetylase ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents

Abstract Abstract 811 Introduction: Vorinostat (VOR), an oral inhibitor of histone deacetylase class I and class II proteins, regulates genes and proteins involved in tumor growth and survival. The synergistic effects of VOR and bortezomib (BTZ) have been shown in preclinical studies and were confirmed in independent phase 1 trials in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), producing objective response rates (ORRs) of up to 42% and overall clinical benefit of up to 90%. Materials and methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had measurable secretory MM, had received 1 to 3 prior systemic anti-myeloma regimens, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status ≤ 2. Previous exposure to BTZ and the presence of extracellular plasmacytoma were allowed per protocol, but patients with prior resistance to BTZ were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 21-day cycles of BTZ (1.3 mg/m2 intravenously; days 1, 4, 8, and 11) in combination with oral VOR 400 mg/d, or matching placebo, on days 1 to 14. Additional use of corticosteroids for the treatment of MM was not allowed during the trial. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint for this trial was progression-free survival (PFS; occurrence of 412 PFS events). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included ORR (≥ partial response), clinical benefit response (ORR + minimal response), overall survival, time to progression, patient-reported outcomes questionnaires (QLQ-C30, QLQ-MY20), and safety/tolerability of this novel drug combination. Responses and progression were determined according to the European Bone and Marrow Transplantation Group criteria and will be confirmed by an Independent Adjudication Committee. Results: Between January 2009 and January 2011, 637 patients were enrolled from 174 centers in 33 countries across the globe making this trial one of the largest studies conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. Median age of the study population was 62 years (range, 29–86 years). Of the enrolled patients, 59% were male and 56% were Caucasian. Patients had received a median of 2 prior regimens (range, 1–3). Prior anti-myeloma agents included BTZ (24%), thalidomide (56%), lenalidomide (13%), melphalan (56%), and stem cell transplantation (35%). As of July 2011, 635 patients had received study medication, with a median exposure of 7 cycles (mean: 7.6 cycles; range 1–30 cycles). Reported median exposure to BTZ monotherapy in previous phase 3 trials was approximately 5 cycles. Conclusions: The study passed the protocol-specified futility analyses by the independent data monitoring committee in November 2010. Database lock is anticipated in November 2011, and top-line data on primary and secondary endpoints will be available at the meeting. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene, Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Vorinostat, an inhibitor of histone deacetylase, is approved in the US for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations in patients with cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) who have progressive, persistent or recurrent disease on or following two systemic therapies. Vorinostat is currently under investigation for the treatment of relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma, relapsed/refractory B cell lymphoma (in combination with other chemotherapy agents), and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (in combination with bortezomib and other chemotherapy agents). Jagannath:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yoon:Celgene: Consultancy; NK Bio: Consultancy. Siegel:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Merck: Educational lecture. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Blacklock:New Zealand Bone Marrow Donor Registry: Consultancy, Employment; Mercy Hospital, Auckland New Zealand: Consultancy; Leukaemia and Blood Foundation, New Zealand: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Middlemore Hospital: Employment, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reece:Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Graef:Merck: Employment. Houp:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Sun:Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment. Eid:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Acetylon: founder.

Identification of Alpha 1-Acid Glycoprotein (AAG) As a Potential Patient Selection Biomarker for Improved Clinical Activity of the Novel KSP Inhibitor ARRY-520 in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1868-1868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Tunquist ◽  
Karin Brown ◽  
Gary Hingorani ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Blood Samples ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Abstract 1868 Background ARRY-520 is a kinesin spindle protein (KSP) inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Although ARRY-520 is administered IV, it displays variable pharmacokinetics (PK) among patients. The degree of binding of certain drugs to serum proteins can alter their free fraction (fu) and PK, with a possible impact on clinical activity. Alpha 1-acid glycoprotein (AAG) is an acute-phase reactant protein that is often elevated in the blood of patients with cancer, including multiple myeloma. We investigated the significance of the interaction of ARRY-520 with AAG, and other relevant blood proteins, using both in vitro models and clinical data. Methods Compound-protein binding was assessed using several in vitro assays. In addition, the effect of increasing concentrations of AAG on MM cell line viability was measured. Patient data were obtained from 3 clinical studies of ARRY-520: a Phase 1 solid tumor study, a Phase 1/2 AML study, and a Phase 1/2 study in MM. The MM Phase 2 portion consists of 2 separate, 2-stage cohorts. Cohort 1 evaluated ARRY-520 administered as a single agent, and cohort 2 investigated ARRY-520 in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (LoDex). The concentrations of multiple proteins, including AAG, and the degree of ARRY-520 total protein binding, were measured in pre- and post-dose blood samples for patients in the analysis. AAG levels in MM patients were further correlated with time-on-study and clinical response rate. Results ARRY-520 exhibits low micromolar affinity for AAG in in vitro assays, but not for other common serum proteins, such as albumin. To investigate whether AAG binding impacts biological activity, we found that increasing AAG concentrations within a clinically relevant range resulted in increasing IC50 values for ARRY-520 on MM cell line viability. Of other MM agents tested, none exhibited high affinity binding to AAG in vitro, and a range of AAG concentrations did not alter the cellular activity of these compounds. Pre-dose concentrations of AAG were measured using blood samples collected from patients on all 3 ARRY-520 studies (0.4 – 4.1 g/L AAG in solid tumor study; 0.5 – 2.4 g/L in AML study; 0.2 – 2.8 g/L in MM study). Post-dose blood samples from the MM study also indicated that AAG levels do not significantly change with time. The fu of ARRY-520 in blood was meaningfully reduced among patients with the highest AAG concentrations. Furthermore, AAG and fu were correlated with changes in clinical PK: CL and Vd decreased with increasing AAG, trends consistent with a lower fu. Among the MM patients, 72 patients were evaluable for AAG determination (27 from the dose-escalation portion, 27 from Cohort 1, and 18 from Stage 1 of Cohort 2). Across all of these cohorts, the group of patients with AAG above an empirically-determined cutoff of 1.1 g/L showed a decreased median time on study (1.5 months vs 4.7 months) and no clinical responses (0/19 vs 12/53) as compared to patients below this cutoff. For example, as reported separately, ARRY-520 in combination with LoDex showed a promising 22% overall response rate (≥PR) in the 1st-stage of Cohort 2. In this cohort, 6 patients were determined to have AAG concentrations above the empirical cutoff. None of these patients had clinical benefit. Excluding these 6 patients would significantly improve the overall response rate (≥PR) from 22% (4/18) to 33% (4/12). Summary AAG has been proposed as a prognostic marker for MM disease severitya. Our preliminary data suggest that AAG levels can affect the free fraction of ARRY-520 in blood over a clinically relevant range both preclinically and in clinical studies. In retrospective analysis, patients with higher AAG levels show a lower fu and therefore may not achieve sufficient exposure to gain therapeutic benefit from ARRY-520. In preclinical analyses, this effect is specific to ARRY-520, suggesting that AAG levels may be predictive for ARRY-520 activity relative to other MM drugs. We hypothesize that prospective screening for AAG may enable exclusion of patients who may not achieve therapeutic exposure to ARRY-520, increasing the overall activity of ARRY-520 and preventing exposure of non-responders to an ineffective therapeutic dose. Further, experiments are currently underway to investigate the relevance of other acute-phase proteins in blood. Disclosures: Tunquist: Array BioPharma: Employment. Off Label Use: ARRY-520 alone and with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. ARRY-520 is not currently approved for any indication. Brown:Array BioPharma: Employment. Hingorani:Array BioPharma: Employment. Lonial:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 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; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Zonder:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orlowski:Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hilder:Array BioPharma: Employment. Ptaszynski:Array BioPharma: Consultancy. Koch:Array BioPharma: Employment. Litwiler:Array BioPharma: Employment. Walker:Array BioPharma: Employment.

The Ki67/CD138 Ratio Independently Predicts Overall Survival in the Upfront Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2016-2016
Author(s):  
Tomer M Mark ◽  
Peter Forsberg ◽  
Ihsane Ouansafi ◽  
Adriana C Rossi ◽  
Roger N Pearse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background: Assessment of malignant plasma cell cycling via plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) has been a validated prognostic tool in multiple myeloma (MM) but the test requires specialized technical expertise and is not widely available. Ki67 is a well-known protein marker of cellular proliferation on immunohistochemical (IHC) staining with prognostic utility in other malignancies. In an effort to develop a simpler system to provide analogous information to PCLI, we used a novel IHC co-staining technique for CD138 and Ki67 to quantify plasma cells in active cycling. We then performed a retrospective analysis of the ratio of Ki67/CD138 (Ki67%) in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma receiving 1st-line therapy to correlate with clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) with treated symptomatic MM was performed by interrogation of the clinical database at the Weill Cornell Medical College / New York Presbyterian Hospital. For inclusion in the analysis, subjects must have started first-line treatment in the period of 2005-2010, and had available bone marrow biopsies. Double-staining with Ki67 and CD138 was performed by IHC. The Ki67% was calculated as the percent of plasma cells expressing CD138 that were also found to express Ki67. Treatment outcomes were stratified and compared based on %Ki67. Response was determined by monthly serum protein electrophoresis / immunofixation (IFX) with free light chain analysis according to International Multiple Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines. Pts who were IFX negative but had no subsequent bone marrow biopsy were classified as being in unconfirmed complete remission. Results: We identified 151 patients with newly diagnosed MM and available %Ki67 expression who received first-line therapy over the period of 2005-2010. Patient were subdivided into two groups based on %Ki67: Low: %ki67 <= 5%, n = 87; and High: %Ki67 >5, n=64, to allow for comparison of treatment response and survival analysis. Specific therapeutic agent exposure history did not differ significantly between patients. Both groups had similar depth of response rates (ORR) to front-line therapy, Table 1. Median progression-free survival for the high versus low %Ki67 groups approached statistical significance at 54 months (95% CI 30.8,67.4) versus 26.9 months (95% CI 21.6,40.2), respectively (P = 0.083). At data cut-off, there were 30 deaths in the low %Ki67 group (1-yr OS 93%, 5-yr OS 71%) and 36 deaths in the high %Ki67 group (1-yr OS 94%, 5-yr OS 62%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached for Ki67% <= 5% (95% CI 97.3,NR) vs. 78.9 months (95% CI 55.9,93.1) for Ki67% > 5%, (P = 0.0434), Figure 1. Multivariate cox regression for factors with influence on OS showed that only high-risk cytogenetics (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17, 2.92, P = 0.027), ISS (HR 1.835, 95% CI 1.33, 3.60, P = 0.000), and %Ki67 group status had an independent effect on survival outcome. Low (<=5%) versus high (>5%) %Ki67 influenced overall survival with a hazard ratio of 1.76 (CI 1.07,2.92, P = 0.027). Survival after ASCT was significantly longer in the low %Ki67 group with median OS not reached (95%CI, 97.3, NR) versus 86.9 months (95% CI 43.9, NR) for high %Ki67 group (P = 0.04). Discussion: The ratio of IHC double positive Ki67 and CD138 of > 5% is an independent prognostic marker for overall survival in newly diagnosed MM undergoing 1st line therapy. The %Ki67 serves as a simpler and widely available analog to PCLI that can be presently performed in most hematopathology laboratories. Table 1: First Line Treatment and Best Response (modified IMWG Criteria) Ki67% <= 5(N = 87)n (%) Ki67% > 5(N = 64)n (%) P Treatment Exposure* Lenalidomide 59 (67.8) 48 (75) 0.34 Thalidomide 30 (34.5) 14 (21.9) 0.09 Bortezomib 25 (28.7) 14 (21.9) 0.34 Alkylating agent 11 (12.6) 4 (6.3) 0.19 ASCT 27 (31) 22 (34.4) 0.66 Best Response Overall Response (>= Partial response) 77 (88.4) 57 (89.1) 0.41 Complete response 15 (17.2) 22 (34.4) Unconfirmed complete response** 14 (16.1) 8 (12.5) Very good partial response 23 (26.4) 15 (23.4) Partial response 25 (28.7) 12 (18.8) Stable disease 9 (10.3) 5 (7.8) Progressive disease 1 (1.2) 2 (3.1) * Percentages do not add to 100% due to instances of concurrent therapy use ** Unconfirmed complete response: immunofixation negative, but no confirmatory bone marrow biopsy available Figure 1 Overall Survival by %Ki67 Figure 1. Overall Survival by %Ki67 Disclosures Mark: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rossi:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Pekle:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Perry:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Coleman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria. Niesvizky:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Final Analysis of Overall Survival from the Phase 3 Panorama 1 Trial of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Placebo Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3026-3026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesús F. San-Miguel ◽  
Vania T.M. Hungria ◽  
Sung-Soo Yoon ◽  
Meral Beksac ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Study Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Panobinostat is a potent pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that targets key aberrations in multiple myeloma (MM) cell biology, including epigenetics and protein metabolism. In the phase 3 clinical trial PANORAMA 1, panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PAN-BTZ-Dex) led to a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in progression-free survival of approximately 4 months compared with that with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Pbo-BTZ-Dex). Further analyses of patient outcomes by prior treatment demonstrated that the magnitude of PFS benefit was greatest among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD; PAN-BTZ-Dex [n = 73]: 12.5 months [95% CI, 7.3-14.0 months]; Pbo-BTZ-Dex [n = 74]: 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.1 mo; HR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.72]). These data supported the regulatory approvals of PAN-BTZ-Dex for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Here we present the final analysis of overall survival (OS) for the entire patient population and among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Methods: The study design for the PANORAMA 1 trial was described previously (San-Miguel. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195-206). The key secondary endpoint was OS. As of June 29, 2015, the 415 events required to conduct the final analysis of OS had been observed. Kaplan-Meier estimation was utilized for OS analyses for the entire population (N = 768), the pre-specified subgroup of patients who received prior bortezomib and IMiD (n = 193), and patients who received at least 2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (n = 147). Results: The median OS of patients who received PAN-BTZ-Dex in the overall population was 40.3 months (95% CI, 35.0-44.8 months) vs 35.8 months (95% CI, 29.0-40.6 months) for the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm with HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78-1.14], P = .5435 (Fig 1A). The percentage of patients in each arm who received post-study therapy was 37.7% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 48.8% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. The median OS of patients who received at least 2 prior lines, including bortezomib and an IMiD, was 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-34.3 months) in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm vs 19.5 months (95% CI, 14.1-32.5 months) in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm (Fig. 1B). The proportion of patients in this subgroup who received post-study therapy was 35.6% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 66.2% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. Conclusion: For the overall PANORAMA 1 study population, patients in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm demonstrated an increase in median OS of 4.5 months vs patients in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm, but this result was not statistically significant (P = .5435). Median OS was also slightly longer for the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm among the more heavily pretreated subgroup of patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. A higher percentage of patients on the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm received post-study therapy vs the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm, which may have confounded the OS results. In summary, PAN-BTZ-Dex demonstrates statistically significant increases in PFS vs Pbo-BTZ-Dex in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM; however, this did not translate to a statistically significant increase in OS. Future trials will plan to focus on further optimization of dose and schedule of panobinostat and bortezomib to improve outcome, as well as novel combinations with other agents, including IMiDs and next-generation proteasome inhibitors. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Beksac: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Jedrzejczak:Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siritanaratkul:Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Hou:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sopala:Novartis Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bengoudifa:Novartis: Employment. Corrado:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Standard-of-Care Treatments in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4075-4075
Author(s):  
Michel Delforge ◽  
Marie-Christiane Vekemans ◽  
Sébastien Anguille ◽  
Julien Depaus ◽  
Nathalie Meuleman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Regimens

Abstract Background: With the advent of immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and, more recently, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved considerably. Unfortunately, even with these 3 major MM drug classes, most patients ultimately relapse and require further therapy. There remains an incomplete understanding of how patients who have received extensive therapy and with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are treated in routine clinical practice, as no standard-of-care exists for these patients, and what the outcomes are in this real-world setting. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients with triple-class (IMiD, PI and anti-CD38 mAb) and triple-line exposed RRMM using real-world data from patients in Belgium. Methods: A multicenter, observational study, involving 7 non-academic and academic Belgian centers, was conducted based on a retrospective chart review of adult RRMM patients who started subsequent treatment from March 2017 through May 2021 after having received ≥3 lines of therapy including at least an IMiD, a PI, and anti-CD38-directed therapy (tri-exposed). Data were captured in an electronic case report form (Castor EDC). Patients with an ECOG performance status of ≥2, who received prior CAR-T treatment or prior BCMA-targeted therapy, or with a known active or prior history of CNS involvement (or with clinical signs thereof), were excluded. All treatment lines initiated after becoming eligible were used in the analysis. Specifically, all treatment lines for patients meeting the eligibility criteria more than once in their entire follow-up were included as separate observations, with date of treatment initiation as specific baseline for each treatment line. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to explore the prognostic value with Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS), and Time to Next Therapy (TTNT). Results: A total of 112 patients with 237 eligible treatment lines were included in the analysis; median follow-up was 16.6 months. In 45% of the initiated treatment lines, patients were refractory to 4 or 5 therapies, 62% had received ≥5 prior lines, 22% had extramedullary disease and in 48% of observations the time to progression in prior line was shorter than 4 months. After patients became tri-exposed, more than 50 unique treatment regimens were initiated, with the following being the most common: carfilzomib + dexamethasone (14%), pomalidomide + dexamethasone + chemotherapy (8%), and ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (6%). Additionally, 4% of included observations were exposed to anti-BCMA agents. Overall, the following treatment classes were the most frequently started: PI only (19%), PI + IMiD combinations (17%), and regimens including anti-CD38 antibodies (15%). Median OS was 9.79 months [95% CI: 7.79; 12.22], median PFS was 3.42 months [95% CI: 2.79; 4.27], median TTNT was 3.61 months [95% CI: 3.09; 4.57]. Higher refractory status (p&lt;0.001), being male (p=0.001), older age (p&lt;0.001), shorter duration of prior lines (p&lt;0.001), shorter time to progression in prior line (p=0.025), and higher LDH levels (p&lt;0.002) were prognostic for worse outcomes for both OS (Figure 1) and PFS. Conclusions: This retrospective chart review of patients with tri-exposed RRMM in Belgium shows that real-world outcomes in terms of OS, PFS and TTNT are poor for these patients, with a median OS of &lt;10 months. A wide variety of treatment regimens used in clinical practice confirm the absence of a clear standard-of-care in this patient population. The literature also confirms that these poor outcomes observed in Belgium, for this subset of MM patients, are similar in other countries. These real-world data highlight the high unmet medical need in this patient population and critical need for new and effective treatment options. MD and MCV contributed equally to this work. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vekemans: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Depaus: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Meuleman: iTeos Therapeutics: Consultancy. Strens: Realidad bvba: Consultancy. Van Hoorenbeeck: Janssen: Current Employment. Moorkens: Janssen-Cilag: Current Employment. Diels: Janssen: Current Employment. Ghilotti: Janssen-Cilag SpA, Cologno Monzese, Italy: Current Employment. Dalhuisen: Janssen: Current Employment. Vandervennet: Janssen: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Treatment Outcomes of Real Life Elderly Multiple Myeloma Patients:Â Analysis from Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2019-2019
Author(s):  
Jakub Radocha ◽  
Roman Hajek ◽  
Lucie Brozova ◽  
Ludek Pour ◽  
Ivan Spicka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Monoclonal Gammopathies

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma patients over the age of 65 represent the majority of myeloma population. The main goal was to evaluate treatment outcomes in terms of overall survival for elderly patients based on initial choice of anti-myeloma drugs, and to find potential factors affecting survival. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective registry based analysis from the Registry of monoclonal gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. Patients with multiple myeloma diagnosed between 2007-2016 over the age of 65 with symptomatic myeloma were included in the analysis. Basic demographic data and disease characteristics were obtained. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were completed by the Greenwood confidence interval. The log-rank test was used to estimate the statistical significance of the difference between the curves. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed to explore the univariate significance of risk factors. Results: Data from 1410 MM patients were obtained. Gender [HR 1.316 (1.124-1.541), p=0.001], age [above 75 vs. 66-75, HR 1.437 (1.221-1.692), p< 0.001], creatinine levels [at cutoff 152 µmol/L, HR 1.613 (1.365-1.905), p< 0.001] and ECOG performance status [0-1 vs. 2-4, 1.869 (1.594-2.191), p< 0.001] were found to significantly affect overall survival. Moreover these risk factors have cumulative effect on overall survival of the patients. Overall survival of patients regardless to above mentioned risk factors treated with upfront bortezomib (N = 880) was median OS 40.4 months (CI: 36.1-44.7), patients treated with upfront thalidomide (N = 370) had median OS 48.1 months (CI: 41.0-55.2), for lenalidomide (N = 64) median overall survival was 53.2 months (CI: 44.6-61.8) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N = 46) 32.2 months (CI: 26.6-37.8). When any of these risk factors was present the OS in each group shortened. In the group of patients with no risk factors (N = 255) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 126) was not reached, for thalidomide (N = 96) the median OS was 66.3 months (CI: 43.1-89.6), for lenalidomide (N = 17) 71.1 months (CI: 44.8-97.4) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=8) was not reached. In the group of patients with 1 risk factor (N = 514) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 303) was 46.1 months (CI: 36.2-56.1), for thalidomide (N = 141) 56.2 months (CI: 47.5-64.9), for lenalidomide (N = 29) 49.0 months (CI: 9.7-88.2) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) was not reached. In the group of patients with 2 risk factors (N = 420) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 288) was 34.0 months (CI: 24.7-43.4), for thalidomide (N = 87) 31.9 months (CI: 22.8-40.9), for lenalidomide (N = 14) 33.2 months (CI: 0.0-67.6) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) 29.4 months (CI: 7.6-51.1). In the group of patients with 3-4 risk factors (N = 221) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 163) was 19.2 months (CI: 14.9-23.5), for thalidomide (N = 46) 18.9 months (CI: 13.0-24.7), for lenalidomide (N = 4) 6.1 months (CI: 0.0-63.0) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=3) 14.3 months (CI:-). Conclusion: The overall survival of patients above the age of 65 shows promising results with the use of novel agents. The treatment outcomes seem to be generally affected by overall condition, age and gender of the patient rather than treatment modality used upfront. Figure. Figure. Disclosures 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. Maisnar:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (VRD) Followed By Autologous Stem Cell Transplant for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma; The Mayo Clinic Experience

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2147-2147
Author(s):  
M Hasib Sidiqi ◽  
Mohammed A Aljama ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Eli Muchtar ◽  
Francis K. Buadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract We retrospectively reviewed all patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) within 12 months of diagnosis for multiple myeloma at the Mayo Clinic. 243 patients treated between January 2010 and April of 2017 were included in the study. Median age was 61 (interquartile range, 55-67) with 62% of patients being male. High risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRA) were present in 34% of patients. 166 (68%) patients received some form of maintenance/other therapy post transplant (no maintenance (NM, n=77), lenalidomide maintenance (LM, n=108), bortezomib maintenance (BM, n=39) and other therapy (OT, n=19)). Overall response rate was 99% with complete response (CR) rate of 42% and 62% at day 100 and time of best response post transplant respectively. The four cohorts categorized by post transplant therapy were well matched for age, gender and ISS stage. HRA were more common amongst patients receiving bortezomib maintenance or other therapy post transplant (NM 18% vs LM 22% vs BM 68% vs OT 79%, p<0.0001). Two year and five year overall survival rates were 90% and 67% respectively with an estimated median overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of 96 months and 28 months respectively for the whole cohort. OS was not significantly different when stratified by post-transplant therapy (Median OS 96 months for NM vs not reached for LM vs 62 months for BM vs not reached for OT, p=0.61), however post-transplant therapy was predictive of PFS (median PFS 23 months for NM vs 34 months for LM vs 28 months for BM vs 76 months for OT, p=0.01). High risk cytogenetics was associated with a worse OS but not PFS when compared to patients with standard risk (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 60 months for HRA, p=0.0006; median PFS: 27 months for standard risk vs 22 months for HRA, p=0.70). In patients that did not receive maintenance therapy presence of HRA was a strong predictor of OS and PFS (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 36 months for HRA, p<0.0001; median PFS: 24 months for standard risk vs 7 months for HRA, p<0.0001). Patients receiving maintenance therapy appeared to have a similar PFS and OS irrespective of cytogenetics (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 62 months for HRA, p=0.14; median PFS: 35 months for standard risk vs 34 months for HRA, p=0.79).On multivariable analysis ISS stage III and achieving CR/stringent CR predicted PFS whilst the only independent predictors of OS were presence of HRA and achieving CR/stringent CR. The combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by ASCT is a highly effective regimen producing deep and durable responses in many patients. Maintenance therapy in this cohort may overcome the poor prognostic impact of high risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Table Table. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:KITE: 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; AbbVie: 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. Gertz:Abbvie: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Among Patients with 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Based on Previous Treatment Exposure: Updated Analysis of Pollux

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 489-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽  
Heather J. Sutherland ◽  
Marc Lalancette ◽  
Hila Magen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that has been combined successfully with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The combination of daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) has been compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in a randomized phase 3 study (Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). In a pre-specified interim analysis, the DRd combination demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in addition to deep and durable responses compared with the Rd arm. We performed subgroup analyses to further examine these efficacy data according to prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone: 40 mg PO weekly) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw for 8 weeks, q2w for 16 weeks, then q4w until progression). The primary endpoint was PFS. Pts who were refractory to lenalidomide were not eligible. All analyses were performed in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Results: Median follow-up was 13.5 months. Pts who were lenalidomide-naive prior to the start of study treatment (DRd, n=226; Rd, n=219) demonstrated significantly longer PFS with DRd vs Rd (median: not reached [NR] vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.52; P<0.0001), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 83.0% vs 59.9%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (96% vs 79%), with ≥VGPR rates of 76% vs 47% and ≥CR rates of 44% vs 21%, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). In the lenalidomide-exposed subgroup (DRd, n=46; Rd, n=45), median PFS was NR in both treatment groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.22-1.12; P=0.0826); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 84.1% vs 63.1%, respectively. ORR was higher with DRd vs Rd but did not reach statistical significance (87% vs 71%; P=0.0729); however, rates of ≥VGPR (78% vs 38%; P=0.0001) and ≥CR (44% vs 12%; P=0.0011) were significantly improved with DRd vs Rd, respectively. For bortezomib-naive pts (DRd, n=44; Rd, n=45), PFS was significantly longer with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.86; P=0.0170), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 85.4% vs 69.2%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (98% vs 82%; P=0.0158), with trends toward increased rates of ≥VGPR (74% vs 55%; P=0.0544) and ≥CR (42% vs 23%; P=0.0576). In the bortezomib-exposed pts (DRd, n=228; Rd, n=219), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 18.4 months in Rd (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50 P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 82.8% vs 58.7%, respectively. Significant differences in ORR (93% vs 77%), rate of ≥VGPR (77% vs 43%) and rate of ≥CR (44% vs 19%) were observed with DRd vs Rd, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). Among bortezomib-refractory patients (DRd, n=54; Rd, n=49), the PFS benefit of DRd compared with Rd was maintained (median: NR vs 10.3 mo, respectively; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85; P=0.0117; Figure). The estimated 12-month PFS rates were 70.8% vs 44.4%, respectively. Similar to bortezomib-exposed pts, ORR (92% vs 68%; P=0.0024), rate of ≥VGPR (75% vs 36%; P=0.0001), and rate of ≥CR (46% vs 13%; P=0.0003) were all significantly higher with DRd vs Rd for bortezomib-refractory pts. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Among pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, significantly longer PFS and higher ORR were observed with DRd vs Rd among pts who previously received bortezomib or were refractory to bortezomib or were lenalidomide-naive. Higher rates of deeper responses were observed in pts who previously received lenalidomide or bortezomib. Follow-up is ongoing to assess PFS in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and previously received lenalidomide. These results further strengthen the significant benefit of combining daratumumab with Rd for RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Kaufman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sutherland:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lalancette:Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Iida:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prince:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cochrane:BMS: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Novartis: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Celgene: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Takeda: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings. Khokhar:Janssen: Employment. Guckert:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Pmd-107: Marizomib, Pomalidomide and Low Dose-Dexamethasone Combination Study in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (NCT02103335): Full Enrollment Results from a Phase-1 Multicenter, Open Label Study

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3326-3326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Simon Harrison ◽  
Jacob P. Laubach ◽  
Jeffrey Zonder ◽  
Ashraf Z Badros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Heavily Pretreated ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Marizomib (MRZ) is a novel, irreversible, pan subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) with preclinical evidence demonstrating in vitro and in vivo activity in multiple myeloma (MM). This study was designed to evaluate the safety and antimyeloma activity of pomalidomide (POM), MRZ and low dose dexamethasone (Lo-DEX) (PMD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty-eight heavily pretreated patients with RRMM were enrolled [dose-escalation cohort (n=14); recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) cohort (n=24)]. IV MRZ (0.3 to 0.5 mg/m2) was administered on Days (D) 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3 or 4 mg) on D1 through 21; and Lo-DEX (5 or 10 mg) on D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23 of every 28-D cycle. Patients received a median of 4 (range 1-9) prior lines of therapy; 100% received prior lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BTZ), 34% carfilzomib (CFZ), and 50% thalidomide. 53% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BTZ and 21% were refractory to LEN, BTZ, and CFZ. There were no dose limiting toxicities during the study. The most common study treatment related ≥Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (11/38 pts: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 pts 11%), anemia (4/38 pts; 11%), thrombocytopenia (4/38 pts; 11%), and febrile neutropenia (2/38 pts; 5%), with two grade 4 AEs (neutropenia related to POM and viral infection related to DEX), and one grade 5 AE (cardio-respiratory arrest from a suspected PE related to POM). Overall, MRZ was well tolerated, did not add to the incidence or severity of POM/Lo-DEX AEs and the regimen may have fewer hematological and infectious AEs compared to that observed with POM/Lo-DEX. MRZ pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that it was rapidly cleared with a short T1/2 (6.2-11mins) and a large volume of distribution (41-86L) suggesting extensive tissue distribution. Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated rapid and robust inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity in both packed whole blood (PWB) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs), reflecting the irreversible binding nature of MRZ. Evolving inhibition of trypsin-like and caspase-like proteasome activity was also observed in PWB and PBMC with continued dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) for the 36 response evaluable patients was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively (Table 1). Subpopulation analysis demonstrated an ORR of 50% (5/10) in high risk cytogenetic patients, 56% (10/18) in LEN/BTZ refractory patients, 71% (5/7) in LEN/BTZ/CFZ refractory patients and 80% (8/10) in CFZ refractory patients. These data compare favorably against POM/Lo-Dex with a near doubling of ORR in both the total patient population and the double refractory patients. Substantial activity in high-risk patients that are triple refractory and in patients that are refractory to CFZ in prior last regimen was observed. MRZ activity in RRMM patients exposed and/or refractory to multiple PIs is likely a consequence of its unique pan proteasome subunit inhibitory actions. In conclusion, MRZ in combination with POM and Lo-DEX was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pretreated, high-risk RRMM patients. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership. Khot:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: 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; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacLaren:Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reich:Triphase Accelerator: Consultancy. Trikha:Encycle Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document