Isatuximab Rescue for Inadequate Response to Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Interim Analysis of the Phase II Iril Study of the Australian Myeloma Research Consortium (AMaRC 18-02)

Abstract Background: Almost two thirds of transplant-ineligible, treatment naïve multiple myeloma (NDMM, TNE) patients (pts) do not proceed to second line anti-MM therapy. Given depth of response to initial therapy correlates to overall survival (OS), a deep remission should also be the target for this cohort of generally elderly and frail patients. However, this should not come at the expense of either treatment-related or fiscal toxicity. IRIL is a phase II, multicentre, response-adapted study examining treatment intensification with isatuximab (Isa; supported by Sanofi/Genzyme), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, for pts not achieving pre-defined target responses to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Method: TNE NDMM pts meeting IMWG criteria for treatment are eligible for enrolment. Pts commence treatment with lenalidomide [25mg D1-D21 of a 28-day cycle (C)] and dexamethasone [40mg (20mg for those aged ³75 years) PO weekly]. Failure to achieve pre-defined target response [<PR after 4 cycles, <VGPR after 6, or <CR after 9 cycles of Rd] or progressive disease (PD) within the first 9 cycles of Rd leads to addition of Isa (10mg/kg IV weekly for cycle 1, then fortnightly) until PD or adverse events (AEs) that warrant treatment cessation. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the rate of achievement of ³PR following completion of 6 cycles Isa-Rd in those who failed to achieve <PR after C4 Rd. The secondary endpoints are to evaluate overall improvement in depth of response to Isa-Rd, progression free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. Results: From June 2019 to June 2021, 42 pts [52.3% male, median age 77.7 yrs (range 68.5-86.0), R-ISS Stage I (n=8), Stage II (n=23) and Stage III (n=7)] were accrued. 30 pts have completed at least C4 Rd and were deemed evaluable (12 non-evaluable; 5 only recently recruited, 5 withdrew consent (WD) due to logistic reasons, 2 PD pre-C4 and were taken of study at investigator discretion). Of the 30 evaluable pts (see Figure 1), 25 remain on study with 2 further WD (logistic reasons) and 3 deaths. In total, 25pts have had treatment intensification with Isa [9pts (5<PR and 4 PD) prior to C4 Rd, 11/13 eligible < VGPR after C6 Rd (1 omission in error, 1 pt WD consent), 4/5 eligible pts < CR after C9 Rd (1 omission in error) and 1 PD at C6]. 18/25 patients have had at least 6 months of Isa intensification with increased depth of response in 12 (66.7%) pts. Of the 9 pts rescued with Isa after not reaching target response post C4 Rd, 7 have completed 6 Isa-Rd cycles with 100% deepening of response (5 PR, 4 VGPR). The overall response rate in the cohort of evaluable patients is 100% (16 PR, 14 VGPR). The median (±SD) follow-up time of the evaluable cohort was 9.96 ± 6.24 months with med OS not reached. Thirty-one (73.8%) pts experienced any grade AE (median = 6; range 1-21). Grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported in 16 pts (34 events in total; median per pt = 2; range 1-5). Most common ³ Grade 3 events include infection (10), neutropenia (7) and insomnia and mood disorder (3 each). Neutropenia was the single grade 4 AE in a patient on Rd. Fewer of the reported grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred while on Isa-Rd (16) than while on Rd alone (n=18) with causality was less frequently attributed to Isa (n=4) than R (n=17) or d (n=14). Conclusion: A response-adapted approach for TNE NDMM pts with isatuximab intensification upon inadequate response to standard-of-care lenalidomide-dexamethasone is both safe and effective. Isa-Rd leads to universal deepening of response in patients failing to achieve a PR or better after 4 months of Rd, while the overall response rate in evaluable patients, irrespective of initial response to Rd, is 100%. Isa-Rd is well tolerated in this elderly patient cohort. The safety profile for the combination Isa-Rd is similar to previous reports. Patient accrual is ongoing. Figure 1: Swimmer's plot highlighting patient response after C4 Rd, timepoints of isatuximab intensification (*Isa) and subsequent depth and duration of response. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Janowski: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Quach: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: 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; Sanofi: Consultancy, 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; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone Is Superior to Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.303.303 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 303-303 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Rachid Baz ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Kenneth H. Shain ◽

Hearn J. Cho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Best Response ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone results in an overall response rate of 33% and median PFS of 4.2 months in patients with prior lenalidomide and bortezomib (Richardson et al. Blood 2014). In this randomized phase II trial, we compared pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm B) versus the addition of oral weekly cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm C) in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously reported that the recommended phase II dose of cyclophosphamide with standard-dose pomalidomide + dexamethasone was 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had relapsed and refractory MM after at least 2 prior therapies and were lenalidomide refractory. Patients had a platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3 and ANC ≥ 1,000/mm3 (patients with ≥50% bone marrow plasmacytosis were allowed if platelet count was ≥ 30,000/mm3and ANC could be supported with GCSF during screening and therapy). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pomalidomide 4 mg PO D1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO D1, 8, 15, 22 (20 mg if older than 75 years) (arm B) with or without oral cyclophosphamide 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle (arm C). Patients randomized to arm B were allowed to cross over to arm C in the event of disease progression. Thromboprophylaxis was mandated with aspirin, warfarin, or LMWH. The primary endpoint was overall response rate using IMWG criteria. Secondary endpoints included an evaluation of PFS, OS and safety of the two arms. Results: Between 7/2012 and 3/2014, 36 patients were randomized to arm B and 34 to arm C. Patients characteristics were not different between the 2 arms (table below). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-12). All patients were lenalidomide refractory and none received prior pomalidomide. After a median follow up of 15 months, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 39% and 65% (p=0.03) for arm B and C, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (minimal response or better) was 64% and 79% (p=0.2) for arm B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.3-5.9) for arm B and 9.2 months (95% CI 4.6-16) for arm C (log rank p=0.04). As of July 2014, 28 patients had died (16 arm B, 12 arm C) with median overall survival of 10.5 versus 16.4 months (p=0.08) for arm B and C, respectively. Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm C, although this was not statistically significant (see table). Thirteen patients crossed over and oral weekly cyclophosphamide was added to their tolerated dose of pomalidomide dexamethasone. For those patients, the best response was as follows: 2 PR, 2 MR, and 6 SD, 3 PD. Conclusions: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide resulted in a superior response rate and PFS compared to pomalidomide-dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The increased hematologic toxicities, as a result of the addition of oral cyclophosphamide, were manageable. Table Arm B (N=36) Arm C (N=34) P value Age, years, median (range) 63 (50-78) 64 (47-80) 0.7 Male, n (%) 23 (64) 18 (53) 0.3 Number of prior therapies, median (range) 4 (2-12) 4 (2-9) 0.5 Bortezomib refractory, n (%) 28 (78) 24 (71) 0.3 Carfilzomib refractory, n (%) 16 (44) 13 (38) 0.5 Prior high-dose therapy, n (%) 27 (75) 28 (82) 0.6 Prior alkylating agent, n (%) 32 (89) 32 (94) 1 B2-microglobulin, median (range) 3.2 (1.6-10) 3.6 (1.5-13.9) 0.5 Serum creatinine, median (range) 1 (0.5-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-2.1) 0.6 High-risk cytogenetics, n (%) 5 (24) 6 (28) 0.8 Deletion 17p, n (%) 3 (14) 4 (20) 0.8 t(4;14), n (%) 3 (14) 3 (14) 0.9 Trisomy or tetrasomy 1q, n (%) 11 (55) 6 (33) 0.4 Best response (partial response or better), n (%) 14 (39) 22 (65) 0.03 Clinical benefit rate (MR or better), n (%) 23 (64) 27 (79) 0.2 Grade 3/4 neutropenia, n (%) 12 (33) 17 (50) 0.2 Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, n (%) 4 (11) 6 (18) 0.5 Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, n (%) 2 (5) 5 (15) 0.2 Grade 3/4 anemia, n (%) 3 (8) 7 (20) 0.2 Grade 3/4 pneumonia, n (%) 4 (11) 3 (9) 1 Grade 3/4 fatigue, n (%) 2 (5) 4 (12) 0.4 Number of serious adverse events 17 20 Disclosures Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karypharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide cyclophosphamide dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Martin:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Triphase: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Shain:Onyx / Amgen: Research Funding; Treshold: Research Funding. Chari:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Phase 2 Trial of PRM-151, an Anti-Fibrotic Agent, in Patients with Myelofibrosis: Stage 1 Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.713.713 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 713-713 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Ruben A. Mesa ◽

Lynda M Foltz ◽

Vikas Gupta ◽

John O Mascarenhas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Jak Inhibitor ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Stage 1

Abstract PRM-151 (PRM) is a recombinant form of Pentraxin-2, an endogenous human protein that acts at sites of tissue damage, inducing macrophage differentiation to prevent and reverse fibrosis. PRM has broad anti-fibrotic activity in multiple preclinical models of established fibrotic diseases and no dose limiting toxicities in phase 1 trials. Myelofibrosis (MF: primary (PMF), post-essential thrombocythemia (post-ET MF), and post polycythemia vera (Post PV MF)) is a myeloid malignancy characterized by progressive bone marrow (BM) fibrosis with resultant anemia, abnormal platelet and leukocyte counts, extramedullary hematopoiesis, and a well-defined symptom complex. This study investigated the potential of PRM in MF to reduce BM fibrosis and to improve key disease features including abnormal blood counts, symptoms, and splenomegaly. MF patients (pts) with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high-risk disease and grade ≥ 2 BM fibrosis, either on no current therapy or on a stable dose of ruxolitinib (RUX) for ≥ 12 weeks and no improvement in spleen for ≥ 4 weeks, were eligible for stage 1 of this open-label adaptive trial. Assignment to one of the 4 treatment arms was per investigator and pt choice: PRM 10 mg/kg IV 1-hour infusion days 1, 3, 5, then weekly (QW) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), alone or with RUX, for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was overall response rate by IWG-MRT (symptoms by MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), spleen by palpation) and/or decrease in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade with otherwise stable disease. BM biopsies were obtained at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and were evaluated centrally by two blinded hematopathologists. Pts with clinical benefit were allowed to continue treatment in an extension. At least one response in any arm was required for that regimen to be evaluated in Stage 2. Twenty seven pts were enrolled: 8 PRM QW, 7 PRM Q4W, 6 PRM QW + RUX, 6 PRM Q4W + RUX. Median age 67 years (52-85); 70% DIPSS Int-2 or High Risk; 52% PMF, 15% post-ET MF, 33% post-PV MF; 63% grade 3 BM fibrosis, Hemoglobin (Hgb) < 100 g/L in 56% and < 85 g/L in 26%, platelet count (PLT)< 100 x 109/L in 52% and < 25 x 109/L in 30%; 22% were JAK inhibitor-naive and 52% had received a prior JAK inhibitor (not including ongoing RUX). Twenty pts completed 24 weeks of therapy; 18 continued extension treatment. PRM-151 was well-tolerated alone and with RUX; most adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1/2 and unrelated, with 3 Grade 3 possibly related AEs and 5 possibly related serious AEs. Nine of 26 evaluable pts responded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 35%, with 4 IWG symptom clinical improvements (CI) and 6 BM fibrosis responses (Table 1), with ≥ 1 response in each arm. One pt had a CI and BM response. Reduction in BM fibrosis was associated with normal erythroid microarchitecture, normal or decreased myeloid:erythroid ratio, and fewer paratrabecular megakaryocytes, all potential surrogates of improved bone marrow microenvironment. IWG stable disease was observed in 77% of pts, with trends of clinical benefit in Hgb, PLT, peripheral blood blasts, spleen, and symptoms (Table 2). In 14 patients (54%), all parameters were stable or improved. Conclusion: PRM-151 was well-tolerated in patients with advanced MF, with no evidence of drug-related myelosuppression and encouraging trends in both clinical and histologic aspects of the disease. Reduction in BM fibrosis, stable to improved hematologic parameters, symptom responses, and stable to reduced spleen size support further development of PRM-151 in MF. Table 1 Two additional subjects had decrease in bone marrow fibrosis but progressive disease. Number of Patients BM Fibrosis Grade at Last Study Timepoint 3 2 1 BM Fibrosis Grade at Baseline 3 8 3 1 2 1 4 2 Abstract 713. Table 2 Outcome Parameter Denominator (n) Clinical Benefit Pts with Improvement (n/%) ORR (primary endpoint) All evaluable pts (26) IWG-MRT CI AND/OR reduction in BM fibrosis by ≥ 1 grade 9 (35%) Hgb Hgb < 100 g/L (15) ≥10 g/L increase from baseline AND no transfusions or 50% reduction in transfusions if transfusion dependent 6 (40%) PLT PLT < 100 x 109/L (13) > 100 x 109/L AND increase of ≥20 x 109/L ; increase of ≥20 x 109/L if baseline < 50, AND/OR increase of ≥ 10 x 109/L with discontinuation of transfusions 8 (62%) Blasts ≥ 1% peripheral blasts (14) No peripheral blasts 3 (21%) Symptoms All evaluable pts (26) ≥ 25% reduction in TSS ≥ 12 weeks 10 (38%) Spleen Palpable spleen (19) ≥ 25% decrease ≥ 4 weeks AND any decrease ≥ 12 weeks 5 (26%) Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Cell Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte, CTI, NS pharma, Gilead, Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Foltz:Janssen: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Ritchie:Celgene, Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Research Funding. Hoffman:Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; All Cells LLC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Research Funding. Pozdnyakova:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Hasserjian:Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Promedior: Consultancy. Trehu:Promedior: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Gotlib:Novartis: Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement, Travel Reimbursement Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Reimbursement Other; Promedior: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase Ib/II Study of Ibrutinib in Combination with Obinutuzumab-Gazyva As First-Line Treatment for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia > 65 Years Old or with Coexisting Conditions

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-118990 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1863-1863

Author(s):

Juliana Velez Lujan ◽

Michael Y. Choi ◽

Chaja Jacobs ◽

Colin McCarthy ◽

Alaina Heinen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Single Agent ◽

Complete Response ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Standard treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is rapidly evolving and gradually has incorporated the combined use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and targeted therapy with small molecules. Single agent Ibrutinib (Ibr), a first-in-class BTK inhibitor, is effective in previously untreated patients including those that are older than 65 or considered unfit to receive chemotherapy-based combinations. The complete response rate in patients receiving single agent Ibr is relatively low (overall response rate of 86% and complete response of 4% based on 2008 iwCLL criteria), though most patients have durable remissions. The combination of Ibr with mAbs like Obinutuzumab-Gazyva (G), a third-generation anti-CD20 mAb, can ameliorate the Ibr-induced lymphocytosis and increase the overall and complete response rates. Accordingly, we initiated an open-label phase Ib/II clinical study of Ibr in combination with G for first-line therapy of previous untreated pts with CLL. The study completed enrollment of 32 previously untreated patients with CLL. Patients received G administered based on FDA dosing recommendations for 6 cycles (28 days/cycle) and Ibr 420mg po (1-3 hours before starting G infusion), and daily for up to 3 years. All patients received prophylactic medications. Patients were assessed for response by 2008 iwCLL criteria two months after completion of G, as the primary efficacy endpoint. The median age of the patients was 65 (range: 46-78) years. 84% of the patients had a CIRS >6, 45% had a Rai stage III-IV and 19% had an ECOG performance ≤2. The median baseline absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) was 79x103/mm3(range: 1.4-412.4). Patients showed the following FISH/cytogenetic abnormalities: del(13q) in 55%, trisomy 12 in 23% and del(11q) in 19%. Only 2 (6%) of these patients showed del(17p). From the patients with IGVH mutational status available (n=17), 11 (65%) were unmutated (>98% homology). Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1-2 (74%). Six patients (19%) had grade 1-2 G-infusion-related reaction (IRR) and only one patient (3%) showed grade 3 IRR (without the need for G discontinuation). We observed neutropenia (all grades: 52%, grade 3-4: 23%), thrombocytopenia (all grades: 71%, grade 3-4: 19%) and anemia (all grades: 26%). There were no cases of febrile neutropenia. Two patients (6%) had grade 1 bleeding (one patient with asymptomatic lower gastrointestinal bleeding and the second patient with epistaxis) that resolved spontaneously without requirement of blood transfusion or study treatment discontinuation. Two patients (6%) developed pneumonia, one was community-acquired pneumonia requiring inpatient treatment with IV antibiotics; the study treatment was held until resolution of symptoms and re-initiated at full dose. The most frequent non-hematological AEs were diarrhea, transaminitis, hyperbilirubinemia, hyperglycemia, and electrolyte alterations (grade 1-2). Three patients (9%) discontinued Ibr due to atrial fibrillation grade 1 (n=1), rash and headaches grade 2 (n=1), and persistent grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=1). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response assessment by 2008 iwCLL criteria (median follow-up of 11 months). 84% of the patients showed a rapid decrease in ALC from baseline during the first cycle of treatment and only four patients (13%) required more than 3 cycles of treatment to achieve an ALC response. The overall response rate was 100%. The majority of pts had a partial response and six of 23 evaluable patients (26%) achieved a complete remission with detectable Minimal Residual Disease in the bone marrow by multiparametric flow cytometry. In summary, Ibr-G combination has been generally well tolerated. AEs have been consistent with the known safety profiles of Ibr and G individually. The patients that discontinued Ibr remain in follow-up without disease progression. 100% of evaluable patients achieved response after 6 months of combination therapy, and 26% of patients met CR criteria. One important finding thus far has been a very low rate of IRR, (19% grade 1-2 and 3% grade 3-4), suggesting that Ibr can strongly mitigate the incidence and severity of G associated IRR. Disclosures Choi: AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Amaya-Chanaga:AbbVie: Equity Ownership, Other: Research performed while employed as an investigator of this study at UCSD. Review and approval of abstract performed while employed at Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company.; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Research performed while employed as an investigator of this study at UCSD. Review and approval of abstract performed while employed at Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company.. Kipps:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Castro:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company:: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Time To Event Analyses in PANORAMA 2: A Phase 2 Study Of Panobinostat, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone In Patients With Relapsed and Bortezomib-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.1970.1970 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 1970-1970 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Robert L. Schlossman ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Donna M. Weber ◽

Steven E. Coutre ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase 2 Study ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with a high unmet need for patients (pts) in the relapsed and refractory setting. The prognosis is especially worse for pts with MM refractory to both bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), who have a median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) of 5 and 9 months, respectively (Kumar, Leukemia 2012). Panobinostat is an oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that has low nanomolar activity against histone deacetylase enzymes that are implicated as potential targets in MM. In preclinical studies, panobinostat and BTZ synergistically inhibit both the aggresome and proteasome pathways. In an interim analysis of PANORAMA 2, panobinostat, in combination with BTZ and dexamethasone (Dex), demonstrated the ability to recapture responses in pts with relapsed and BTZ-refractory MM. At the time of the interim analysis, multiple pts were still receiving treatment, and median OS had not been reached. Here, we present an updated analysis of PANORAMA 2, including an evaluation of PFS and OS. Methods This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study enrolled pts with relapsed and BTZ-refractory MM (who had received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, and had progressed on or within 60 days of the last BTZ-based therapy). Pts received oral panobinostat, intravenous BTZ, and oral Dex. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (defined as ≥ partial response [PR]) as defined by the modified European Group of Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria. Secondary objectives included evaluation of minimal response (MR), time to response, duration of response, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability of the combination. Results The median age of the 55 enrolled pts was 61 years (range, 41-88), and pts were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 prior regimens (range, 2-11) including a median of 2 prior BTZ-containing regimens (range, 1-6). All pts had received at least 1 IMiD, all were BTZ refractory, and nearly half (n = 27) had BTZ in their most recent prior line of therapy. Most pts (75%) were International Staging System stage 1 or 2, and 14 pts presented with high-risk cytogenetics (del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]). All but 2 pts had discontinued from the study as of the December 4, 2012, data cutoff due to disease progression (n = 36), adverse events (n = 10), or withdrawal of consent (n = 5); 1 pt had died, and 1 pt started new therapy. One pt (2%) had a near complete response and 18 pts (33%) had a PR for an overall response rate of 35%, which met the study's primary objective of response rate > 10% (95% CI, 22-47; P < .0001). An additional 10 pts (18%) had an MR, for a clinical benefit rate of 53% (95% CI, 39-66). The median exposure was 4.6 months (range, < 1-24.1). The median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.7). The median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI, 10.8-25.2). In a post hoc analysis, the 19 pts who achieved ≥ PR had a median PFS of 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.8-9.7) and a median OS of 25.2 months (95% CI, 17.5-25.2), while the 36 pts with < PR had a median PFS of 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-4.9) and a median OS of 9.9 months (95% CI, 5.4-17.4). Similarly, the 29 pts with ≥ MR had a median PFS of 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.9-8.6) and a median OS of 22.2 months (95% CI, 17.5-25.2), and the 26 pts with < MR had a median PFS of 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) and a median OS of 7.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-12.2). No new safety signals were observed. Common grade 3/4 adverse events regardless of study drug relationship included thrombocytopenia (64%), diarrhea (20%), fatigue (20%), anemia (15%), neutropenia (15%), and pneumonia (15%). Peripheral neuropathy was observed in 27% of pts overall, with only 1 (2%) grade 3/4 event. Conclusions The combination of panobinostat, BTZ, and Dex in heavily pretreated relapsed and BTZ-refractory pts demonstrated a median PFS of 5.4 months and a median OS of 17.5 months, which relates favorably to historical controls and other active combinations in this setting (eg, pomalidomide/Dex and carfilzomib/Dex). As expected, pts who achieved ≥ PR or ≥ MR appeared to have a longer median PFS and OS than pts who did not, which is supportive of a clinical benefit for this combination in this vulnerable population with otherwise limited treatment options. The large, randomized, phase 3 study, PANORAMA 1, will further define the role of panobinostat combined with BTZ and Dex in pts with relapsed and relapsed/refractory MM. Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schlossman:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy. Alsina:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weber:Novartis: Research Funding. Coutre:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gasparetto:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mukhopadhyay:Novartis: Employment. Ondovik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Khan:Novartis: Employment. Paley:Novartis: Employment, Stock options Other. Lonial:Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Phase 1 Trial of MEC (Mitoxantrone, Etoposide, Cytarabine) in Combination with Ixazomib (MLN9708) for Relapsed/ Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4065.4065 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4065-4065

Author(s):

Anjali S. Advani ◽

Brenda Cooper ◽

Paul Elson ◽

Sudipto Mukherjee ◽

Jaime Fensterl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Gene Expression Profiling ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Expression Profiling ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) capitalize on the constitutive activation of NF-KB in AML cells and increase chemosensitivity to anthracyclines and cytarabine. We combined the second generation PI, ixazomib, with the standard AML salvage regimen of MEC (mitoxantrone, etoposide, cytarabine). The primary objectives of this study were to determine the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and phase 2 dose of ixazomib in combination with MEC in relapsed/ refractory (R/R) AML. Secondary objectives included evaluating the efficacy of this combination and correlating response to the gene expression profile and CD74 expression, which may identify a subset of leukemias in which NF-KB is operative with increased sensitivity to PI (Attar et al. CCR 2008; 14: 1446-54). Methods: Patients (pts) were treated at Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals of Cleveland from Oct 2014 to present. An IND was approved by the FDA, and the protocol was approved by each institutional review board. Eligibility: age 18-70 yrs, R/R AML, and cardiac ejection fraction ≥ 45%. The fraction of blasts positive for CD74 was assessed by flow cytometry. Samples were stored for gene expression profiling pre- and post-treatment (at the time of response assessment). Pts received MEC: mitoxantrone (8 mg/ m2), etoposide (80 mg/m2), and cytarabine (1000 mg/m2) intravenous (IV) Days 1-6. Ixazomib, provided by Takeda, was given orally on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 and was dose escalated using a standard 3x3 design. Dose levels (DLs): 1 (1.0 mg), 2 (2.0 mg), 3 (3.0 mg), 4 (3.7 mg). An additional 18 pts were to be treated at the MTD. One cycle of treatment was administered. Response was assessed by bone marrow aspirate/ biopsy by Day 45 and complete remission (CR) was defined by IWG criteria (Cheson 2006). Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE v 4.03. Toxicities secondary to neutropenia or sepsis were not considered DLTs. DLTs included: (1) ≥ Grade 4 non-hematologic toxicity (NHT) with the exception of nausea, vomiting/ alopecia and drug-related fevers; (2) any ≥ Grade 3 neurologic toxicity; (3) grade 4 platelet or neutrophil count 50 days beyond the start of chemotherapy and not related to leukemia; (4) any Grade 4 NHT > grade 2 by 45 days beyond the start of chemotherapy. Grade 2, 3, and 4 hyperbilirubinemia were redefined as 1.5-< 10x upper limits of normal (ULN), 10-20 x ULN, and > 20 x ULN. Results: Of 23 pts enrolled, 22 are evaluable. The median age was 58 yrs (range 31-70), 12 (52%) were male and the median baseline WBC was 2.56 K/ uL (range 0.1-62.9). The median time from initial diagnosis to registration was 7.1 months (range 1.4-36.8) and 7 pts (30%) had a history of an antecedent hematologic disorder. Thirteen pts were in 1st relapse and 10 pts were refractory to their last therapy. One pt had received a prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), 7 pts had FLT3 ITD mutations and 7/ 21 pts (33%) had adverse cytogenetics per CALGB 8461 criteria at the time of relapse. At DL1, 1 DLT occurred (grade 4 thrombocytopenia), so this DL was expanded to 6 pts. At DL2, 2 pts developed Grade 4 thrombocytopenia; therefore, the MTD of ixazomib was 1.0 mg. The most common grade 3-5 NHTs in the dose escalation phase were febrile neutropenia (100%), hypoalbuminemia (25%), hypokalemia (42%), hypotension (33%), and respiratory failure (33%). No adverse events in the dose escalation phase were attributed to ixazomib alone. The overall response rate was 55% [CR/ CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi)], and 9 pts proceeded to AHCT. Five of these 9 pts remain alive with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Five pts had CD74 expression performed. Two pts had high levels of CD74 expression (> 80%); and both achieved CRi. Myeloid mutation panel data was available in 14 pts. Previous data has demonstrated the number of mutations in DNTMT3A, TP53, ASXL1, and NRAS (0, 1, >1) is associated with a worse response to salvage therapy (Advani et al, abstract 3825, ASH 2015). Seven pts had at least one of these mutations and 6 of the 7 achieved CR/ CRi. Conclusions: The combination of MEC and ixazomib was well-tolerated and produced an overall response rate of 55% in patients with relapsed/ refractory AML irrespective of molecular mutation status. The combination is safe with a similar toxicity profile to MEC alone. CD74 expression may represent a biomarker for response to this therapy. Results from gene expression profiling will be complete by the time of the meeting and will be presented. Disclosures Mukherjee: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Caimi:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Maciejewski:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis Pharmaceuticals Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

A Phase II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.587.587 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 587-587

Author(s):

Irene M Ghobrial ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

Betsy LaPlant ◽

John Camoriano ◽

Suzanne R. Hayman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Single Agent ◽

Waldenström’S Macroglobulinemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia ◽

Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia

Abstract Abstract 587 Background: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the anti-tumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable disease (IgM monoclonal protein >1000 mg/dL with >10% marrow involvement or nodal masses >2 cm), a platelet count ≥75,000 × 106/L, a neutrophil count ≥1,000 × 106/L, and a creatinine and bilirubin ≤2x laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every 3 cycles until progression. Results: 50 pts were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43-85). The overall response rate (CR+PR+MR) was 70% (95% CI: 55-82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95%CI: 64-89%) and 62% (95%CI: 48-80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematological toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusions: Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM, and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Treon:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Novartis: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase I Study of Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone In Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Excellent Tolerability and Promising Activity In a Heavily Pretreated Population

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.1951.1951 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 1951-1951 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Paul Richardson ◽

Donna Weber ◽

Constantine S. Mitsiades ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Jean-Luc Harousseau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase I Study ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1951 Background: Although novel treatment combinations for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved outcomes, the disease remains incurable and new drug combinations are urgently needed. Vorinostat is an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor approved in the United States for treatment of patients (pts) with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma who failed prior therapies. Vorinostat alters gene expression and protein activity, promoting MM cell death through multiple pathways, and has been shown in preclinical studies to synergistically enhance the anti-MM activity of bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs, including lenalidomide, with or without dexamethasone. Aims: The primary objective of this Phase I study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. Secondary objectives included overall safety, tolerability, response rate, duration of response, and time to progression (TTP). Methods: Pts in this Phase I multicenter open-label study were sequentially enrolled into 1 of 5 escalating doses of the combination regimen using a standard 3 + 3 design for ≤8 cycles. Pts who tolerated treatment and experienced clinical benefit were eligible for enrollment in an extension phase. Toxicity was evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (version 3.0). Response was assessed using the modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria and International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Criteria. Safety and efficacy data were analyzed using summary statistics, except for TTP, which was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: As of July 15, 2010, 31 pts were treated and evaluable for toxicity; 4 pts remain on study. Most pts had received prior thalidomide (n=22; 71%), bortezomib (n=20; 65%), or lenalidomide (n=14; 45%), with a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1–10). The patient population contained both high-risk and low-risk pts, based on cytogenetic and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in severity. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs, experienced by 19 (61%) pts, were neutropenia (26%), thrombocytopenia (16%), diarrhea (13%), anemia (10%), and fatigue (10%); 8 pts discontinued due to toxicity. One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea lasting >48 h) was observed at the maximum assessed dose (level 5), but MTD was not reached (Table) and there were no treatment-related deaths. Among 30 pts evaluable for response, the median TTP was 32 weeks (5 mo), and 4 pts remain on study as of the data cutoff date; 26 of 30 pts (87%) have achieved at least stable disease (SD). Best single responses included 2 complete responses, 3 very good partial responses (VGPR), 11 partial responses (PR), and 5 minimal responses (MR), with 5 pts achieving SD and 4 developing progressive disease, resulting in an overall response rate (ORR; PR or better) of 53%. Of 13 evaluable pts who had previously received lenalidomide, a best single response of SD or better was observed in 9 (69%; 2 VGPR, 3 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD), resulting in a 38% ORR. Notably, SD or better (2 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD) was observed in 60% of 10 evaluable pts who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to previous lenalidomide-containing regimens. Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Phase I study suggest that vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone is a convenient and generally well-tolerated regimen with promising activity for relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. The MTD for this combination was not reached. Importantly, responses were observed in pts who had received prior lenalidomide, bortezomib, and thalidomide. Further evaluation of this regimen is planned in future trials. Disclosures: Richardson: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for treatment in Multiple Myeloma. Weber:Novartis-unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Merck- unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Celgene- none for at least 2 years: Honoraria; Millenium-none for 2 years: Honoraria; Celgene, Millenium, Merck: Research Funding. Mitsiades:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck & Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kosan Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centrocor: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Patents & Royalties; OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AVEO Pharma: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gloucester Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:MSD: 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. Harousseau:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Houp:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Graef:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Gause:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Byrne:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene and Millennium: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board.

Download Full-text

A Multi-Center, Open-Label Phase II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Chinese Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma - the MM-021 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1864.1864 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1864-1864

Author(s):

Jian Hou ◽

Jie Jin ◽

Zhen Cai ◽

Fangping Chen ◽

Li Yu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Progression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Chinese Patients ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Best Response

Abstract Abstract 1864 Background: Previous studies (i.e. ECOG E4A03) have shown that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has a better safety profile compared with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM patients. It is hypothesized that Rd may also provide benefits in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The MM-021 trial is the largest study in Chinese patients with RRMM aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Rd in patients who had progressed or were refractory to previous treatment. Methods: This was a phase II, multi-center, single arm, open-label study, RRMM patients received lenalidomide (25 mg/day on days 1–21) and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression. Thromboembolic prophylaxis with aspirin or other anti-thrombotic medication was required. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (partial response [PR] or better) based on the investigator's assessment. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and PK parameters. Results: As of April 23, 2012 (median follow-up of 10.8 months), 199 patients have completed at least 1 cycle, 134 patients have completed at least 6 cycles, and 187 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Median age was 59 years (range 35–81) and 63% were male. The majority of patients (86%) had Durie-Salmon stage III disease and 57% had received ≥4 prior anti-myeloma regimens including bortezomib (64%), thalidomide (69%), or both bortezomib and thalidomide (45%). After median treatment duration of 8 months (range 1–18) or 8 cycles (range 1–19), best overall response rate (≥PR) was 54% (100 patients); including 8% (14 patients) with a best response of complete response (CR). Overall disease control (≥stable disease [SD] or better) was 95%, including 42% (78 patients) with best response of SD. Nine patients (5%) had best response of disease progression. Best overall response rates were consistent across subgroups when analyzed according to baseline renal function (creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min: 68 patients [54%], 330 to <60 mL/min: 26 patients [52%], <30 mL/min: 6 patients [50%]) and number of prior therapies (64% if ≤2 prior regimens, 50% if >2 prior regimens). Responses were also consistent regardless of prior therapy received; 50%, 52%, and 47% for patients who previously received bortezomib, thalidomide, or both, respectively. Of the 5% (10 patients) presenting with IgD at baseline, 7 patients achieved ≥PR. Median time to first response was 2 months (range 1–12) and median duration of response was 7 months (range 0–16). The median PFS was 8 months (95% CI: 6–9) and the OS rate was 86% at 6 months and 73% at 1 year. Among the 199 patients evaluable for safety, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were anemia (25%), neutropenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and pneumonia (13%). Only 1 patient experienced febrile neutropenia. AEs led to dose reduction/interruption of lenalidomide in 40% of patients, 41% for dexamethasone; and 6.5% discontinued treatment due to one or more AEs. No patient discontinued due to anemia or neutropenia. Sixty-one patients (31%) died on study and the most common cause of death was disease progression (15 patients, 8%). Conclusions: Based on a median follow-up of nearly 11 months, the Rd regimen achieved a substantial best overall response rate (54%) in heavily pretreated RRMM Chinese patients. Response rates were consistent across subgroups including patients with renal impairment. The combination of Rd regimen was generally well tolerated. Disclosures: Hou: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Xian: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jensen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Wortman-Vayn:Celgene Corporation: Employment.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Melflufen, a Peptidase Targeted Therapy, and Dexamethasone in an Ongoing Open-Label Phase 2a Study in Patients with Relapsed and Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Including an Initial Report on Progression Free Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3029.3029 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3029-3029

Author(s):

Peter M. Voorhees ◽

Valeria Magarotto ◽

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Torben Plesner ◽

Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Study Drug ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Background: Melflufen is a highly potent anti-angiogenic compound that triggers rapid, robust and irreversible DNA damage and exerts its cytotoxicity through alkylation of DNA. The lipophilicity of melflufen leads to rapid and extensive distribution into tissues and cells where it binds directly to DNA or is readily metabolized by intracellular peptidases into hydrophilic alkylating metabolites. With targeted delivery of alkylating metabolites to tumor cells in vitro (such as multiple myeloma that are rich in activating peptidase), melflufen exerts a 20-100 fold higher anti-tumor potency and produces a 20 fold higher intracellular concentration of alkylating moieties compared with melphalan. Methods: Melflufen is evaluated in combination with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg weekly in an ongoing Phase 1/2a study. RRMM patients with measurable disease and at least 2 prior lines of therapy are eligible (NCT01897714). Phase 1 established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of melflufen to be 40 mg every 3 weeks in combination with low dose dex. The primary objective of Phase 2a is the overall response rate and safety of the MTD in a total of 55 patients. Response was investigator assessed at the end of each cycle by IMWG criteria. Here we present the Phase 2 data as of 14 July 2015 data-cut. Results: Thirty-one patients were dosed at the MTD. The median time from initial diagnosis to first dose of melflufen was 6 years (1-15). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-9). 97% of patients were exposed to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 90% to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 77% to melphalan, and 71% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. 58% were double refractory (IMiDs and PIs) and 42% were triple refractory (IMiDs, PIs and alkylators). In total, 121 doses of melflufen have been given (1-11 cycles). Median treatment duration was 13 weeks with 9 patients still ongoing. One patient completed therapy as planned, 15 patients discontinued due to AEs (48%) and 6 due to progression (19%). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response (protocol defined as ≥2 doses of melflufen with baseline and follow-up response assessments). One patient achieved a very good partial response and 10 patients achieved partial response (PR) (1 unconfirmed, still ongoing) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 48%. Three additional patients achieved minimal response (MR) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 61%. Time to clinical benefit and response was rapid with 93% of patients achieving ≥ MR after 1-3 cycles and 64% achieving PR after only 1-3 cycles. Eight patients maintained stable disease and 1 patient had early progressive disease. Similar ORRs were seen in PI-refractory (43%), IMiD-refractory (40%), alkylator-refractory (62%), double-refractory (38%) and triple-refractory (50%) patients. The median progression free survival (PFS) is currently at 7.6 months (95% confidence interval: 3.4 - ∞) based on 14 events in 30 patients. The most frequent adverse events (AE), all grades, occurring in >10% of patients, regardless of relationship to study drug were thrombocytopenia (94%), anemia (84%), neutropenia (61%), leukopenia (42%), pyrexia (36%), asthenia (32%), fatigue and nausea (26%), bone pain (19%), cough, diarrhea, dyspnea, mucosal inflammation and upper respiratory infection (16%) and constipation and epistaxis (13%). Treatment-related Grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported in 27 patients (87%). Those occurring in >5% of patients were thrombocytopenia (68%), neutropenia (55%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (32%) and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, pyrexia, asthenia and hyperglycemia each occurred in 6% of patients. Serious AEs occurred in 9 patients (29%), but were only assessed as related to study drug in 5 patients (16%) including 3 febrile neutropenia, 1 fever and 1 pneumonia. Cycle length has recently been increased to 28 days to improve tolerability with respect to hematologic toxicity. Conclusion: Melflufen has promising activity in heavily pretreated RRMM patients where conventional therapies have failed. The current ORR is 48% and CBR is 61%. Similar results were seen across patient populations regardless of refractory status. The median PFS is encouraging at 7.6 months. Hematologic toxicity was common, but non-hematologic AEs were infrequent. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Voorhees: Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline,Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene and Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Plesner:Roche and Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen and Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mellqvist:Celgene, Amgen, Mundipharma and Novartis: Honoraria. Byrne:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Harmenberg:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Nordstrom:Oncopeptides: Employment. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Richardson:Oncopeptides, Celgene and Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) Consolidation Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Large Multi-Center Phase II Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-109920 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 123-123 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Nitya Nathwani ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Mark A. Fiala ◽

Abhinav Deol ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Oral Regimen ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free and overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM) and has largely become the standard of care. Consolidation therapy, a brief duration of more-intensive chemotherapy administered prior to maintenance, has been shown to further deepen responses and may improve long-term outcomes. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an all oral regimen that has been shown to be active in newly diagnosed MM as well as relapsed disease. In this study, we are analyzing the safety and efficacy of IRd as consolidation therapy after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, are being consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients receive 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. The primary end point is minimal residual disease (MRD) status. MRD is being assessed by ClonoSEQ where possible and by multi-color flow where not. Toxicity, IMWG response rate, PFS, and OS are secondary end points. One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients are randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15) or lenalidomide (15 mg daily). In total, 240 patients will be enrolled on the trial. This presentation coincides with planned interim analysis 2 which included data from the consolidation phase only. Results: As of July 2018, 172 patients with NDMM have been enrolled from 10 centers within the US. The median age was 57 (range 28-70) and 67% were male. 76% were white, 10% African-American/Black, and 13% were another race. 39% were ISS Stage I, 30% were Stage II, and 20% were Stage III. All patients received proteasome inhibitors and/or IMIDs as front-line induction and melphalan as conditioning for ASCT. IRd consolidation started at a median of 110 days post-ASCT (range 80-138). IRd has been well tolerated. Only 4% (6/154) of patients have been unable to complete the 4 cycles of consolidation to date due to toxicity. Grade 3 hematologic toxicity has been uncommon; 4% neutropenia, 3% thrombocytopenia, and 2% anemia. There has been no grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Non-hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities have included: infection (8%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (3%), and transaminitis (1%). No grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy has been reported. One case of grade 5 pneumonia was reported but was not considered related to study treatment. Following ASCT, the MRD-negative rate was 26% and this improved to 37% following consolidation. In the subset of patients with Clonoseq results available, the MRD negative rate improved from 19% to 27%. Clinical response rate improved similarly; prior to consolidation the VGPR or better rate was 76% including 39% CR/sCR. Following consolidation, the VGPR or better rate was 85% including 56% CR/sCR. 137 patients went on to receive maintenance with either ixazomib (n = 71) or lenalidomide (n = 66). At time of submission, the median follow-up from start of IRd is 14 months and 28 patients have relapsed/progressed and 6 have expired. An interim analysis is planned for 2019, representing the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. Conclusion: IRd consolidation following ASCT appears to be safe and effective. The all oral regimen is convenient for patients which greatly simplifies follow-up in the peri-transplant period. Study enrollment is scheduled to complete in Q1 of 2019. Disclosures Vij: Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Deol:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gregory:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Chari:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; The Binding Site: Consultancy.

Download Full-text