Daratumumab, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Based on Prior Treatment Exposure: Updated Efficacy Analysis of Castor

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3313-3313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asher A. Chanan-Khan ◽  
Suzanne Lentzsch ◽  
Hang Quach ◽  
Noemi Horvath ◽  
Marcelo Capra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Line Of Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P<0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P<0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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.

A Multi-Center Phase I/II Trial of Carfilzomib and Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone (Car-Pom-d) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 74-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Edward A. Stadtmauer ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Adam D Cohen ◽  
William I. Bensinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 74 Background: Carfilzomib, a novel proteasome inhibitor (PI), and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), have both demonstrated promising activity as single agents or in combination with dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. IMiD+PI combinations including lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone and lenalidomide, carfilzomib, dexamethasone have had high response rates and good tolerability. We aimed to combine carfilzomib and pomalidomide with dexamethasone (Car-Pom-d) for the first time and hypothesized that this regimen would be highly active in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the first findings from the Phase I dose-escalation and expansion portions of the first phase I/II trial of Car-Pom-d in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (NCT01464034). Methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety/tolerability of Car-Pom-d. Secondary objectives included determination of overall response rate, time to progression, progression free survival, and time to next therapy. All patients had to be refractory to prior lenalidomide, and must have been relapsed/refractory to their most recent therapy. Treatment consisted of 28-day cycles of oral pomalidomide once daily on days 1–21, intravenous (IV) carfilzomib over 30 minutes on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, and oral or IV dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Dose-escalation of carfilzomib started with 27mg/m2 carfilzomib/4mg pomalidomide/40 mg dexamethasone using a standard 3+3 schema based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. Carfilzomib was initiated at 20 mg/m2for Cycle 1, days 1–2 at all dose levels. Investigators were permitted to adjust the dose of dexamethasone at any point based on their discretion. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4. Response was assessed by the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: In the Phase I dose-escalation portion of the trial, a total of 12 patients were enrolled from 6 centers. The median age was 61 years (range 44–78), 67% were male. The median number of prior regimens was 6 (range 2–15), and median time from diagnosis was 5.1 years. Four (33%) patients had prior stem cell transplant, 11 (92%) had prior bortezomib, and all were lenalidomide-refractory. Cytogenetic abnormalities included 5 patients with del(17p), 2 patients with t(4;14), and 1 patient each with del(13), t(11;14), and t(14;16). In these first 12 patients, drug-related AEs occurring in >20% of patients included fatigue (42%), anemia (33%), pneumonia (33%), dyspnea (25%), and thrombocytopenia (25%). Six (50%) patients experienced grade ≥3 AEs including 2 incidence each of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The MTD was established as the starting dose level (carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2, pomalidomide 4mg, dexamethasone 40 mg). At this dose, 1 of 6 patients experienced a protocol-defined DLT of febrile neutropenia. At dose level 2 (carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2, pomalidomide 4 mg, dexamethasone 40 mg), 2 of 6 patients experienced DLTs, consisting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 rash. All 12 patients were response evaluable with 2 very good partial response (VGPR), 4 partial response (PR), 2 minor response (MR), 2 stable disease (SD), and 2 progressive disease (PD) for a ≥ MR rate of 67%. The 6 month progression free survival was 70% (95% CI: 37 to 90%). Of the 5 patients with del(17p), 1 achieved VGPR, 2 achieved PR, 1 achieved SD. We then enrolled an expansion cohort of 20 patients from 8 centers resulting in a total study population of 32 patients, with 25 still receiving treatment. Three patients have died, all from progressive multiple myeloma. Early response assessments in 27 out of 32 patients show 2 VGPR, 7 PR, 6 MR, 8 SD, and 4 PD for a ≥MR rate of 56%. Conclusions: The Car-Pom-d regimen is well tolerated and achieves a high response rate in a heavily pre-treated, lenalidomide-refractory population with prior bortezomib exposure. Importantly, we have seen responses in patients with poor risk cytogenetics, specifically del (17p). We are beginning enrollment in a larger phase 2 cohort, and updated safety and efficacy data for all patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Shah: Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array: Consultancy. Stadtmauer:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Abonour:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Cohen:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: 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. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto: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. Kaufman:Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vogl:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Acetylon: Research Funding. Orlowski:Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Durie:Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Phase 1 MMRC Trial of Selinexor, Carfilzomib (CFZ), and Dexamethasone (DEX) in Relapsed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4223-4223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Jakubowiak ◽  
Jagoda Jasielec ◽  
Cara A. Rosenbaum ◽  
Jeffrey A Zonder ◽  
Craig E. Cole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Myeloma Cell ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Line Of Therapy

Abstract Background There is an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients (pts) refractory to currently available drugs, including the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib and Carfilzomib (CFZ), necessitating development of novel effective therapeutics. Pre-clinical evaluation of selinexor, a novel orally available selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE), in human myeloma cell lines (HMCL), primary plasma cells derived from myeloma patients, and HMCL tumor-bearing mice demonstrated synergistic myeloma cell death with CFZ (Rosebeck et al. ASH 2013) and the ability to overcome resistance to CFZ (Rosebeck et al. ASH 2014). Aims The primary objective is to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of selinexor and CFZ in combination with DEX in RRMM pts and to provide preliminary evaluation of efficacy of this novel triplet regimen. Methods Pts with RRMM, including CFZ-refractory pts, who have failed at least two prior treatment regimens of myeloma therapy, were eligible for enrollment. Dose escalation follows the 3+3 design with pts receiving 30 mg/m2 - 40 mg/m2 selinexor PO on days 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17; 20 mg/m2 - 56 mg/m2 CFZ given IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, and DEX PO 20/10mg (cycles 1-4/cycles 5+) in 28-day cycles. At least 12 and up to 48 pts are planned for evaluation. Dose Limiting Toxicities (DLT) are measured for the Cycle 1 as well as Day 1 of Cycle 2. Dose modifications are allowed to manage toxicities. Response was assessed by IMWG criteria plus near complete response (nCR). Results As of July 1st, 2015 the study has enrolled 8 pts, 5 pts were treated at dose level 1 (30 mg/m2 selinexor, 20/27 mg/m2 CFZ, 20/10 mg DEX) and 3 patients were treated at dose level 2a (30 mg/m2 selinexor, 20/36 mg/m2 CFZ, 20/10 mg DEX). Pts had median age of 65.5 (range 55-73) and a median of 5 prior treatment regimens (range 2-5). Six pts were refractory to CFZ combinations at their last line of therapy, including 4 to CFZ, pomalidomide (POM), and DEX. Of the 2 remaining pts, 1 was refractory to high dose CFZ with DEX in prior line of therapy and both were refractory to last line of therapy. Six pts were DLT-evaluable and two pts required replacement for DLT evaluation (1 pt had DEX reduced in cycle 1 not due to DLT; 1 pt did not receive all scheduled cycle 1 doses due to progressive disease). There have been no DLTs and MTD is not yet established. Adverse events (AEs) were reversible and managed with concomitant therapy. G3/4 hematologic AEs include thrombocytopenia (75%), neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (37.5%), lymphopenia (25%), and anemia (25%). The most common G3/4 non-hematologic AEs included fatigue (25%) and upper respiratory tract infection (25%). The most common G1/2 AEs are fatigue (75%), dyspnea (62.5%), nausea (62.5%), anemia (50%), leukopenia (50%), and thrombocytopenia (50%). Response rates for all enrolled pts are 87.5% ≥MR, 75% ≥PR, 12.5% ≥VGPR. Responses occurred rapidly; after 1 cycle: 75% ≥MR, 63% ≥PR, 12.5% VGPR. As of the cut off date, 4 pts have progressed (after 1, 2, 4, and 4 months) and 4 pts remain on treatment (10+, 1+, 1+, and 1+ months); 1 pt did not respond and died due to progression of disease. Conclusions Although still very early, the combination of selinexor, CFZ, and DEX demonstrates encouraging activity with 75% PR or better and no unexpected toxicities in highly refractory MM pts, including those previously refractory to CFZ. Responses in pts refractory to very active CFZ combinations in the last line of therapy suggest that this regimen has the ability to overcome CFZ resistance. Disclosures Jakubowiak: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: The combination of Carfilzomib and Selinexor is being used for the treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Rosenbaum:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research support; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chari:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rashal:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Youssoufian:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Henry:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shacham:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kauffman:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership.

scholarly journals Phase II Trial of Combination of Elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 154-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-jen Liu ◽  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Mark Bustoros ◽  
Kaitlen Reyes ◽  
Kalvis Hornburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Therapeutic Intervention ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Genomic Studies ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the benefit of early therapeutic intervention with the combination of elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02279394. Aims The overarching objective of this trial is to determine progression free survival to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). Furthermore, the study examined whether genomic studies can help in determining patients who would benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Methods Patients enrolled in this study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al, Blood 2014. Patients were administered weekly elotuzumab (10 mg/kg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for the first two 28-day cycles while receiving lenalidomide on days 1-21. For cycles 3-8, patients were administered elotuzumab infusions on days 1, 8, and 15. dexamethasone (40mg) was given on days 1, 8 and 15 to 40 of the 50 enrolled patients. After 8 cycles or best response, patients were given the option to mobilize with either cyclophosphamide or plerixafor and collect stem cells for future transplant. Patients were then allowed to continue on maintenance therapy where they were administered elotuzumab (20 mg/kg) on day 1, in combination with lenalidomide days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow (BM) samples of 32 patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment and whole exome sequencing (WES) of plasma cells. Results In total, 50 patients were enrolled on this study from January 2015 and completed accrual in December 2016, with the participation of eight sites. The median age of enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 29-79) with 18 males (36%) and 32 females (64%). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) detected high-risk cytogenetics (defined by the presence of 17p deletion, t(4;14), and 1q gain) in 20 patients. The median time to response was 2.8 months (range, 1.8-4.6). The most common toxicities were fatigue (92%), followed by diarrhea (72%), and hyperglycemia (62%). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were hypophosphatemia (34%), neutropenia (26%), and lymphocyte count decreased (22%). Three patients (6%) had grade 4 hypophosphatemia during treatment. Additionally, grade 4 cholecystitis, cataract, lymphocyte count increase, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in one patient (2%). Diabetic Ketoacidosis and sepsis led to death in a patient (2%). Stem cell collection was successful in all mobilized patients to date. As of this abstract date, the overall response rate is 84% (41/49). There were 3 complete responses (6%), 18 very good partial responses (37%), 20 partial responses (41%), 5 minimal responses (10%), 3 stable disease (6%), and 2 unevaluable patients. All the study participants except for three have finished treatment and are currently under follow up. None of the patients showed progression to overt MM to date. We continue to collect data for progression free survival. WES was performed on 32 samples at the time of initiation of therapy. Recurrent mutations in the MAPK pathway (KRAS, NRAS) and tumor suppressor gene, TP53, were detected in 40% of the cases (16% and 24%, respectively), while mutations in the NF-KB and plasma cell differentiation pathways were present in 13% of patients. Somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) were called based on WES: 1q duplication, 13q, 17p, and 1p deletions were identified in 25, 31, 12, and 7% of cases, respectively. Interestingly, in 6 patients, high-risk SCNAs (1q gain and 17p deletion) were not reported in iFISH but were detected by WES. The analysis of these 32 samples showed that patients who are harboring mutations in the DNA repair pathway genes, had modest response to treatment. Finally, we are analyzing the transcriptomic profile of CD138 negative cells, which represent the BM microenvironment cells (immune and stromal cells) to characterize the BM microenvironment at baseline and end of treatment, and thus, elucidate the role of these cells in the differential response to therapy. Conclusion The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is well tolerated and demonstrates a high response rate with no progression to overt MM to date. Correlation with genomic studies can help define patients who benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Disclosures Ghobrial: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Bustoros:Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Badros:GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Rosenblatt:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Coelum: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Munshi:OncoPep: Other: Board of director. Anderson:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; OncoPep: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Evomela® Significantly Increases the Risk of Engraftment Syndrome in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3316-3316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall McKenna ◽  
Phyllis McKiernan ◽  
David S. Siegel ◽  
Scott D. Rowley ◽  
Noa Biran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Engraftment Syndrome ◽  
Equity Ownership

Background: Evomela, a Melphalan bioequivalent, was approved by the FDA in 2016 for high-dose conditioning treatment prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Evomela has increased solubility and stability compared to traditional Melphalan which requires propylene glycol, a stabilizing agent. A retrospective review (Miller et al. 2019) showed that there was no difference in outcomes or short term morbidity in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) recipients conditioned with either Melphalan or Evomela. There was, however, an increased incidence of C. difficile-negative diarrhea in the Evomela group. Engraftment syndrome (ES) is a well characterized, although poorly understood, conglomerate of symptoms occurring in the autologous peri-engraftment period. We have previously demonstrated (McKiernan et al. 2017) that patients with ES have an adverse overall outcome. This study aims to evaluate the effect of Evomela conditioning on patients with MM receiving ASCT. Methods: Our study cohort included 644 patients with MM who received ASCT between January 2008 and December 2018. Evomela conditioning was administered to all patients treated on or after September 4, 2016, defining the Melphalan and Evomela cohorts. ES was defined as diarrhea, rash, non-infectious fever, hepatic dysfunction, pulmonary infiltrates, or encephalopathy not attributed to other causes from 3 days prior to 15 days post engraftment. High-risk disease (HRD) was defined as del 17p, 1q gain, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) by FISH, monosomy 13, del 13q or hypodiploidy by standard cytogenetics, or high-risk gene expression profiling. Response criteria from the International Myeloma Working Group was used to determine response. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated using log rank or Wilcoxon tests. Cox hazard regression model was examined for factors influencing ES. Results: Of the 644 patients, 78 were conditioned with Evomela and 554 were conditioned with Melphalan. Thirty five percent of the total patient population had HRD, 234 (36%) were age 65 or older, and 369 (57%) were males. A total of 197 (30%) patients developed ES with 171 (87%) receiving treatment with corticosteroids. Conditioning with Evomela was associated with a significantly higher incidence of ES 15 days post ASCT compared to Melphalan (40.3% vs 24.8%, p=0.0006). Multivariate analysis showed that patients conditioned with Evomela were 60% more likely (HR-1.597, 95% CI, 1.116-2.285, p=0.0105) to develop ES than traditional Melphalan. Across both cohorts, higher median CD34+ stem cell doses (5.22 vs 5.85 x 10e6/kg, p=0.0026) were protective against ES. Age greater than 65 was associated with increased 15 day post ASCT incidence of ES (HR-1.903, 95% CI, 1.435-2.523, p=<0.0001). There was no PFS (p=0.2996) or OS (p=0.2778) difference between the Evomela group and the Melphalan group. There was a trend towards decreased OS (p=0.0914) among patients with ES, but it was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant progression difference between ES and non-ES groups (p=0.9739). Conclusion: Patients conditioned with Evomela are significantly more likely to develop ES than patients conditioned with traditional Melphalan. We were not able to show any survival or progression-free survival advantage for patients treated with Evomela. We would caution the use of Evomela in patients with other risk factors for ES. More studies are needed to further understand the differences between Melphalan and Evomela. Disclosures Siegel: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rowley:Allergan: Equity Ownership; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy. Biran:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldberg:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; COTA: Equity Ownership; Cancer Outcomes Tracking and Analysis (COTA) Inc.: Equity Ownership. Goy:Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding.

Targeted MEK Inhibition in Patients with Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4775-4775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Heuck ◽  
Yogesh Jethava ◽  
Rashid Z Khan ◽  
Scott Miller ◽  
Alan Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Mapk Pathway ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Diagnostic and therapeutic advances have significantly improved the outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. However, pts who are refractory to or relapse after therapy with immune modulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors remain a therapeutic challenge. Comprehensive genomic profiling via clinical next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays studies of MM cases have revealed multiple targetable mutations that were previously unexploited in MM. Methods: Between June 2013 and May 2014 we performed genomic profiling of 351 patients who had progressed after initial therapy to assist physicians in therapy planning. Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed using the FoundationOne¨ or FoundationOne Heme¨ assays. FoundationOne assays 374 cancer-related and 24 frequently rearranged genes via DNA-seq, and FoundationOneHeme assays 405 cancer-related and 31 frequently rearranged genes via DNA-seq as well as 265 frequently rearranged genes by RNA-seq. All samples were sequenced in a CLIA-certified CAP-accredited laboratory to an average depth >500x . Patients with activating alterations of KRAS, NRAS or BRAF were considered for therapy with the targeted agent trametinib (TMTB) as were patients who had a gene expression signature suggesting activation of the MAPK pathway. Retrospective review of this case series was approved by the UAMS institutional review board. Results: We identified 63 patients who underwent treatment with Trametinib. 60 were treated based on activating mutations of KRAS, NRAS or BRAF and 3 were treated based on a GEP signature. The median age was 65 and patients had a median of 5 lines of prior therapy (range 1-20). 38 of 63 patients had prior treatment with Total Therapy. 43 underwent salvage with chemotherapy prior to initiation of TMTB, 15 had salvage transplants, 33 patients were exposed to novel agents (Pomalidomide, Carfilzomib) and 33 had Metronomic therapy before TMTB. 25% of patients were ISS stage 3 and 37% had GEP70 defined high risk. 13 had PET defined extra medullary disease (EMD). 41 patients were administered TMTB monotherapy and 22 received TMTB treatment in combination with other agents. In general the treatment was well tolerated. 10 patients discontinued therapy because of toxicities, 29 discontinued because of disease progression or death. None of the deaths were attributed to TMTB, Best treatment responses were SD in 30, PR in 8, VGPR in 2 and CR in 3 of the 63 pts. For 25 patients with evaluable PET data, treatment resulted in complete resolution of FDG avid lesions in 9 patients and a better than 50% reduction in 15 (Figure 1). We will present updated data on clinical responses as well as toxicities. Conclusions: Treatment with targeted therapy guided by prospective comprehensive genomic profiling across all classes of genomic alterations in this heavily pretreated population of MM patients resulted in an unexpectedly high objective response rate. Observation of CR with TMTB monotherapy further supports continued investigation of this individualized approach to MM management. Disclosures Van Laar: Signal Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ali:Foundation Medicine, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Miller:Foundation Medicine, Inc: Employment. Zangari:Norvartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. van Rhee:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Celgene Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloma UK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; International Myeloma Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Receiving Triplet Therapy in the Connect MM® Disease Registry

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4229-4229
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Mohit Narang ◽  
Jayesh Mehta ◽  
Howard R. Terebelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Triplet Regimen

Abstract Introduction: Triplet therapies are used for treatment (Tx) of both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Actual patterns and outcomes of Tx are not fully understood. Connect MM® is the first and largest multicenter, US-based, prospective observational cohort study designed to characterize Tx patterns and outcomes for pts with NDMM. This analysis describes demographic and disease characteristics of pts who received triplet Tx as an induction regimen and for whom transplant was or was not intended. The analysis explores the relationship of these factors with overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints. Patients and Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 y with NDMM within 60 days of diagnosis were eligible for enrollment regardless of disease severity, medical history, or comorbidities. Data including transplant intent (yes/no) was collected at baseline; follow-up data was collected quarterly thereafter. Based on the initial intent, 2 groups were identified: patients with intent to transplant who received transplant (TT) and pts with no intent to transplant who did not receive a transplant (NT). Triplet Tx was defined as the combination of ≥ 3 concurrent therapeutic agents in the first course of Tx (within 56 days of study entry). KM analysis adjusted for age was conducted for OS. Because decisions on use of transplant and triplet therapy are influenced by multiple factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of the triplet therapy (yes/no) to OS and was adjusted for other variables, including age, comorbidities, and ISS staging. Results: Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 pts were enrolled. This analysis was on 1436 pts: 650 pts with transplant intent and 786 pts without transplant intent. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2014, and the median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 33.8 mos. Of pts with transplant intent, 451 (69%) received transplant (TT) and 199 (31%) did not. Of pts without transplant intent, 62 (8%) received transplant and 724 (92%) did not (NT). The abstract focuses on TT and NT groups only. NT pts tended to be older and have more advanced ISS staging and higher β2-microglobulin levels than TT pts (Table). The most common triplet regimen given during the first course treatment (within 56 days) was lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). RVd was administered to 34% of the NT pts (76/225) and 59% of the TT pts (152/257). The most common non-triplet regimen was bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), which was given to 31% of NT pts (156/499) and 38% of TT pts (73/194). Within the NT group, pts given triplet Tx had a lower risk of death than those who did not receive triplet Tx (P = .0013). The multivariable analysis found triplet Tx to be associated with a 36% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.82]; P = .001). ISS disease stage (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.69]; P < .001) and history of diabetes (HR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.78]; P = .012) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Within the TT group, pts who received triplet Tx did not attain an OS benefit (P = .8993), and no baseline characteristics were significantly associated with OS. These results may be limited by other factors not considered that may have influenced physicians' choice of treatment, including the use of maintenance therapy and a short follow-up period of 33.8 months. Conclusions: Triplet Tx as a first regimen is associated with longer OS in pts without transplant intent who did not receive a transplant. RVd and Vd were the most common first Tx regimens, respectively. Continued follow-up of these pts and enrollment of an additional cohort will provide additional data with mature follow-up. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: 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; Millenium: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Other: Export Board Committee, Speakers Bureau. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Srinivasan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: 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.

scholarly journals Baseline and on-Treatment Bone Marrow Microenvironments Predict Myeloma Patient Outcomes and Inform Potential Intervention Strategies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1882-1882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel A Danziger ◽  
Mark McConnell ◽  
Jake Gockley ◽  
Mary Young ◽  
Adam Rosenthal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Expression Profiles ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction The multiple myeloma (MM) tumor microenvironment (TME) strongly influences patient outcomes as evidenced by the success of immunomodulatory therapies. To develop precision immunotherapeutic approaches, it is essential to identify and enumerate TME cell types and understand their dynamics. Methods We estimated the population of immune and other non-tumor cell types during the course of MM treatment at a single institution using gene expression of paired CD138-selected bone marrow aspirates and whole bone marrow (WBM) core biopsies from 867 samples of 436 newly diagnosed MM patients collected at 5 time points: pre-treatment (N=354), post-induction (N=245), post-transplant (N=83), post-consolidation (N=51), and post-maintenance (N=134). Expression profiles from the aspirates were used to infer the transcriptome contribution of immune and stromal cells in the WBM array data. Unsupervised clustering of these non-tumor gene expression profiles across all time points was performed using the R package ConsensusClusterPlus with Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to select the number of clusters. Individual cell types in these TMEs were estimated using the DCQ algorithm and a gene expression signature matrix based on the published LM22 leukocyte matrix (Newman et al., 2015) augmented with 5 bone marrow- and myeloma-specific cell types. Results Our deconvolution approach accurately estimated percent tumor cells in the paired samples compared to estimates from microscopy and flow cytometry (PCC = 0.63, RMSE = 9.99%). TME clusters built on gene expression data from all 867 samples resulted in 5 unsupervised clusters covering 91% of samples. While the fraction of patients in each cluster changed during treatment, no new TME clusters emerged as treatment progressed. These clusters were associated with progression free survival (PFS) (p-Val = 0.020) and overall survival (OS) (p-Val = 0.067) when measured in pre-transplant samples. The most striking outcomes were represented by Cluster 5 (N = 106) characterized by a low innate to adaptive cell ratio and shortened patient survival (Figure 1, 2). This cluster had worse outcomes than others (estimated mean PFS = 58 months compared to 71+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.002; estimate mean OS = 105 months compared with 113+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.040). Compared to other immune clusters, the adaptive-skewed TME of Cluster 5 is characterized by low granulocyte populations and high antigen-presenting, CD8 T, and B cell populations. As might be expected, this cluster was also significantly enriched for ISS3 and GEP70 high risk patients, as well as Del1p, Del1q, t12;14, and t14:16. Importantly, this TME persisted even when the induction therapy significantly reduced the tumor load (Table 1). At post-induction, outcomes for the 69 / 245 patients in Cluster 5 remain significantly worse (estimate mean PFS = 56 months compared to 71+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.004; estimate mean OS = 100 months compared to 121+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.002). The analysis of on-treatment samples showed that the number of patients in Cluster 5 decreases from 30% before treatment to 12% after transplant, and of the 63 patients for whom we have both pre-treatment and post-transplant samples, 18/20 of the Cluster 5 patients moved into other immune clusters; 13 into Cluster 4. The non-5 clusters (with better PFS and OS overall) had higher amounts of granulocytes and lower amounts of CD8 T cells. Some clusters (1 and 4) had increased natural killer (NK) cells and decreased dendritic cells, while other clusters (2 and 3) had increased adipocytes and increases in M2 macrophages (Cluster 2) or NK cells (Cluster 3). Taken together, the gain of granulocytes and adipocytes was associated with improved outcome, while increases in the adaptive immune compartment was associated with poorer outcome. Conclusions We identified distinct clusters of patient TMEs from bulk transcriptome profiles by computationally estimating the CD138- fraction of TMEs. Our findings identified differential immune and stromal compositions in patient clusters with opposing clinical outcomes and tracked membership in those clusters during treatment. Adding this layer of TME to the analysis of myeloma patient baseline and on-treatment samples enables us to formulate biological hypotheses and may eventually guide therapeutic interventions to improve outcomes for patients. Disclosures Danziger: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. McConnell:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Gockley:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Young:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmitz:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reiss:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Davies:MMRF: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TRM Oncology: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; ASH: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Copeland:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fox:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fitch:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Newhall:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barlogie:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC. Trotter:Celgene Research SL (Spain), part of Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hershberg:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Dervan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ratushny:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document