Albert Oriol

Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown efficacy in a phase 1 and 2 study in relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS We randomly assigned 792 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma to carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly improved with carfilzomib (median, 26.3 months, vs. 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P=0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis. The Kaplan-Meier 24-month overall survival rates were 73.3% and 65.0% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 87.1% and 66.7% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (P<0.001; 31.8% and 9.3% of patients in the respective groups had a complete response or better; 14.1% and 4.3% had a stringent complete response). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 83.7% and 80.7% of patients in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively; 15.3% and 17.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. Patients in the carfilzomib group reported superior health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS In patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival at the interim analysis and had a favorable risk-benefit profile. (Funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01080391.).

Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Decitabine Versus Patient Choice, With Physician Advice, of Either Supportive Care or Low-Dose Cytarabine for the Treatment of Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PURPOSE This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of decitabine with treatment choice (TC) in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and poor- or intermediate-risk cytogenetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 485) age ≥ 65 years were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive decitabine 20 mg/m(2) per day as a 1-hour intravenous infusion for five consecutive days every 4 weeks or TC (supportive care or cytarabine 20 mg/m(2) per day as a subcutaneous injection for 10 consecutive days every 4 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS); the secondary end point was the complete remission (CR) rate plus the CR rate without platelet recovery (CRp). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS The primary analysis with 396 deaths (81.6%) showed a nonsignificant increase in median OS with decitabine (7.7 months; 95% CI, 6.2 to 9.2) versus TC (5.0 months; 95% CI, 4.3 to 6.3; P = .108; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.04). An unplanned analysis with 446 deaths (92%) indicated the same median OS (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; nominal P = .037). The CR rate plus CRp was 17.8% with decitabine versus 7.8% with TC (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.8; P = .001). AEs were similar for decitabine and cytarabine, although patients received a median of four cycles of decitabine versus two cycles of TC. The most common drug-related AEs with decitabine were thrombocytopenia (27%) and neutropenia (24%). CONCLUSION In older patients with AML, decitabine improved response rates compared with standard therapies without major differences in safety. An unplanned survival analysis showed a benefit for decitabine, which was not observed at the time of the primary analysis.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. METHODS This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1-21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. FINDINGS The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2-13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6-4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9-2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39-0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING Celgene Corporation.

Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) is significantly better than melphalan plus prednisone alone for elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma; however, toxic effects are high. We investigated a novel and less intensive bortezomib-based regimen to maintain efficacy and to reduce toxic effects. METHODS Between March, 2006, and October, 2008, 260 patients with untreated multiple myeloma, 65 years and older, from 63 Spanish centres, were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of VMP (n=130) or bortezomib plus thalidomide and prednisone (VTP; n=130) as induction therapy, consisting of one cycle of bortezomib twice per week for 6 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), plus either melphalan (9 mg/m² on days 1-4) or daily thalidomide (100 mg), and prednisone (60 mg/m² on days 1-4). The first cycle was followed by five cycles of bortezomib once per week for 5 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) plus the same doses of melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide plus prednisone. 178 patients completed the six induction cycles and were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bortezomib plus prednisone (n=87) or bortezomib plus thalidomide (n=91), consisting of one conventional cycle of bortezomib for 3 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone (50 mg every other day) or thalidomide (50 mg per day), for up to 3 years. Treatment codes were generated with a computerised random number generator, and neither participants nor study personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was response rate in induction and maintenance phases. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00443235. FINDINGS In the induction phase, 105 (81%) patients in the VTP group and 104 (80%) in the VMP group achieved partial responses or better (p=0·9), including 36 (28%) and 26 (20%) complete remissions, respectively (p=0·2). Treatment with VTP resulted in more serious adverse events (40 [31%] vs 20 [15%], p=0·01) and discontinuations (22 [17%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·03) than did treatment with VMP. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or worse) were infections (one [1%] in the VTP group vs nine [7%] in the VMP group), cardiac events (11 [8%] vs 0), and peripheral neuropathy (nine [7%] vs 12 [9%]). After maintenance therapy, the complete remission rate was 42% (40 [44%] patients in complete remission in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group, 34 [39%] in the bortezomib plus prednisone group). No grade 3 or worse haematological toxicities were recorded during maintenance therapy; two (2%) patients in the bortezomib plus prednisone group and six (7%) in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group developed peripheral neuropathy. INTERPRETATION Reduced-intensity induction with a bortezomib-based regimen, followed by maintenance, is a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. FUNDING Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases).

Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Myeloma

BACKGROUND The combination melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) is considered a standard therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. However, emerging data on the use of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone warrant a prospective comparison of the two approaches. METHODS We randomly assigned 1623 patients to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in 28-day cycles until disease progression (535 patients), to the same combination for 72 weeks (18 cycles; 541 patients), or to MPT for 72 weeks (547 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus MPT. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 20.7 months with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 21.2 months with MPT (hazard ratio for the risk of progression or death, 0.72 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. MPT and 0.70 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was superior to MPT for all secondary efficacy end points, including overall survival (at the interim analysis). Overall survival at 4 years was 59% with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 56% with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 51% with MPT. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were somewhat less frequent with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone than with MPT (70% vs. 78%). As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with fewer hematologic and neurologic toxic events, a moderate increase in infections, and fewer second primary hematologic cancers. CONCLUSIONS As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone given until disease progression was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with an overall survival benefit at the interim analysis, among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by Intergroupe, Francophone du Myélome and Celgene; FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00689936; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number, 2007-004823-39.).

Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND New treatment options are needed for patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. We assessed daratumumab, a novel CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial done in Canada, Spain, and the USA, patients (age ≥18 years) with multiple myeloma who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous daratumumab 8 mg/kg or 16 mg/kg in part 1 stage 1 of the study, to decide the dose for further assessment in part 2. Patients received 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 16 mg/kg per week for 8 weeks (cycles 1 and 2), then every 2 weeks for 16 weeks (cycles 3-6), and then every 4 weeks thereafter (cycle 7 and higher). The allocation schedule was computer-generated and randomisation, with permuted blocks, was done centrally with an interactive web response system. In part 1 stage 2 and part 2, patients received 16 mg/kg dosed as in part 1 stage 1. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (partial response [PR] + very good PR + complete response [CR] + stringent CR). All patients who received at least one dose of daratumumab were included in the analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01985126. FINDINGS The study is ongoing. In part 1 stage 1 of the study, 18 patients were randomly allocated to the 8 mg/kg group and 16 to the 16 mg/kg group. Findings are reported for the 106 patients who received daratumumab 16 mg/kg in parts 1 and 2. Patients received a median of five previous lines of therapy (range 2-14). 85 (80%) patients had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation, 101 (95%) were refractory to the most recent proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs used, and 103 (97%) were refractory to the last line of therapy. Overall responses were noted in 31 patients (29.2%, 95% CI 20.8-38.9)-three (2.8%, 0.6-8.0) had a stringent CR, ten (9.4%, 4.6-16.7) had a very good PR, and 18 (17.0%, 10.4-25.5) had a PR. The median time to first response was 1.0 month (range 0.9-5.6). Median duration of response was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.5-not estimable) and progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-4.6). The 12-month overall survival was 64.8% (95% CI 51.2-75.5) and, at a subsequent cutoff, median overall survival was 17.5 months (95% CI 13.7-not estimable). Daratumumab was well tolerated; fatigue (42 [40%] patients) and anaemia (35 [33%]) of any grade were the most common adverse events. No drug-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. INTERPRETATION Daratumumab monotherapy showed encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated and refractory patients with multiple myeloma, with a favourable safety profile in this population of patients. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study

BACKGROUND Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). INTERPRETATION For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. FUNDING Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND For patients with smoldering multiple myeloma, the standard of care is observation until symptoms develop. However, this approach does not identify high-risk patients who may benefit from early intervention. METHODS In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 119 patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma to treatment or observation. Patients in the treatment group received an induction regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg per day on days 1 to 21, plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg per day on days 1 to 4 and days 12 to 15, at 4-week intervals for nine cycles), followed by a maintenance regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 10 mg per day on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle for 2 years). The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease. Secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the treatment group than in the observation group (median not reached vs. 21 months; hazard ratio for progression, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.32; P<0.001). The 3-year survival rate was also higher in the treatment group (94% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; P=0.03). A partial response or better was achieved in 79% of patients in the treatment group after the induction phase and in 90% during the maintenance phase. Toxic effects were mainly grade 2 or lower. CONCLUSIONS Early treatment for patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma delays progression to active disease and increases overall survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00480363.).

High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

The achievement of complete response (CR) after high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) is a surrogate for prolonged survival in multiple myeloma; however, patients who lose their CR status within 1 year of HDT/ASCT (unsustained CR) have poor prognosis. Thus, the identification of these patients is highly relevant. Here, we investigate which prognostic markers can predict unsustained CR in a series of 241 patients in CR at day +100 after HDT/ASCT who were enrolled in the Spanish GEM2000 (n = 140) and GEM2005 < 65y (n = 101) trials. Twenty-nine (12%) of the 241 patients showed unsustained CR and a dismal outcome (median overall survival 39 months). The presence of baseline high-risk cytogenetics by FISH (hazard ratio 17.3; P = .002) and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry at day +100 after HDT/ASCT (hazard ratio 8.0; P = .005) were the only independent factors that predicted unsustained CR. Thus, these 2 parameters may help to identify patients in CR at risk of early progression after HDT/ASCT in whom novel treatments should be investigated.

Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma

We assessed the prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in multiple myeloma (MM) patients using a sequencing-based platform in bone marrow samples from 133 MM patients in at least very good partial response (VGPR) after front-line therapy. Deep sequencing was carried out in patients in whom a high-frequency myeloma clone was identified and MRD was assessed using the IGH-VDJH, IGH-DJH, and IGK assays. The results were contrasted with those of multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) and allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction (ASO-PCR). The applicability of deep sequencing was 91%. Concordance between sequencing and MFC and ASO-PCR was 83% and 85%, respectively. Patients who were MRD(-) by sequencing had a significantly longer time to tumor progression (TTP) (median 80 vs 31 months; P < .0001) and overall survival (median not reached vs 81 months; P = .02), compared with patients who were MRD(+). When stratifying patients by different levels of MRD, the respective TTP medians were: MRD ≥10(-3) 27 months, MRD 10(-3) to 10(-5) 48 months, and MRD <10(-5) 80 months (P = .003 to .0001). Ninety-two percent of VGPR patients were MRD(+). In complete response patients, the TTP remained significantly longer for MRD(-) compared with MRD(+) patients (131 vs 35 months; P = .0009).