Sebastian Grosicki

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).

Chlorambucil plus ofatumumab versus chlorambucil alone in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (COMPLEMENT 1): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who are elderly or who have comorbidities is challenging because fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapies are mostly not suitable. Chlorambucil remains the standard of care in many countries. We aimed to investigate whether the addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil could lead to better clinical outcomes than does treatment with chlorambucil alone, while also being tolerable for patients who have few treatment options. METHODS We carried out a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial for treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in 109 centres in 16 countries. We included patients who had active disease needing treatment, but in whom fludarabine-based treatment was not possible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive oral chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)) on days 1-7 of a 28 day treatment course or to receive chlorambucil by this schedule plus intravenous ofatumumab (cycle 1: 300 mg on day 1 and 1000 mg on day 8; subsequent cycles: 1000 mg on day 1) for three to 12 cycles. Assignment was done with a randomisation list that was computer generated at GlaxoSmithKline, and was stratified, in a block size of two, by age, disease stage, and performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and assessment was done by an independent review committee that was masked to group assignment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00748189. FINDINGS We enrolled 447 patients, median age 69 years (range 35-92). Between Dec 22, 2008, and May 26, 2011, we randomly assigned 221 patients to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chlorambucil alone. Median progression-free survival was 22·4 months (95% CI 19·0-25·2) in the group assigned to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab compared with 13·1 months (10·6-13·8) in the group assigned to chlorambucil only (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·72; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were more common in the chlorambucil plus ofatumumab group (109 [50%] patients; vs 98 [43%] given chlorambucil alone), with neutropenia being the most common event (56 [26%] vs 32 [14%]). Grade 3 or greater infections had similar frequency in both groups. Grade 3 or greater infusion-related adverse events were reported in 22 (10%) patients given chlorambucil plus ofatumumab. Five (2%) patients died during treatment in each group. INTERPRETATION Addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil led to clinically important improvements with a manageable side-effect profile in treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who were elderly or had comorbidities. Chlorambucil plus ofatumumab is therefore an important treatment option for these patients who cannot tolerate more intensive therapy. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab A/S.

Cladribine, But Not Fludarabine, Added to Daunorubicin and Cytarabine During Induction Prolongs Survival of Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of a purine analog, cladribine or fludarabine, to the standard induction regimen affects the outcome of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS A cohort of 652 untreated AML patients with median age 47 years (range, 17 to 60 years) were randomly assigned to receive one of three induction regimens: DA (daunorubicin plus cytarabine), DAC (DA plus cladribine), or DAF (DA plus fludarabine). Postremission treatment was the same for all arms. RESULTS Complete remission rate in the DAC arm was higher compared with the DA arm (67.5% v 56%; P = .01) as a consequence of reduced incidence of resistant disease (21% v 34%; P = .004). There was no significant difference in early outcome between the DAF and DA arms. The probability of overall survival was improved for the DAC arm (45% ± 4% at 3 years) compared with the DA arm (33% ± 4%; P = .02), and leukemia-free survival was comparable. Long-term outcome did not differ significantly for the comparison of the DAF and DA arms. A survival advantage of the DAC arm over the DA arm was observed among patients age 50 years or older (P = .005), those with initial leukocyte count above 50 × 10(9)/L (P = .03), and those with unfavorable karyotype (P = .03). DAF revealed a significant advantage over DA in patients with adverse karyotype (P = .02). CONCLUSION The addition of cladribine to the standard induction regimen is associated with increased rate of complete remission and improved survival of adult patients with AML.

Cladribine combined with high doses of arabinoside cytosine, mitoxantrone, and G-CSF (CLAG-M) is a highly effective salvage regimen in patients with refractory and relapsed acute myeloid leukemia of the poor risk: a final report of the Polish Adult Leukemia Group.

Objectives: Patients with primary refractory AML and with early relapses have unfavorable prognoses and require innovative therapeutic approaches. Purine analogs fludarabine (FA) and cladribine (2‐CdA) increase cytotoxic effect of Ara‐C in leukemic blasts and inhibit DNA repair mechanisms; therefore its association with Ara‐C and mitoxantrone (MIT) results in a synergistic effect. In the current report, we present the final results of multi‐center phase II study evaluating the efficacy and toxicity of CLAG‐M salvage regimen in poor risk refractory/relapsed AML patients.

Phase 2 randomized study of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone with or without siltuximab (anti-IL-6) in multiple myeloma

Because interleukin-6 (IL-6) is considered important in the proliferation of early multiple myeloma (MM), we hypothesized that the addition of the anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab to the bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) regimen would improve outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM. One hundred and six patients were randomized to receive 9 cycles of VMP or VMP plus siltuximab (11 mg/kg every 3 weeks) followed by siltuximab maintenance. Baseline characteristics were well balanced except for immunoglobulin A subtype and 17p deletions. With a complete response (CR) rate of 27% on siltuximab plus VMP (S+VMP) and 22% on VMP, the study did not confirm its hypothesis that the addition of siltuximab would increase the CR rate by at least 10%. Overall response rate was 88% on S+VMP and 80% on VMP, and at least very good partial response rates were 71% and 51% (P = .0382), respectively. Median progression-free survival (17 months) and 1-year overall survival (88%) were identical in the 2 arms. Grade ≥3 adverse-event incidence was 92% on S+VMP and 81% on VMP (P = .09), with trends toward more hematologic events and infections on S+VMP. Maintenance therapy with siltuximab was well tolerated. In conclusion, the addition of siltuximab to VMP did not improve the CR rate or long-term outcomes. This study was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00911859.

A phase 2 study of the BH3 mimetic BCL2 inhibitor navitoclax (ABT-263) with or without rituximab, in previously untreated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia

We evaluated the safety and biologic activity of the BH3 mimetic protein, navitoclax, combined with rituximab, in comparison to rituximab alone. One hundred and eighteen patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were randomized to receive eight weekly doses of rituximab (arm A), eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax for 12 weeks (arm B) or eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm C). Investigator-assessed overall response rates (complete [CR] and partial [PR]) were 35% (arm A), 55% (arm B, p = 0.19 vs. A) and 70% (arm C, p = 0.0034 vs. A). Patients with del(17p) or high levels of BCL2 had significantly better clinical responses when treated with navitoclax. Navitoclax in combination with rituximab was well tolerated as initial therapy for patients with CLL, yielded higher response rates than rituximab alone and resulted in prolonged progression-free survival with treatment beyond 12 weeks.

Ofatumumab maintenance versus observation in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (PROLONG): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study

BACKGROUND Ofatumumab is a human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that has proven efficacy as monotherapy in refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ofatumumab maintenance treatment versus observation for patients in remission after re-induction treatment for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. METHODS This open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 130 centres in 24 countries who had chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in complete or partial remission after second-line or third-line treatment. Eligible patients had a WHO performance status of 0-2, had a response assessment within the previous 3 months, did not have refractory disease, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia requiring treatment, chronic or active infection requiring treatment, and had not previously received maintenance treatment or autologous or allogeneic stem-cell transplant. Using a randomisation list generated by a central computerised system and an interactive voice recognition system, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive ofatumumab (300 mg followed by 1000 mg 1 week later and every 8 weeks for up to 2 years) or undergo observation. Randomisation was stratified by number and type of previous treatment and remission status after induction treatment (block size of four). Treatment assignment was open label. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report the results of a prespecified interim analysis after two-thirds of the planned study events (disease progression or death) had happened. This trial is closed to accrual but follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00802737. FINDINGS Between May 6, 2010, and June 19, 2014, we enrolled 474 patients: 238 patients were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab maintenance treatment and 236 to undergo observation. One (<1%) patient in the ofatumumab group did not receive the allocated intervention (withdrawal of consent). The median follow-up was 19·1 months (IQR 10·3-28·8). Progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to the ofatumumab group (29·4 months, 95% CI 26·2-34·2) compared with those assigned to observation (15·2 months, 11·8-18·8; hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events up to 60 days after last treatment were neutropenia (56 [24%] of 237 patients in the ofatumumab group vs 23 [10%] of 237 in the observation group) and infections (31 [13%] vs 20 [8%]). 20 (8%) of 237 patients in the ofatumumab group and three (1%) of 237 patients in the observation group had adverse events that led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. Up to 60 days after last treatment, two deaths related to adverse events occurred in the ofatumumab treatment group and five deaths related to adverse events occurred in the observation group; no deaths were attributed to the study drug. INTERPRETATION These data are important for the development of optimum maintenance strategies in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, notably in the present era of targeted drugs, many of which are to be used until progression.

Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma

BACKGROUND The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem‐cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard‐of‐care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem‐cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression‐free survival. RESULTS At a median follow‐up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18‐month progression‐free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The overall response rate was 90.9% in the daratumumab group, as compared with 73.9% in the control group (P<0.001), and the rate of complete response or better (including stringent complete response) was 42.6%, versus 24.4% (P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.3% of the patients were negative for minimal residual disease (at a threshold of 1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 6.2% of those in the control group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hematologic: neutropenia (in 39.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group and in 38.7% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 34.4% and 37.6%, respectively), and anemia (in 15.9% and 19.8%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 infections was 23.1% in the daratumumab group and 14.7% in the control group; the rate of treatment discontinuation due to infections was 0.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Daratumumab‐associated infusion‐related reactions occurred in 27.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem‐cell transplantation, daratumumab combined with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than the same regimen without daratumumab. The daratumumab‐containing regimen was associated with more grade 3 or 4 infections. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ALCYONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02195479.)

A multicenter, open, non-comparative, phase II study of the combination of cladribine (2-chlorodeoxyadenosine), cytarabine, and G-CSF as induction therapy in refractory acute myeloid leukemia - a report of the Polish Adult Leukemia Group (PALG).

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cladribine (2‐chlorodeoxyadenosine, 2‐CdA), cytarabine (Ara‐C), and granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) (CLAG) regimen in refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the multicenter phase II study.