User login
Selinexor hits FDA stumbling block
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
MRD negativity linked to survival in MM after auto-HCT
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
Similar results for once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib in MM
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
FROM HAEMATOLOGICA
FDA approves daratumumab split-dosing regimen in MM
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
Trial supports less aggressive myeloma treatment
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: There were no differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three trial arms.
Study details: Randomized clinical trial with 758 patients with multiple myeloma.
Disclosures: The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
Source: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
AML, myeloma risk higher for breast cancer survivors
Breast cancer survivors should continue to be monitored for hematologic malignancies, especially acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), results of a population-based study from France suggest.
Among nearly 440,000 women with an incident breast cancer diagnosis, the incidence of AML was nearly three times higher and the incidence of MDS was five times higher than that of women in the general population. Women with breast cancer also were at higher risk for multiple myeloma (MM) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphocytic lymphoma (ALL/LL) compared with the background population, reported Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Paris Sud, France, and her colleagues.
“These findings serve to better inform practicing oncologists, and breast cancer survivors should be advised of the increased risk of developing certain hematologic malignant neoplasms after their first cancer diagnosis,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Breast cancers are the malignant solid tumors most frequently associated with risk for myeloid neoplasms, but there is little information on the risk for secondary lymphoid malignancies among breast cancer patients, the investigators stated.
“In addition, real-life data on secondary hematologic malignant neoplasm incidence are scarce, especially in the recent period marked by major advances in breast cancer treatments,” they wrote.
To get better estimates of the incidence of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms in this population, they conducted a retrospective review of information from the French National Health Data System on all French women from the ages of 20 to 85 years who had an incident breast cancer diagnosis from July 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015.
In all, 439,704 women with a median age of 59 years were identified. They were followed until a diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy, death, or loss to follow-up, or until Dec. 31, 2016.
Data on the breast cancer patients were compared with those for all French women in the general population who were registered in the general national health insurance program from January 2007 through the end of 2016.
During a median follow-up of 5 years, there were 3,046 cases of hematologic neoplasms among the breast cancer patients, including 509 cases of AML, for a crude incidence rate (CIR) of 24.5 per 100,000 person-years (py); 832 cases of MDS for a CIR of 40.1/100,000 py; and 267 cases of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), for a CIR of 12.8/100,000 py.
In addition, there were 420 cases of MM for a CIR of 20.3/100,000 py; 912 cases of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HL/NHL) for a CIR of 44.4/100,000 py, and 106 cases of ALL/LL for a CIR of 5.1/100,000 py.
Breast cancer survivors had significantly higher incidences, compared with the general population, of AML (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-3.2), MDS (SIR 5.0, CI, 4.4-5.7), MM (SIR 1.5, CI, 1.3-17), and ALL/LL (SIR 2.0, CI, 1.3-3.0). There was a trend toward significance for both MPN and HL/NHL, but the lower limit of the confidence intervals for these conditions either crossed or touched 1.
In a review of the literature, the authors found that “[s]everal studies linked AML and MDS to chemotherapeutic agents, radiation treatment, and supportive treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. These results are consistent with other available data showing a 2½-fold to 3½-fold increased risk of AML.”
They noted that their estimate of a five-fold increase in risk for MDS was higher than the 3.7-fold risk reported in a previous registry cohort analysis, suggesting that risk for MDS among breast cancer patients may be underestimated.
“The recent discovery of the gene signatures that guide treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer might reduce the number of patients exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy and its complications, including hematologic malignant neoplasm. Therefore, continuing to monitor hematologic malignant neoplasm trends is necessary, especially given that approaches to cancer treatment are rapidly evolving. Further research is also required to assess the modality of treatment for and the genetic predisposition to these secondary malignant neoplasms,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Jabagi MJ et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7147.
Breast cancer survivors should continue to be monitored for hematologic malignancies, especially acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), results of a population-based study from France suggest.
Among nearly 440,000 women with an incident breast cancer diagnosis, the incidence of AML was nearly three times higher and the incidence of MDS was five times higher than that of women in the general population. Women with breast cancer also were at higher risk for multiple myeloma (MM) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphocytic lymphoma (ALL/LL) compared with the background population, reported Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Paris Sud, France, and her colleagues.
“These findings serve to better inform practicing oncologists, and breast cancer survivors should be advised of the increased risk of developing certain hematologic malignant neoplasms after their first cancer diagnosis,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Breast cancers are the malignant solid tumors most frequently associated with risk for myeloid neoplasms, but there is little information on the risk for secondary lymphoid malignancies among breast cancer patients, the investigators stated.
“In addition, real-life data on secondary hematologic malignant neoplasm incidence are scarce, especially in the recent period marked by major advances in breast cancer treatments,” they wrote.
To get better estimates of the incidence of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms in this population, they conducted a retrospective review of information from the French National Health Data System on all French women from the ages of 20 to 85 years who had an incident breast cancer diagnosis from July 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015.
In all, 439,704 women with a median age of 59 years were identified. They were followed until a diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy, death, or loss to follow-up, or until Dec. 31, 2016.
Data on the breast cancer patients were compared with those for all French women in the general population who were registered in the general national health insurance program from January 2007 through the end of 2016.
During a median follow-up of 5 years, there were 3,046 cases of hematologic neoplasms among the breast cancer patients, including 509 cases of AML, for a crude incidence rate (CIR) of 24.5 per 100,000 person-years (py); 832 cases of MDS for a CIR of 40.1/100,000 py; and 267 cases of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), for a CIR of 12.8/100,000 py.
In addition, there were 420 cases of MM for a CIR of 20.3/100,000 py; 912 cases of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HL/NHL) for a CIR of 44.4/100,000 py, and 106 cases of ALL/LL for a CIR of 5.1/100,000 py.
Breast cancer survivors had significantly higher incidences, compared with the general population, of AML (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-3.2), MDS (SIR 5.0, CI, 4.4-5.7), MM (SIR 1.5, CI, 1.3-17), and ALL/LL (SIR 2.0, CI, 1.3-3.0). There was a trend toward significance for both MPN and HL/NHL, but the lower limit of the confidence intervals for these conditions either crossed or touched 1.
In a review of the literature, the authors found that “[s]everal studies linked AML and MDS to chemotherapeutic agents, radiation treatment, and supportive treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. These results are consistent with other available data showing a 2½-fold to 3½-fold increased risk of AML.”
They noted that their estimate of a five-fold increase in risk for MDS was higher than the 3.7-fold risk reported in a previous registry cohort analysis, suggesting that risk for MDS among breast cancer patients may be underestimated.
“The recent discovery of the gene signatures that guide treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer might reduce the number of patients exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy and its complications, including hematologic malignant neoplasm. Therefore, continuing to monitor hematologic malignant neoplasm trends is necessary, especially given that approaches to cancer treatment are rapidly evolving. Further research is also required to assess the modality of treatment for and the genetic predisposition to these secondary malignant neoplasms,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Jabagi MJ et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7147.
Breast cancer survivors should continue to be monitored for hematologic malignancies, especially acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), results of a population-based study from France suggest.
Among nearly 440,000 women with an incident breast cancer diagnosis, the incidence of AML was nearly three times higher and the incidence of MDS was five times higher than that of women in the general population. Women with breast cancer also were at higher risk for multiple myeloma (MM) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphocytic lymphoma (ALL/LL) compared with the background population, reported Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Paris Sud, France, and her colleagues.
“These findings serve to better inform practicing oncologists, and breast cancer survivors should be advised of the increased risk of developing certain hematologic malignant neoplasms after their first cancer diagnosis,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Breast cancers are the malignant solid tumors most frequently associated with risk for myeloid neoplasms, but there is little information on the risk for secondary lymphoid malignancies among breast cancer patients, the investigators stated.
“In addition, real-life data on secondary hematologic malignant neoplasm incidence are scarce, especially in the recent period marked by major advances in breast cancer treatments,” they wrote.
To get better estimates of the incidence of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms in this population, they conducted a retrospective review of information from the French National Health Data System on all French women from the ages of 20 to 85 years who had an incident breast cancer diagnosis from July 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2015.
In all, 439,704 women with a median age of 59 years were identified. They were followed until a diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy, death, or loss to follow-up, or until Dec. 31, 2016.
Data on the breast cancer patients were compared with those for all French women in the general population who were registered in the general national health insurance program from January 2007 through the end of 2016.
During a median follow-up of 5 years, there were 3,046 cases of hematologic neoplasms among the breast cancer patients, including 509 cases of AML, for a crude incidence rate (CIR) of 24.5 per 100,000 person-years (py); 832 cases of MDS for a CIR of 40.1/100,000 py; and 267 cases of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), for a CIR of 12.8/100,000 py.
In addition, there were 420 cases of MM for a CIR of 20.3/100,000 py; 912 cases of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HL/NHL) for a CIR of 44.4/100,000 py, and 106 cases of ALL/LL for a CIR of 5.1/100,000 py.
Breast cancer survivors had significantly higher incidences, compared with the general population, of AML (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-3.2), MDS (SIR 5.0, CI, 4.4-5.7), MM (SIR 1.5, CI, 1.3-17), and ALL/LL (SIR 2.0, CI, 1.3-3.0). There was a trend toward significance for both MPN and HL/NHL, but the lower limit of the confidence intervals for these conditions either crossed or touched 1.
In a review of the literature, the authors found that “[s]everal studies linked AML and MDS to chemotherapeutic agents, radiation treatment, and supportive treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. These results are consistent with other available data showing a 2½-fold to 3½-fold increased risk of AML.”
They noted that their estimate of a five-fold increase in risk for MDS was higher than the 3.7-fold risk reported in a previous registry cohort analysis, suggesting that risk for MDS among breast cancer patients may be underestimated.
“The recent discovery of the gene signatures that guide treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer might reduce the number of patients exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy and its complications, including hematologic malignant neoplasm. Therefore, continuing to monitor hematologic malignant neoplasm trends is necessary, especially given that approaches to cancer treatment are rapidly evolving. Further research is also required to assess the modality of treatment for and the genetic predisposition to these secondary malignant neoplasms,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Jabagi MJ et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7147.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Key clinical point: Breast cancer survivors should be monitored for hematologic malignancies.
Major finding: The standardized incidence ratio for AML was 2.8 and the SIR for multiple myeloma was 5.0 among French breast cancer survivors compared with women in the general French population.
Study details: Retrospective analysis of data on 439,704 women aged 20-85 years with a breast cancer diagnosis.
Disclosures: The authors did not report a study funding source. Coauthor Anthony Goncalves, MD, reported nonfinancial support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, MSD, Lilly, and Astra Zeneca outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Source: Jabagi MJ et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jan 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7147.
With RRMM and renal impairment, carfilzomib improves survival
Patients with renal failure and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma fared better with the selective proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib, compared with bortezomib, according to a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large clinical trial.
In addition, patients who had a complete renal response had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), regardless of treatment group.
Many aspects of the disease state and treatment can contribute to renal failure in multiple myeloma, but cast nephropathy from precipitation of monoclonal light chains certainly contributes to persistent renal failure, Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, professor and chair of clinical therapeutics at the University of Athens, Greece, and his coauthors wrote in Blood.
The investigators wanted to see how individuals with varying levels of renal function fared in the ENDEAVOR trial, which compared carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) plus dexamethasone (Kd56) with bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In an intent-to-treat population of 929 patients, 85 Kd56 and 99 Vd patients had creatinine clearance (CrCL) of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min. Of patients with mild renal failure (CrCL of at least 50 but less than 80 mL/min), 186 were in the Kd56 and 177 in the Vd group. One hundred ninety-three patients receiving Kd56 and 189 Vd patients had CrCL of 80 mL/min or greater.
For ENDEAVOR patients with the lowest CrCL, median PFS was 14.9 months with Kd56 and 6.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49). For patients with intermediate CrCL, median PFS was 18.6 versus 9.4 months with Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.48). For patients with the highest CrCL, PFS was not reached with Kd56; with Vd, median PFS was 12.2 months (HR, 0.60).
Patterns for OS mirrored the advantage seen with Kd56. Median OS was 42.1 versus 23.7 months for those with the worst renal function in the Kd56 arm and the Vd arm, respectively (HR, 0.66). Those with intermediate renal function saw median OS of 42.5 versus 32.8 months on Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.83). Median OS for those with the highest CrCL was not reached on Kd56 and 42.3 months on Vd (HR, 0.75).
The investigators also tracked kidney function over the course of the study, with complete renal response defined as improvement of CrCL to at least 60 mL/min in any two consecutive study visits. By this yardstick, complete renal response was 15.3% for the Kd56 arm and 14.1% for those receiving Vd.
Looking across participants regardless of therapy, those with CrCL of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min who also had complete renal response had longer PFS, compared with nonresponders (median 14.1 versus 9.4 months, HR, .805). OS also was longer in this group of patients (median 35.3 versus 29.7 months, HR, 0.91).
“Patients with complete renal response had superior overall outcomes compared with renal nonresponders across treatment groups ... highlighting the association between improved renal function and greater survival rates,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote.
Kd56 therapy was associated with a higher number of grade 3 or higher adverse events, seen in 77.1%-87.1% of Kd56 patients and 65.9%-79.4% of Vd patients.
Renal failure, common in multiple myeloma, is associated with poor prognosis. Also, therapeutic options can be limited and dosing adjustments must often be made when patients have poor renal function, Dr. Dimopoulos and his coauthors noted.
However, previous studies showed that carfilzomib clearance, exposure, and overall pharmacokinetics were similar between multiple myeloma patients with and without renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease, the investigators wrote.
The subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR suggested that “Kd56 may overcome the poor prognosis of baseline advanced renal impairment,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, patients in the Kd56 arm had deeper responses compared with the Vd arm, regardless of baseline renal impairment.”
These data suggest that Kd56 should be considered a “standard of care” in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, regardless of a patient’s baseline renal function.
The investigators reported multiple financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, which markets carfilzomib and supported the study.
SOURCE: Dimopoulos M et al. Blood. 2019;133(2):147-55.
Patients with renal failure and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma fared better with the selective proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib, compared with bortezomib, according to a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large clinical trial.
In addition, patients who had a complete renal response had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), regardless of treatment group.
Many aspects of the disease state and treatment can contribute to renal failure in multiple myeloma, but cast nephropathy from precipitation of monoclonal light chains certainly contributes to persistent renal failure, Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, professor and chair of clinical therapeutics at the University of Athens, Greece, and his coauthors wrote in Blood.
The investigators wanted to see how individuals with varying levels of renal function fared in the ENDEAVOR trial, which compared carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) plus dexamethasone (Kd56) with bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In an intent-to-treat population of 929 patients, 85 Kd56 and 99 Vd patients had creatinine clearance (CrCL) of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min. Of patients with mild renal failure (CrCL of at least 50 but less than 80 mL/min), 186 were in the Kd56 and 177 in the Vd group. One hundred ninety-three patients receiving Kd56 and 189 Vd patients had CrCL of 80 mL/min or greater.
For ENDEAVOR patients with the lowest CrCL, median PFS was 14.9 months with Kd56 and 6.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49). For patients with intermediate CrCL, median PFS was 18.6 versus 9.4 months with Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.48). For patients with the highest CrCL, PFS was not reached with Kd56; with Vd, median PFS was 12.2 months (HR, 0.60).
Patterns for OS mirrored the advantage seen with Kd56. Median OS was 42.1 versus 23.7 months for those with the worst renal function in the Kd56 arm and the Vd arm, respectively (HR, 0.66). Those with intermediate renal function saw median OS of 42.5 versus 32.8 months on Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.83). Median OS for those with the highest CrCL was not reached on Kd56 and 42.3 months on Vd (HR, 0.75).
The investigators also tracked kidney function over the course of the study, with complete renal response defined as improvement of CrCL to at least 60 mL/min in any two consecutive study visits. By this yardstick, complete renal response was 15.3% for the Kd56 arm and 14.1% for those receiving Vd.
Looking across participants regardless of therapy, those with CrCL of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min who also had complete renal response had longer PFS, compared with nonresponders (median 14.1 versus 9.4 months, HR, .805). OS also was longer in this group of patients (median 35.3 versus 29.7 months, HR, 0.91).
“Patients with complete renal response had superior overall outcomes compared with renal nonresponders across treatment groups ... highlighting the association between improved renal function and greater survival rates,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote.
Kd56 therapy was associated with a higher number of grade 3 or higher adverse events, seen in 77.1%-87.1% of Kd56 patients and 65.9%-79.4% of Vd patients.
Renal failure, common in multiple myeloma, is associated with poor prognosis. Also, therapeutic options can be limited and dosing adjustments must often be made when patients have poor renal function, Dr. Dimopoulos and his coauthors noted.
However, previous studies showed that carfilzomib clearance, exposure, and overall pharmacokinetics were similar between multiple myeloma patients with and without renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease, the investigators wrote.
The subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR suggested that “Kd56 may overcome the poor prognosis of baseline advanced renal impairment,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, patients in the Kd56 arm had deeper responses compared with the Vd arm, regardless of baseline renal impairment.”
These data suggest that Kd56 should be considered a “standard of care” in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, regardless of a patient’s baseline renal function.
The investigators reported multiple financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, which markets carfilzomib and supported the study.
SOURCE: Dimopoulos M et al. Blood. 2019;133(2):147-55.
Patients with renal failure and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma fared better with the selective proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib, compared with bortezomib, according to a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large clinical trial.
In addition, patients who had a complete renal response had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), regardless of treatment group.
Many aspects of the disease state and treatment can contribute to renal failure in multiple myeloma, but cast nephropathy from precipitation of monoclonal light chains certainly contributes to persistent renal failure, Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, professor and chair of clinical therapeutics at the University of Athens, Greece, and his coauthors wrote in Blood.
The investigators wanted to see how individuals with varying levels of renal function fared in the ENDEAVOR trial, which compared carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) plus dexamethasone (Kd56) with bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In an intent-to-treat population of 929 patients, 85 Kd56 and 99 Vd patients had creatinine clearance (CrCL) of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min. Of patients with mild renal failure (CrCL of at least 50 but less than 80 mL/min), 186 were in the Kd56 and 177 in the Vd group. One hundred ninety-three patients receiving Kd56 and 189 Vd patients had CrCL of 80 mL/min or greater.
For ENDEAVOR patients with the lowest CrCL, median PFS was 14.9 months with Kd56 and 6.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49). For patients with intermediate CrCL, median PFS was 18.6 versus 9.4 months with Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.48). For patients with the highest CrCL, PFS was not reached with Kd56; with Vd, median PFS was 12.2 months (HR, 0.60).
Patterns for OS mirrored the advantage seen with Kd56. Median OS was 42.1 versus 23.7 months for those with the worst renal function in the Kd56 arm and the Vd arm, respectively (HR, 0.66). Those with intermediate renal function saw median OS of 42.5 versus 32.8 months on Kd56 and Vd, respectively (HR, 0.83). Median OS for those with the highest CrCL was not reached on Kd56 and 42.3 months on Vd (HR, 0.75).
The investigators also tracked kidney function over the course of the study, with complete renal response defined as improvement of CrCL to at least 60 mL/min in any two consecutive study visits. By this yardstick, complete renal response was 15.3% for the Kd56 arm and 14.1% for those receiving Vd.
Looking across participants regardless of therapy, those with CrCL of at least 15 but less than 50 mL/min who also had complete renal response had longer PFS, compared with nonresponders (median 14.1 versus 9.4 months, HR, .805). OS also was longer in this group of patients (median 35.3 versus 29.7 months, HR, 0.91).
“Patients with complete renal response had superior overall outcomes compared with renal nonresponders across treatment groups ... highlighting the association between improved renal function and greater survival rates,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote.
Kd56 therapy was associated with a higher number of grade 3 or higher adverse events, seen in 77.1%-87.1% of Kd56 patients and 65.9%-79.4% of Vd patients.
Renal failure, common in multiple myeloma, is associated with poor prognosis. Also, therapeutic options can be limited and dosing adjustments must often be made when patients have poor renal function, Dr. Dimopoulos and his coauthors noted.
However, previous studies showed that carfilzomib clearance, exposure, and overall pharmacokinetics were similar between multiple myeloma patients with and without renal impairment, including end-stage renal disease, the investigators wrote.
The subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR suggested that “Kd56 may overcome the poor prognosis of baseline advanced renal impairment,” Dr. Dimopoulos and his colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, patients in the Kd56 arm had deeper responses compared with the Vd arm, regardless of baseline renal impairment.”
These data suggest that Kd56 should be considered a “standard of care” in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, regardless of a patient’s baseline renal function.
The investigators reported multiple financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, which markets carfilzomib and supported the study.
SOURCE: Dimopoulos M et al. Blood. 2019;133(2):147-55.
FROM BLOOD
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Median progression-free survival was better with carfilzomib for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (hazard ratios, 0.48-0.60).
Study details: Post hoc subgroup analysis of open-label randomized controlled trial of 929 patients receiving either carfilzomib or bortezomib with dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
Disclosures: The authors reported multiple financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, which markets carfilzomib and sponsored the study.
Source: Dimopoulos M et al. Blood. 2019;133(2):147-55.
Next-generation anti-BCMA CAR T shows promise for RRMM
SAN DIEGO – The next-generation anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb21217 shows encouraging efficacy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to early findings from the phase 1 CRB-402 study.
At a median follow-up of 26 weeks, an objective response was seen in 10 of 12 patients (83%) treated with bb21217 at a dose of 150 x 106 CAR+ T cells, Nina Shah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Immunomodulatory CAR T-cell therapy directed against BCMA has shown promising results for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in several phase 1 clinical studies in patients with advanced disease; bb21217 is based on the investigational therapy bb2121, said Dr. Shah, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It uses the same CAR construct design as bb2121. However, it is cultured in the presence of a pan-[phosphoinositide] 3 kinase inhibitor known as bb007 to enrich for T cells displaying a memory-like phenotype,” she said. “CAR T cells enriched with this phenotype may persist and function longer than nonenriched CAR T cells, and the persistence of functional CAR T cells after infusion may be one determinant of the duration of response.”
Preclinical data have supported this approach and CRB-402 – a first-in-human dose-ranging study – was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and duration of effect of bb21217, Dr. Shah said.
She presented only the data for the 150 x 106 cell dose.
Study subjects were adults with RRMM who had received at least three prior treatment regimens, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, and who had at least 50% expression of BCMA on the plasma cells in bone marrow samples at screening. They had a median age of 63 years, and 58% had high-risk cytogenetic features.
“Patients tended to be pretty heavily pretreated with a median number of lines of treatment of seven,” Dr. Shah said, noting that almost all patients had prior autologous stem cell transplantation, 58% had been exposed to all five available therapies for RRMM, and 17% were refractory to all five therapies.
The patients underwent collection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells via leukapheresis and underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) daily for 3 days prior to receiving the single bb21217 infusion.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in more than one patient were predominantly cytopenias, which is to be expected in a clinical trial such as this, Dr. Shah said, adding that some hypophosphatemia also occurred.
In those with cytopenias, 58% recovered their absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to greater than 1,000 by day 32, and of the remaining five patients, four of them recovered by day 65.
“Therefore, 11 out of 12 had full ANC recovery by day 65,” she said.
Thrombocytopenia was seen in half of the patients, and in those six patients, two recovered platelet counts to more than 50,000 by day 32, and two more by day 65.
Overall, 10 out of 12 patients had platelet recovery to greater than 50,000 by day 65, she said.
Other adverse events of clinical interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.
CRS was usually grade 1 or 2 and occurred in 8 of the 12 patients (67%). One grade 3 CRS event occurred.
“The median time to onset of the CRS was 4.5 days, and this was fairly manageable with or without tocilizumab,” she said.
Neurotoxicity occurred in 3 of 12 patients (25%), and a dose-limiting grade 4 encephalopathy and prolonged grade 3 CRS occurred in one patient with a high tumor burden and rapidly accelerating disease at baseline.
“Because of this, the dose level was expanded and we included patients equally who had high tumor burden and low tumor burden to further understand the contribution of this to this phenomenon. However, no other [dose-limiting toxicities] occurred,” she noted.
Additionally, one patient experienced a grade 3 catheter-related infection, but no other severe infections have been reported, Dr. Shah said, adding that four patients experienced one or more serious adverse events, but no deaths have occurred to date.
Of the 10 patients who achieved an objective response to bb21217, 3 had a complete response (CR) or stringent CR, and 6 patients achieved at least a very good partial response or better.
Some responses deepened over time, therefore some CRs were achieved as late as month 10. Responses are ongoing in all but one responding patient, and the first patient who was dosed continues to respond more than 1 year after treatment.
Of those with good minimal residual disease (MRD) samples available, four were responders, and all four were MRD negative. In contrast, both nonresponders who had tissue available for MRD analysis were MRD positive.
Correlative data show that bone marrow plasma cell clearance was observed early, by day 15, in these representative samples, Dr. Shah said.
“There was a dramatic decline in serum free light chain and serum BCMA ... in all responders by month 1. However, the M protein decline did have some delay, which we would expect based on the half-life, and this resulted in an evolving International Myeloma Working Group response over time,” she said.
Sustained serum BCMA suppression was observed up to month 9, which is likely consistent with ongoing plasma cell aplasia resulting from functional CAR T cell persistence, she explained.
An in vivo examination of the phenotype of the infused CAR T cells showed that while the numbers are small, “so far there seems to be an enrichment for memorylike T cells within the CAR T cell population in the blood post infusion – at least by looking at CD62-ligand T cells.”
There also was a robust and consistent CAR T cell expansion post infusion, which was independent of tumor burden.
“CAR T cells have been detectable up to 9 months post infusion,” she said.
However, the follow-up so far has been very short, she noted. “This action may be underrepresenting the true persistence of these T cells,” she added, explaining that there is only one patient at month 9, whereas all three at month 6 were positive for vector copy.
CRB-402 is ongoing with plans to enroll up to 50 patients. A 300 x 106 dosing cohort has been opened, and doses of 450, 800, and 1200 x 106 CAR+ T cells are planned.
“But longer-term follow-up in a larger patient population will further clarify the depth and durability of the bb21217 tumor response and dose response,” she said.
This study is sponsored by Bluebird Bio. Dr. Shah reported research funding from Bluebird Bio and equity ownership in Indapta Therapeutics, as well as research funding and consulting relationships with other companies.
SOURCE: Shah N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 488.
SAN DIEGO – The next-generation anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb21217 shows encouraging efficacy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to early findings from the phase 1 CRB-402 study.
At a median follow-up of 26 weeks, an objective response was seen in 10 of 12 patients (83%) treated with bb21217 at a dose of 150 x 106 CAR+ T cells, Nina Shah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Immunomodulatory CAR T-cell therapy directed against BCMA has shown promising results for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in several phase 1 clinical studies in patients with advanced disease; bb21217 is based on the investigational therapy bb2121, said Dr. Shah, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It uses the same CAR construct design as bb2121. However, it is cultured in the presence of a pan-[phosphoinositide] 3 kinase inhibitor known as bb007 to enrich for T cells displaying a memory-like phenotype,” she said. “CAR T cells enriched with this phenotype may persist and function longer than nonenriched CAR T cells, and the persistence of functional CAR T cells after infusion may be one determinant of the duration of response.”
Preclinical data have supported this approach and CRB-402 – a first-in-human dose-ranging study – was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and duration of effect of bb21217, Dr. Shah said.
She presented only the data for the 150 x 106 cell dose.
Study subjects were adults with RRMM who had received at least three prior treatment regimens, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, and who had at least 50% expression of BCMA on the plasma cells in bone marrow samples at screening. They had a median age of 63 years, and 58% had high-risk cytogenetic features.
“Patients tended to be pretty heavily pretreated with a median number of lines of treatment of seven,” Dr. Shah said, noting that almost all patients had prior autologous stem cell transplantation, 58% had been exposed to all five available therapies for RRMM, and 17% were refractory to all five therapies.
The patients underwent collection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells via leukapheresis and underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) daily for 3 days prior to receiving the single bb21217 infusion.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in more than one patient were predominantly cytopenias, which is to be expected in a clinical trial such as this, Dr. Shah said, adding that some hypophosphatemia also occurred.
In those with cytopenias, 58% recovered their absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to greater than 1,000 by day 32, and of the remaining five patients, four of them recovered by day 65.
“Therefore, 11 out of 12 had full ANC recovery by day 65,” she said.
Thrombocytopenia was seen in half of the patients, and in those six patients, two recovered platelet counts to more than 50,000 by day 32, and two more by day 65.
Overall, 10 out of 12 patients had platelet recovery to greater than 50,000 by day 65, she said.
Other adverse events of clinical interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.
CRS was usually grade 1 or 2 and occurred in 8 of the 12 patients (67%). One grade 3 CRS event occurred.
“The median time to onset of the CRS was 4.5 days, and this was fairly manageable with or without tocilizumab,” she said.
Neurotoxicity occurred in 3 of 12 patients (25%), and a dose-limiting grade 4 encephalopathy and prolonged grade 3 CRS occurred in one patient with a high tumor burden and rapidly accelerating disease at baseline.
“Because of this, the dose level was expanded and we included patients equally who had high tumor burden and low tumor burden to further understand the contribution of this to this phenomenon. However, no other [dose-limiting toxicities] occurred,” she noted.
Additionally, one patient experienced a grade 3 catheter-related infection, but no other severe infections have been reported, Dr. Shah said, adding that four patients experienced one or more serious adverse events, but no deaths have occurred to date.
Of the 10 patients who achieved an objective response to bb21217, 3 had a complete response (CR) or stringent CR, and 6 patients achieved at least a very good partial response or better.
Some responses deepened over time, therefore some CRs were achieved as late as month 10. Responses are ongoing in all but one responding patient, and the first patient who was dosed continues to respond more than 1 year after treatment.
Of those with good minimal residual disease (MRD) samples available, four were responders, and all four were MRD negative. In contrast, both nonresponders who had tissue available for MRD analysis were MRD positive.
Correlative data show that bone marrow plasma cell clearance was observed early, by day 15, in these representative samples, Dr. Shah said.
“There was a dramatic decline in serum free light chain and serum BCMA ... in all responders by month 1. However, the M protein decline did have some delay, which we would expect based on the half-life, and this resulted in an evolving International Myeloma Working Group response over time,” she said.
Sustained serum BCMA suppression was observed up to month 9, which is likely consistent with ongoing plasma cell aplasia resulting from functional CAR T cell persistence, she explained.
An in vivo examination of the phenotype of the infused CAR T cells showed that while the numbers are small, “so far there seems to be an enrichment for memorylike T cells within the CAR T cell population in the blood post infusion – at least by looking at CD62-ligand T cells.”
There also was a robust and consistent CAR T cell expansion post infusion, which was independent of tumor burden.
“CAR T cells have been detectable up to 9 months post infusion,” she said.
However, the follow-up so far has been very short, she noted. “This action may be underrepresenting the true persistence of these T cells,” she added, explaining that there is only one patient at month 9, whereas all three at month 6 were positive for vector copy.
CRB-402 is ongoing with plans to enroll up to 50 patients. A 300 x 106 dosing cohort has been opened, and doses of 450, 800, and 1200 x 106 CAR+ T cells are planned.
“But longer-term follow-up in a larger patient population will further clarify the depth and durability of the bb21217 tumor response and dose response,” she said.
This study is sponsored by Bluebird Bio. Dr. Shah reported research funding from Bluebird Bio and equity ownership in Indapta Therapeutics, as well as research funding and consulting relationships with other companies.
SOURCE: Shah N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 488.
SAN DIEGO – The next-generation anti–B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb21217 shows encouraging efficacy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to early findings from the phase 1 CRB-402 study.
At a median follow-up of 26 weeks, an objective response was seen in 10 of 12 patients (83%) treated with bb21217 at a dose of 150 x 106 CAR+ T cells, Nina Shah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Immunomodulatory CAR T-cell therapy directed against BCMA has shown promising results for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in several phase 1 clinical studies in patients with advanced disease; bb21217 is based on the investigational therapy bb2121, said Dr. Shah, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It uses the same CAR construct design as bb2121. However, it is cultured in the presence of a pan-[phosphoinositide] 3 kinase inhibitor known as bb007 to enrich for T cells displaying a memory-like phenotype,” she said. “CAR T cells enriched with this phenotype may persist and function longer than nonenriched CAR T cells, and the persistence of functional CAR T cells after infusion may be one determinant of the duration of response.”
Preclinical data have supported this approach and CRB-402 – a first-in-human dose-ranging study – was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and duration of effect of bb21217, Dr. Shah said.
She presented only the data for the 150 x 106 cell dose.
Study subjects were adults with RRMM who had received at least three prior treatment regimens, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, and who had at least 50% expression of BCMA on the plasma cells in bone marrow samples at screening. They had a median age of 63 years, and 58% had high-risk cytogenetic features.
“Patients tended to be pretty heavily pretreated with a median number of lines of treatment of seven,” Dr. Shah said, noting that almost all patients had prior autologous stem cell transplantation, 58% had been exposed to all five available therapies for RRMM, and 17% were refractory to all five therapies.
The patients underwent collection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells via leukapheresis and underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) daily for 3 days prior to receiving the single bb21217 infusion.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in more than one patient were predominantly cytopenias, which is to be expected in a clinical trial such as this, Dr. Shah said, adding that some hypophosphatemia also occurred.
In those with cytopenias, 58% recovered their absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to greater than 1,000 by day 32, and of the remaining five patients, four of them recovered by day 65.
“Therefore, 11 out of 12 had full ANC recovery by day 65,” she said.
Thrombocytopenia was seen in half of the patients, and in those six patients, two recovered platelet counts to more than 50,000 by day 32, and two more by day 65.
Overall, 10 out of 12 patients had platelet recovery to greater than 50,000 by day 65, she said.
Other adverse events of clinical interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.
CRS was usually grade 1 or 2 and occurred in 8 of the 12 patients (67%). One grade 3 CRS event occurred.
“The median time to onset of the CRS was 4.5 days, and this was fairly manageable with or without tocilizumab,” she said.
Neurotoxicity occurred in 3 of 12 patients (25%), and a dose-limiting grade 4 encephalopathy and prolonged grade 3 CRS occurred in one patient with a high tumor burden and rapidly accelerating disease at baseline.
“Because of this, the dose level was expanded and we included patients equally who had high tumor burden and low tumor burden to further understand the contribution of this to this phenomenon. However, no other [dose-limiting toxicities] occurred,” she noted.
Additionally, one patient experienced a grade 3 catheter-related infection, but no other severe infections have been reported, Dr. Shah said, adding that four patients experienced one or more serious adverse events, but no deaths have occurred to date.
Of the 10 patients who achieved an objective response to bb21217, 3 had a complete response (CR) or stringent CR, and 6 patients achieved at least a very good partial response or better.
Some responses deepened over time, therefore some CRs were achieved as late as month 10. Responses are ongoing in all but one responding patient, and the first patient who was dosed continues to respond more than 1 year after treatment.
Of those with good minimal residual disease (MRD) samples available, four were responders, and all four were MRD negative. In contrast, both nonresponders who had tissue available for MRD analysis were MRD positive.
Correlative data show that bone marrow plasma cell clearance was observed early, by day 15, in these representative samples, Dr. Shah said.
“There was a dramatic decline in serum free light chain and serum BCMA ... in all responders by month 1. However, the M protein decline did have some delay, which we would expect based on the half-life, and this resulted in an evolving International Myeloma Working Group response over time,” she said.
Sustained serum BCMA suppression was observed up to month 9, which is likely consistent with ongoing plasma cell aplasia resulting from functional CAR T cell persistence, she explained.
An in vivo examination of the phenotype of the infused CAR T cells showed that while the numbers are small, “so far there seems to be an enrichment for memorylike T cells within the CAR T cell population in the blood post infusion – at least by looking at CD62-ligand T cells.”
There also was a robust and consistent CAR T cell expansion post infusion, which was independent of tumor burden.
“CAR T cells have been detectable up to 9 months post infusion,” she said.
However, the follow-up so far has been very short, she noted. “This action may be underrepresenting the true persistence of these T cells,” she added, explaining that there is only one patient at month 9, whereas all three at month 6 were positive for vector copy.
CRB-402 is ongoing with plans to enroll up to 50 patients. A 300 x 106 dosing cohort has been opened, and doses of 450, 800, and 1200 x 106 CAR+ T cells are planned.
“But longer-term follow-up in a larger patient population will further clarify the depth and durability of the bb21217 tumor response and dose response,” she said.
This study is sponsored by Bluebird Bio. Dr. Shah reported research funding from Bluebird Bio and equity ownership in Indapta Therapeutics, as well as research funding and consulting relationships with other companies.
SOURCE: Shah N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 488.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Objective response rate was 83% in the first 12 treated patients.
Study details: The CRB-402 phase 1 dose-escalation of 12 patients (up to 50 planned).
Disclosures: This study is sponsored by Bluebird Bio. Dr. Shah reported research funding from Bluebird Bio and equity ownership in Indapta Therapeutics, as well as research funding and consulting relationships with other companies.
Source: Shah N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 488.
Group proposes new grading systems for CRS, neurotoxicity
A group of experts has proposed new consensus definitions and grading systems for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity related to immune effector cell therapies.
The group hopes their recommendations will be widely accepted and used in both trials and the clinical setting.
The recommendations were devised by 49 experts at a meeting supported by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), compiled by a writing group, and reviewed by stakeholders.
Daniel W. Lee, MD, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, and his colleagues described the ASBMT consensus definitions and grading systems in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
CRS
The ASBMT consensus definition for CRS is “a supraphysiologic response following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
To be diagnosed with CRS, a patient must have a fever and may have the following symptoms:
- Hypotension
- Capillary leak (hypoxia)
- End organ dysfunction.
The ASBMT consensus for grading CRS is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a fever, defined as a temperature of 38.0°C or higher
- Grade 2—Patient has a fever, hypotension that doesn’t require vasopressors, and/or hypoxia that requires oxygen delivered by low-flow nasal cannula (≤6 L/min) or blow-by
- Grade 3—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring one vasopressor (with or without vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) that requires high-flow nasal cannula (>6 L/min), facemask, non-rebreather mask, or venturi mask
- Grade 4—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring multiple vasopressors (excluding vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) requiring positive-pressure ventilation
- Grade 5—Death due to CRS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Typically, severe CRS can be considered resolved if “fever, oxygen, and pressor requirements have resolved,” Dr. Lee and his coauthors said.
The authors also stressed that neurotoxicity that occurs with or after CRS “does not inform the grade of CRS but is instead captured separately in the neurotoxicity scale.”
Neurotoxicity
Dr. Lee and his coauthors said neurotoxicity in this setting is called “immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).”
The ASBMT consensus definition for ICANs is “a disorder characterized by a pathologic process involving the central nervous system following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
Symptoms of ICANS may include:
- Aphasia
- Altered level of consciousness
- Impairment of cognitive skills
- Motor weakness
- Seizures
- Cerebral edema.
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in adults and children age 12 and older is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a score of 7-9 on the 10-point immune effector cell-associated encephalopathy (ICE) assessment and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a score of 3-6 on the ICE assessment and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a score of 0-2 on the ICE assessment, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform the ICE assessment, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors noted that the ICE assessment is not suitable for children younger than 12. For these patients (and older patients with baseline developmental delays), ICANS can be assessed using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD).
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in children younger than 12 (or older patients with developmental delays) is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a CAPD score of 9 or higher, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, and/or has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform CAPD, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors reported relationships with a range of companies.
A group of experts has proposed new consensus definitions and grading systems for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity related to immune effector cell therapies.
The group hopes their recommendations will be widely accepted and used in both trials and the clinical setting.
The recommendations were devised by 49 experts at a meeting supported by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), compiled by a writing group, and reviewed by stakeholders.
Daniel W. Lee, MD, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, and his colleagues described the ASBMT consensus definitions and grading systems in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
CRS
The ASBMT consensus definition for CRS is “a supraphysiologic response following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
To be diagnosed with CRS, a patient must have a fever and may have the following symptoms:
- Hypotension
- Capillary leak (hypoxia)
- End organ dysfunction.
The ASBMT consensus for grading CRS is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a fever, defined as a temperature of 38.0°C or higher
- Grade 2—Patient has a fever, hypotension that doesn’t require vasopressors, and/or hypoxia that requires oxygen delivered by low-flow nasal cannula (≤6 L/min) or blow-by
- Grade 3—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring one vasopressor (with or without vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) that requires high-flow nasal cannula (>6 L/min), facemask, non-rebreather mask, or venturi mask
- Grade 4—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring multiple vasopressors (excluding vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) requiring positive-pressure ventilation
- Grade 5—Death due to CRS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Typically, severe CRS can be considered resolved if “fever, oxygen, and pressor requirements have resolved,” Dr. Lee and his coauthors said.
The authors also stressed that neurotoxicity that occurs with or after CRS “does not inform the grade of CRS but is instead captured separately in the neurotoxicity scale.”
Neurotoxicity
Dr. Lee and his coauthors said neurotoxicity in this setting is called “immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).”
The ASBMT consensus definition for ICANs is “a disorder characterized by a pathologic process involving the central nervous system following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
Symptoms of ICANS may include:
- Aphasia
- Altered level of consciousness
- Impairment of cognitive skills
- Motor weakness
- Seizures
- Cerebral edema.
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in adults and children age 12 and older is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a score of 7-9 on the 10-point immune effector cell-associated encephalopathy (ICE) assessment and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a score of 3-6 on the ICE assessment and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a score of 0-2 on the ICE assessment, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform the ICE assessment, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors noted that the ICE assessment is not suitable for children younger than 12. For these patients (and older patients with baseline developmental delays), ICANS can be assessed using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD).
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in children younger than 12 (or older patients with developmental delays) is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a CAPD score of 9 or higher, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, and/or has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform CAPD, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors reported relationships with a range of companies.
A group of experts has proposed new consensus definitions and grading systems for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity related to immune effector cell therapies.
The group hopes their recommendations will be widely accepted and used in both trials and the clinical setting.
The recommendations were devised by 49 experts at a meeting supported by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), compiled by a writing group, and reviewed by stakeholders.
Daniel W. Lee, MD, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, and his colleagues described the ASBMT consensus definitions and grading systems in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
CRS
The ASBMT consensus definition for CRS is “a supraphysiologic response following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
To be diagnosed with CRS, a patient must have a fever and may have the following symptoms:
- Hypotension
- Capillary leak (hypoxia)
- End organ dysfunction.
The ASBMT consensus for grading CRS is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a fever, defined as a temperature of 38.0°C or higher
- Grade 2—Patient has a fever, hypotension that doesn’t require vasopressors, and/or hypoxia that requires oxygen delivered by low-flow nasal cannula (≤6 L/min) or blow-by
- Grade 3—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring one vasopressor (with or without vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) that requires high-flow nasal cannula (>6 L/min), facemask, non-rebreather mask, or venturi mask
- Grade 4—Patient has a fever, hypotension requiring multiple vasopressors (excluding vasopressin), and/or hypoxia (not attributable to any other cause) requiring positive-pressure ventilation
- Grade 5—Death due to CRS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Typically, severe CRS can be considered resolved if “fever, oxygen, and pressor requirements have resolved,” Dr. Lee and his coauthors said.
The authors also stressed that neurotoxicity that occurs with or after CRS “does not inform the grade of CRS but is instead captured separately in the neurotoxicity scale.”
Neurotoxicity
Dr. Lee and his coauthors said neurotoxicity in this setting is called “immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).”
The ASBMT consensus definition for ICANs is “a disorder characterized by a pathologic process involving the central nervous system following any immune therapy that results in the activation or engagement of endogenous or infused T cells and/or other immune effector cells.”
Symptoms of ICANS may include:
- Aphasia
- Altered level of consciousness
- Impairment of cognitive skills
- Motor weakness
- Seizures
- Cerebral edema.
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in adults and children age 12 and older is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a score of 7-9 on the 10-point immune effector cell-associated encephalopathy (ICE) assessment and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a score of 3-6 on the ICE assessment and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a score of 0-2 on the ICE assessment, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform the ICE assessment, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors noted that the ICE assessment is not suitable for children younger than 12. For these patients (and older patients with baseline developmental delays), ICANS can be assessed using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD).
The ASBMT consensus for grading ICANS in children younger than 12 (or older patients with developmental delays) is as follows:
- Grade 1—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and awakens spontaneously
- Grade 2—Patient has a CAPD score lower than 9 and will awaken to the sound of a voice
- Grade 3—Patient has a CAPD score of 9 or higher, awakens only to tactile stimulus, has any clinical seizure that resolves rapidly or non-convulsive seizures that resolve with intervention, and/or has focal/local edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 4—Patient is unable to perform CAPD, is unarousable or requires “vigorous stimuli” to be aroused, has life-threatening seizure (lasting more than 5 minutes) or repetitive clinical or electrical seizures without return to baseline in between, has deep focal motor weakness, and/or has decerebrate or decorticate posturing, cranial nerve VI palsy, papilledema, Cushing’s triad, or signs of diffuse cerebral edema on neuroimaging
- Grade 5—Death due to ICANS when there is no other “principle factor” leading to death.
Dr. Lee and his coauthors reported relationships with a range of companies.
EC approves split dosing regimen for daratumumab
The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for a split dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex®).
The approval provides healthcare professionals with the option to split the first infusion of daratumumab over 2 consecutive days.
“We are hopeful that the availability of this more flexible dosing option will make the first infusion of Darzalex more convenient for European multiple myeloma patients,” said Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, which licensed daratumumab to Janssen Biotech, Inc.
Daratumumab is currently EC-approved for the following indications:
- For use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant
- For use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy
- As monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
The EC’s approval of a split dosing regimen for daratumumab was based on data from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial (MMY1001, NCT01998971), which was sponsored by Janssen.
This trial was designed to evaluate daratumumab in combination with bortezomib-dexamethasone, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone, pomalidomide-dexamethasone, carfilzomib-dexamethasone, and carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone.
At the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1970), researchers presented data from this trial in MM patients who received their first 16 mg/kg daratumumab dose as a split dose of 8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1 and 8 mg/kg on day 2 of cycle 1, compared to patients who received the full 16 mg/kg dose on day 1 of cycle 1.
The researchers said they observed “virtually identical” pharmacokinetics between the dosing groups.
Cmax on the first day of cycle 1 was lower in the split-dose group than in the full-dose group. However, after patients in the split-dose group received the second 8 mg/kg dose on day 2, concentrations were similar between the groups.
The researchers said they do not expect the initial difference they observed to have any impact on clinical outcomes.
The team also pointed out that there was no increase in infusion-related reactions among patients who received the split dose.
The researchers said split dosing of daratumumab is still being investigated in ongoing studies of MM patients, including CANDOR (NCT03158688) and LYRA (NCT02951819).
The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for a split dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex®).
The approval provides healthcare professionals with the option to split the first infusion of daratumumab over 2 consecutive days.
“We are hopeful that the availability of this more flexible dosing option will make the first infusion of Darzalex more convenient for European multiple myeloma patients,” said Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, which licensed daratumumab to Janssen Biotech, Inc.
Daratumumab is currently EC-approved for the following indications:
- For use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant
- For use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy
- As monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
The EC’s approval of a split dosing regimen for daratumumab was based on data from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial (MMY1001, NCT01998971), which was sponsored by Janssen.
This trial was designed to evaluate daratumumab in combination with bortezomib-dexamethasone, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone, pomalidomide-dexamethasone, carfilzomib-dexamethasone, and carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone.
At the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1970), researchers presented data from this trial in MM patients who received their first 16 mg/kg daratumumab dose as a split dose of 8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1 and 8 mg/kg on day 2 of cycle 1, compared to patients who received the full 16 mg/kg dose on day 1 of cycle 1.
The researchers said they observed “virtually identical” pharmacokinetics between the dosing groups.
Cmax on the first day of cycle 1 was lower in the split-dose group than in the full-dose group. However, after patients in the split-dose group received the second 8 mg/kg dose on day 2, concentrations were similar between the groups.
The researchers said they do not expect the initial difference they observed to have any impact on clinical outcomes.
The team also pointed out that there was no increase in infusion-related reactions among patients who received the split dose.
The researchers said split dosing of daratumumab is still being investigated in ongoing studies of MM patients, including CANDOR (NCT03158688) and LYRA (NCT02951819).
The European Commission (EC) has granted marketing authorization for a split dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex®).
The approval provides healthcare professionals with the option to split the first infusion of daratumumab over 2 consecutive days.
“We are hopeful that the availability of this more flexible dosing option will make the first infusion of Darzalex more convenient for European multiple myeloma patients,” said Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, which licensed daratumumab to Janssen Biotech, Inc.
Daratumumab is currently EC-approved for the following indications:
- For use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant
- For use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy
- As monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
The EC’s approval of a split dosing regimen for daratumumab was based on data from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial (MMY1001, NCT01998971), which was sponsored by Janssen.
This trial was designed to evaluate daratumumab in combination with bortezomib-dexamethasone, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone, pomalidomide-dexamethasone, carfilzomib-dexamethasone, and carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone.
At the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1970), researchers presented data from this trial in MM patients who received their first 16 mg/kg daratumumab dose as a split dose of 8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1 and 8 mg/kg on day 2 of cycle 1, compared to patients who received the full 16 mg/kg dose on day 1 of cycle 1.
The researchers said they observed “virtually identical” pharmacokinetics between the dosing groups.
Cmax on the first day of cycle 1 was lower in the split-dose group than in the full-dose group. However, after patients in the split-dose group received the second 8 mg/kg dose on day 2, concentrations were similar between the groups.
The researchers said they do not expect the initial difference they observed to have any impact on clinical outcomes.
The team also pointed out that there was no increase in infusion-related reactions among patients who received the split dose.
The researchers said split dosing of daratumumab is still being investigated in ongoing studies of MM patients, including CANDOR (NCT03158688) and LYRA (NCT02951819).