Multiple Myeloma

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A review of data from more than 19 million people indicates that diabetes significantly raises a person’s risk of developing cancer.

When researchers compared patients with diabetes and without, both male and female diabetics had an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas as well as certain solid tumors.

Researchers also found that diabetes conferred a higher cancer risk for women than men, both for all cancers combined and for some specific cancers, including leukemia.

“The link between diabetes and the risk of developing cancer is now firmly established,” said Toshiaki Ohkuma, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“We have also demonstrated, for the first time, that women with diabetes are more likely to develop any form of cancer and have a significantly higher chance of developing kidney, oral, and stomach cancers and leukemia.”

Dr Ohkuma and his colleagues reported these findings in Diabetologia.

The researchers conducted a systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE to identify reports on the links between diabetes and cancer. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of the relevant studies.

Only those cohort studies providing relative risks (RRs) for the association between diabetes and cancer for both women and men were included. In total, 107 relevant articles were identified, along with 36 cohorts of individual participant data.

RRs for cancer were obtained for patients with diabetes (types 1 and 2 combined) versus those without diabetes, for both men and women. The women-to-men ratios of these relative risk ratios (RRRs) were then calculated to determine the excess risk in women if present.

Data on all-site cancer was available from 47 studies, involving 121 cohorts and 19,239,302 individuals.

Diabetics vs non-diabetics

Women with diabetes had a 27% higher risk of all-site cancer compared to women without diabetes (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.21, 1.32; P<0.001).

For men, the risk of all-site cancer was 19% higher among those with diabetes than those without (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.13, 1.25; P<0.001).

There were several hematologic malignancies for which diabetics had an increased risk, as shown in the following table.

Sex comparison

Calculation of the women-to-men ratio revealed that women with diabetes had a 6% greater excess risk of all-site cancer compared to men with diabetes (RRR=1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.09; P<0.001).

The women-to-men ratios also showed significantly higher risks for female diabetics for:

• Kidney cancer—RRR=1.11 (99% CI 1.04, 1.18; P<0.001)
• Oral cancer—RRR=1.13 (99% CI 1.00, 1.28; P=0.009)
• Stomach cancer—RRR=1.14 (99% CI 1.07, 1.22; P<0.001)
• Leukemia—RRR=1.15 (99% CI 1.02, 1.28; P=0.002).

However, women had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer (RRR=0.88; 99% CI 0.79, 0.99; P=0.005).

There are several possible reasons for the excess cancer risk observed in women, according to study author Sanne Peters, PhD, of The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford in the UK.

For example, on average, women are in the pre-diabetic state of impaired glucose tolerance 2 years longer than men.

“Historically, we know that women are often under-treated when they first present with symptoms of diabetes, are less likely to receive intensive care, and are not taking the same levels of medications as men,” Dr Peters said. “All of these could go some way into explaining why women are at greater risk of developing cancer, but, without more research, we can’t be certain.”

STOCKHOLM –Adding the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone nearly doubled the overall response rate and median progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone, results of the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a minimum follow-up of 9.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for 60 patients assigned to receive elotuzumab (Empliciti), pomalidomide (Pomalyst), and dexamethasone (EPd) was 10.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for 60 patients assigned to pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (P = .0078) favoring EPd, reported Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece).

“The study met its primary endpoint, which was specifically designed to detect a large treatment effect in a relatively small sample of patients. Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Elotuzumab is an immunoglobulin G (IgG) monoclonal antibody that targets signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) expressed on multiple myeloma cells. Pomalidomide, an immunomodulator, may act synergistically with elotuzumab through several different mechanisms to increase killing of multiple myeloma cells, Dr. Dimopoulos said.

In ELOQUENT-3, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after 2 or more prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide (Revlimid) and a proteasome inhibitor and no prior pomalidomide were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either pomalidomide 4 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg equivalent weekly, or to the same regimen plus intravenous elotuzumab 10 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for cycle 3 and subsequent cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, with a 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death with EPd compared with Pd.

An analysis of PFS by subgroups showed that EPd was significantly superior to Pd for patients younger than 65 years, those with International Staging System stage I-II at study entry, patients with lactate dehydrogenase levels below 300 IU/L at baseline, patients who had two or three prior lines of therapy vs. four or more, and those who had disease that was refractory to both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

EPd was also associated with a trend toward better PFS in an analysis combining patients with high-risk cytogenetics (deletion 17p or translocation 14;16) or high LDH levels, with a median of 7.7 months compared with 3.6 months for Pd. However, the HR, 0.55, was not statistically significant, likely because of the small sample size.

Similarly, the elotuzumab-containing combination showed a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS among patients without high risk disease, with a median PFS not reached, vs. not reached, vs. 4.7 months for patients treated with Pd.

The overall response rate with EPd was 53%, compared with 26% for Pd (odds ratio 3.5, P = .0029). The responses in the elotuzumab arm consisted of 8% complete response, 12% very good partial responses, and 33% partial responses. The respective rates in the Pd group were 2%, 7%, and 18%.

The median duration of response with EPd was not reached at the time of the database lock, compared with 8.3 months with Pd.

A preliminary analysis of overall survival showed a trend favoring EPd (13 deaths out to 22 months of follow-up, compared with 18 deaths out to 20 months in the Pd arm; HR 0.62, nonsignificant).

There were five treatment-related deaths in the EPd arm, and eight in the Pd arm. Grade 1 or 2 infusion reactions occurred in three patients in the EPd arm.

Other adverse events were comparable between the arms, with 57% of patients in the EPd arm and 60% in the Pd arm having at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event.

“The hematologic toxicity was driven by pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. For unclear reasons, there was less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia with the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide/dexamethasone, and also the infection rate was lower in the EPd arm,” Dr. Dimopoulos said.
 

SOURCE: Dimopoulos MA et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2606.

STOCKHOLM –Adding the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone nearly doubled the overall response rate and median progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone, results of the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a minimum follow-up of 9.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for 60 patients assigned to receive elotuzumab (Empliciti), pomalidomide (Pomalyst), and dexamethasone (EPd) was 10.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for 60 patients assigned to pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (P = .0078) favoring EPd, reported Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece).

“The study met its primary endpoint, which was specifically designed to detect a large treatment effect in a relatively small sample of patients. Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Elotuzumab is an immunoglobulin G (IgG) monoclonal antibody that targets signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) expressed on multiple myeloma cells. Pomalidomide, an immunomodulator, may act synergistically with elotuzumab through several different mechanisms to increase killing of multiple myeloma cells, Dr. Dimopoulos said.

In ELOQUENT-3, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after 2 or more prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide (Revlimid) and a proteasome inhibitor and no prior pomalidomide were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either pomalidomide 4 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg equivalent weekly, or to the same regimen plus intravenous elotuzumab 10 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for cycle 3 and subsequent cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, with a 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death with EPd compared with Pd.

An analysis of PFS by subgroups showed that EPd was significantly superior to Pd for patients younger than 65 years, those with International Staging System stage I-II at study entry, patients with lactate dehydrogenase levels below 300 IU/L at baseline, patients who had two or three prior lines of therapy vs. four or more, and those who had disease that was refractory to both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

EPd was also associated with a trend toward better PFS in an analysis combining patients with high-risk cytogenetics (deletion 17p or translocation 14;16) or high LDH levels, with a median of 7.7 months compared with 3.6 months for Pd. However, the HR, 0.55, was not statistically significant, likely because of the small sample size.

Similarly, the elotuzumab-containing combination showed a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS among patients without high risk disease, with a median PFS not reached, vs. not reached, vs. 4.7 months for patients treated with Pd.

The overall response rate with EPd was 53%, compared with 26% for Pd (odds ratio 3.5, P = .0029). The responses in the elotuzumab arm consisted of 8% complete response, 12% very good partial responses, and 33% partial responses. The respective rates in the Pd group were 2%, 7%, and 18%.

The median duration of response with EPd was not reached at the time of the database lock, compared with 8.3 months with Pd.

A preliminary analysis of overall survival showed a trend favoring EPd (13 deaths out to 22 months of follow-up, compared with 18 deaths out to 20 months in the Pd arm; HR 0.62, nonsignificant).

There were five treatment-related deaths in the EPd arm, and eight in the Pd arm. Grade 1 or 2 infusion reactions occurred in three patients in the EPd arm.

Other adverse events were comparable between the arms, with 57% of patients in the EPd arm and 60% in the Pd arm having at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event.

“The hematologic toxicity was driven by pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. For unclear reasons, there was less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia with the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide/dexamethasone, and also the infection rate was lower in the EPd arm,” Dr. Dimopoulos said.
 

SOURCE: Dimopoulos MA et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2606.

STOCKHOLM –Adding the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone nearly doubled the overall response rate and median progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone, results of the phase 2 ELOQUENT-3 trial showed.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

After a minimum follow-up of 9.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for 60 patients assigned to receive elotuzumab (Empliciti), pomalidomide (Pomalyst), and dexamethasone (EPd) was 10.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for 60 patients assigned to pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (P = .0078) favoring EPd, reported Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece).

“The study met its primary endpoint, which was specifically designed to detect a large treatment effect in a relatively small sample of patients. Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” he said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Elotuzumab is an immunoglobulin G (IgG) monoclonal antibody that targets signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) expressed on multiple myeloma cells. Pomalidomide, an immunomodulator, may act synergistically with elotuzumab through several different mechanisms to increase killing of multiple myeloma cells, Dr. Dimopoulos said.

In ELOQUENT-3, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after 2 or more prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide (Revlimid) and a proteasome inhibitor and no prior pomalidomide were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either pomalidomide 4 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg equivalent weekly, or to the same regimen plus intravenous elotuzumab 10 mg/kg weekly for cycles 1 and 2, and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for cycle 3 and subsequent cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, with a 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death with EPd compared with Pd.

An analysis of PFS by subgroups showed that EPd was significantly superior to Pd for patients younger than 65 years, those with International Staging System stage I-II at study entry, patients with lactate dehydrogenase levels below 300 IU/L at baseline, patients who had two or three prior lines of therapy vs. four or more, and those who had disease that was refractory to both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

EPd was also associated with a trend toward better PFS in an analysis combining patients with high-risk cytogenetics (deletion 17p or translocation 14;16) or high LDH levels, with a median of 7.7 months compared with 3.6 months for Pd. However, the HR, 0.55, was not statistically significant, likely because of the small sample size.

Similarly, the elotuzumab-containing combination showed a nonsignificant trend toward better PFS among patients without high risk disease, with a median PFS not reached, vs. not reached, vs. 4.7 months for patients treated with Pd.

The overall response rate with EPd was 53%, compared with 26% for Pd (odds ratio 3.5, P = .0029). The responses in the elotuzumab arm consisted of 8% complete response, 12% very good partial responses, and 33% partial responses. The respective rates in the Pd group were 2%, 7%, and 18%.

The median duration of response with EPd was not reached at the time of the database lock, compared with 8.3 months with Pd.

A preliminary analysis of overall survival showed a trend favoring EPd (13 deaths out to 22 months of follow-up, compared with 18 deaths out to 20 months in the Pd arm; HR 0.62, nonsignificant).

There were five treatment-related deaths in the EPd arm, and eight in the Pd arm. Grade 1 or 2 infusion reactions occurred in three patients in the EPd arm.

Other adverse events were comparable between the arms, with 57% of patients in the EPd arm and 60% in the Pd arm having at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event.

“The hematologic toxicity was driven by pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. For unclear reasons, there was less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia with the addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide/dexamethasone, and also the infection rate was lower in the EPd arm,” Dr. Dimopoulos said.
 

SOURCE: Dimopoulos MA et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2606.

Augusta University

Researchers are questioning the clinical usefulness of the serum free light chain assay (SFLCA) for patients with monoclonal gammopathies.

The investigators found evidence suggesting that, about 25% of the time, SFLCA provides a negative κ/λ ratio in patients with lambda chain monoclonal gammopathies who have free homogenous lambda light chains detectable in their urine.

“If you have a lambda chain-associated lesion and you don’t do a urine study—just rely on the serum free light chain assay—about 1 out of 4 times, the assay will tell you that you don’t have anything when you actually do,” explained Won Sok Lee, MD, of the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University.

“When you test the serum, we suggest you also test the urine whenever you suspect that somebody has a tumor of the plasma cells,” said Gurmukh Singh, MD, PhD, also of the Medical College of Georgia.

Drs Singh and Lee made this recommendation and detailed the supporting research in the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research.

The researchers evaluated results of serum and urine tests in 175 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), or multiple/plasma cell myeloma (MM).

In addition to results of SFLCA, the investigators looked at results of serum protein electrophoresis, serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis, urine protein electrophoresis, and urine protein immunofixation electrophoresis.

This analysis revealed “systematic under-detection” of serum free lambda light chains by SFLCA as well as an under-detection of the lambda-dominant ratio.

The researchers integrated the results of this study with findings from an earlier study* and concluded that, as compared to kappa chain lesions:

• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MGUS is 29%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MM is 32%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in all neoplastic monoclonal gammopathies (MGUS, MM, and SMM) is approximately 30%.

The investigators said they believe that 5% of the 30% false-negative rate is a result of under-production of excess free lambda light chains, and about 25% could be due to under-detection of monoclonal lambda light chains by SFLCA.

“[A patient] may go undiagnosed because the serum free light chain test either is not picking up those abnormal proteins or the lambda lesions don’t make that many excess abnormal proteins,” Dr Singh said.

However, Drs Singh and Lee also said it’s possible that unknown factors, such as general over-production of polyclonal kappa light chains in tertiary care patients, may alter the κ/λ ratio.

*Singh, G. Serum Free Light Chain Assay and κ/λ Ratio: Performance in Patients With Monoclonal Gammopathy-High False Negative Rate for κ/λ Ratio. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jan; 9(1): 46–57.

Augusta University

Researchers are questioning the clinical usefulness of the serum free light chain assay (SFLCA) for patients with monoclonal gammopathies.

The investigators found evidence suggesting that, about 25% of the time, SFLCA provides a negative κ/λ ratio in patients with lambda chain monoclonal gammopathies who have free homogenous lambda light chains detectable in their urine.

“If you have a lambda chain-associated lesion and you don’t do a urine study—just rely on the serum free light chain assay—about 1 out of 4 times, the assay will tell you that you don’t have anything when you actually do,” explained Won Sok Lee, MD, of the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University.

“When you test the serum, we suggest you also test the urine whenever you suspect that somebody has a tumor of the plasma cells,” said Gurmukh Singh, MD, PhD, also of the Medical College of Georgia.

Drs Singh and Lee made this recommendation and detailed the supporting research in the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research.

The researchers evaluated results of serum and urine tests in 175 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), or multiple/plasma cell myeloma (MM).

In addition to results of SFLCA, the investigators looked at results of serum protein electrophoresis, serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis, urine protein electrophoresis, and urine protein immunofixation electrophoresis.

This analysis revealed “systematic under-detection” of serum free lambda light chains by SFLCA as well as an under-detection of the lambda-dominant ratio.

The researchers integrated the results of this study with findings from an earlier study* and concluded that, as compared to kappa chain lesions:

• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MGUS is 29%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MM is 32%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in all neoplastic monoclonal gammopathies (MGUS, MM, and SMM) is approximately 30%.

The investigators said they believe that 5% of the 30% false-negative rate is a result of under-production of excess free lambda light chains, and about 25% could be due to under-detection of monoclonal lambda light chains by SFLCA.

“[A patient] may go undiagnosed because the serum free light chain test either is not picking up those abnormal proteins or the lambda lesions don’t make that many excess abnormal proteins,” Dr Singh said.

However, Drs Singh and Lee also said it’s possible that unknown factors, such as general over-production of polyclonal kappa light chains in tertiary care patients, may alter the κ/λ ratio.

*Singh, G. Serum Free Light Chain Assay and κ/λ Ratio: Performance in Patients With Monoclonal Gammopathy-High False Negative Rate for κ/λ Ratio. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jan; 9(1): 46–57.

Augusta University

Researchers are questioning the clinical usefulness of the serum free light chain assay (SFLCA) for patients with monoclonal gammopathies.

The investigators found evidence suggesting that, about 25% of the time, SFLCA provides a negative κ/λ ratio in patients with lambda chain monoclonal gammopathies who have free homogenous lambda light chains detectable in their urine.

“If you have a lambda chain-associated lesion and you don’t do a urine study—just rely on the serum free light chain assay—about 1 out of 4 times, the assay will tell you that you don’t have anything when you actually do,” explained Won Sok Lee, MD, of the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University.

“When you test the serum, we suggest you also test the urine whenever you suspect that somebody has a tumor of the plasma cells,” said Gurmukh Singh, MD, PhD, also of the Medical College of Georgia.

Drs Singh and Lee made this recommendation and detailed the supporting research in the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research.

The researchers evaluated results of serum and urine tests in 175 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), or multiple/plasma cell myeloma (MM).

In addition to results of SFLCA, the investigators looked at results of serum protein electrophoresis, serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis, urine protein electrophoresis, and urine protein immunofixation electrophoresis.

This analysis revealed “systematic under-detection” of serum free lambda light chains by SFLCA as well as an under-detection of the lambda-dominant ratio.

The researchers integrated the results of this study with findings from an earlier study* and concluded that, as compared to kappa chain lesions:

• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MGUS is 29%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in MM is 32%
• The excess false-negative rate of κ/λ ratio for lambda chain lesions in all neoplastic monoclonal gammopathies (MGUS, MM, and SMM) is approximately 30%.

The investigators said they believe that 5% of the 30% false-negative rate is a result of under-production of excess free lambda light chains, and about 25% could be due to under-detection of monoclonal lambda light chains by SFLCA.

“[A patient] may go undiagnosed because the serum free light chain test either is not picking up those abnormal proteins or the lambda lesions don’t make that many excess abnormal proteins,” Dr Singh said.

However, Drs Singh and Lee also said it’s possible that unknown factors, such as general over-production of polyclonal kappa light chains in tertiary care patients, may alter the κ/λ ratio.

*Singh, G. Serum Free Light Chain Assay and κ/λ Ratio: Performance in Patients With Monoclonal Gammopathy-High False Negative Rate for κ/λ Ratio. J Clin Med Res. 2017 Jan; 9(1): 46–57.

Release Date: July 15, 2018
Expiration Date: July 14, 2019

Note: This activity is no longer available for credit

Introductory Comments: (Duration: 9 minutes)

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD

Presentation: (Duration: 39 minutes)

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

Provided by:

Learning Objectives

• Review clinical data and individual case studies to determine where CAR T-cell therapy might be appropriate in the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

• Discuss the management of cytotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy.

Target Audience

Hematologists, oncologists, and other members of the healthcare team who treat or manage patients with hematologic malignancies.

Statement of Need

It is critical that clinicians managing patients with acute leukemia and other hematologic malignancies are cognizant of exciting breakthroughs and are also able to integrate recent progress into practice. However, given the overwhelming influx of data, it is no surprise that many hematology professionals face difficulties in identifying the most relevant findings for clinical practice. Hematologists are unable to stay abreast of the latest evidence on investigational agents. Educational programs are thus crucial to address this important professional practice gap.

Faculty

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Disclosures: Consultant: Novartis; Grant/Research support and royalties/IPR: Novartis
Stockholder: Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc.

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland
Disclosures: No relevant financial relationships with a commercial supporter

Permissions

• Slide 3: Complex tumor, host and environmental factors govern the strength and timing of anti-cancer immune responses
  • Reprinted from Immunity, Vol 39/No 1, Chen DS, Mellman I, Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle, pp 1-10, 2013, with permission from Elsevier
• Slide 9: Genes differentially expressed in CART19 cellular infusion products from CLL patients
  • From Fraietta JA, Lacey SF, Orlando EJ, . . . June CH, Melenhorst JJ. Determinants of response and resistance to CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Med 2018; 24:563-571
• Slide 10: Characterization of CLL CAR T cells in NSG CLL model
  • Same as slide 9
• Slide 15: First adult ALL patient
  • Photos originally published in Kaiser Health News/Photo courtesy of Dr Keith Eaton. Available at: https://khn.org/news/cascade-of-costs-could-push-new-gene-therapy-above-1-million-per-patient/
• Slide 21: Efficient trafficking of CTL019 T Cells to CNS in ALL
  • From N Engl J Med, Grupp SA, Kalos M, Barrett D, . . V. June CH, Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for acute lymphoid leukemia, Volume No 368, pp 1509-1518. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society. Reprinted with permission from Massachusetts Medical Society.
• Slide 26: Long-term persistence and expression of CTL019 is associated with durable remission in leukemia: Predictive Biomarker
  • From Porter DL, Hwang WT, Frey NV . . . June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells persist and induce sustained remissions in relapsed refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7(303):303ra139. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
• Slide 28: Rapid massive expansion of clonal CART cell population in patient #10
  • Initially published in Fraietta JA, Nobles CL, Sammons MA, . . . June CH, Melenhors JJ. Disruption of TET2 promotes the therapeutic efficacy of CD19-targeted T cells. Nature 2018; 558(7709):307-312
• Slide 29: Mapping CAR integration site in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 31: Long-term stable persistence of TET2-deficient CAR T cells in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28
• Slide 32: Epigenetic and genetic changes uncovered by ATAC-seq in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 33: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 34: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 36: CAR T for myeloma: BCMA
  • From Rickert RC, Jellusova J, Miletic AV. Signaling by the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily in B-cell biology and disease. Immunol Rev 2011; 244(1):115-33. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
• Slide 38: CAR T for myeloma: Patient #1
  • Photo originally published by UT Southwestern Medical Center. Available at: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2018/wright-car-t.html
• Slide 39: Autoimmunity is the “Achilles’ Heel” of immunotherapy
  • First published in June CH, Warshauer JT, and Bluestone JA. Is autoimmunity the Achilles’ heel of cancer immunotherapy? Nat Med 2017;23(5):540-7
• Slide 41: Multiplex CRISPR /Cas9 editing: Universal T cells TCR, HLA, PD-1, CTLA-4 and Fas
  • From Ren J, Zhang X, Liu X, Fang C, Jiang S, June CH, Zhao Y. A versatile system for rapid multiplex genome-edited CAR T cell generation. Oncotarget 2017; 8:17002-17011.
• Slide 45: CAR T-cell trials for cancer are now global
  • From June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 2018; 359:1361-1365. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

Disclaimer

The content and views presented in this educational activity are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Hemedicus or Frontline Medical Communications. This material is prepared based upon a review of multiple sources of information, but it is not exhaustive of the subject matter. Therefore, healthcare professionals and other individuals should review and consider other publications and materials on the subject matter before relying solely upon the information contained within this educational activity.

Release Date: July 15, 2018
Expiration Date: July 14, 2019

Note: This activity is no longer available for credit

Introductory Comments: (Duration: 9 minutes)

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD

Presentation: (Duration: 39 minutes)

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

Provided by:

Learning Objectives

• Review clinical data and individual case studies to determine where CAR T-cell therapy might be appropriate in the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

• Discuss the management of cytotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy.

Target Audience

Hematologists, oncologists, and other members of the healthcare team who treat or manage patients with hematologic malignancies.

Statement of Need

It is critical that clinicians managing patients with acute leukemia and other hematologic malignancies are cognizant of exciting breakthroughs and are also able to integrate recent progress into practice. However, given the overwhelming influx of data, it is no surprise that many hematology professionals face difficulties in identifying the most relevant findings for clinical practice. Hematologists are unable to stay abreast of the latest evidence on investigational agents. Educational programs are thus crucial to address this important professional practice gap.

Faculty

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Disclosures: Consultant: Novartis; Grant/Research support and royalties/IPR: Novartis
Stockholder: Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc.

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland
Disclosures: No relevant financial relationships with a commercial supporter

Permissions

• Slide 3: Complex tumor, host and environmental factors govern the strength and timing of anti-cancer immune responses
  • Reprinted from Immunity, Vol 39/No 1, Chen DS, Mellman I, Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle, pp 1-10, 2013, with permission from Elsevier
• Slide 9: Genes differentially expressed in CART19 cellular infusion products from CLL patients
  • From Fraietta JA, Lacey SF, Orlando EJ, . . . June CH, Melenhorst JJ. Determinants of response and resistance to CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Med 2018; 24:563-571
• Slide 10: Characterization of CLL CAR T cells in NSG CLL model
  • Same as slide 9
• Slide 15: First adult ALL patient
  • Photos originally published in Kaiser Health News/Photo courtesy of Dr Keith Eaton. Available at: https://khn.org/news/cascade-of-costs-could-push-new-gene-therapy-above-1-million-per-patient/
• Slide 21: Efficient trafficking of CTL019 T Cells to CNS in ALL
  • From N Engl J Med, Grupp SA, Kalos M, Barrett D, . . V. June CH, Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for acute lymphoid leukemia, Volume No 368, pp 1509-1518. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society. Reprinted with permission from Massachusetts Medical Society.
• Slide 26: Long-term persistence and expression of CTL019 is associated with durable remission in leukemia: Predictive Biomarker
  • From Porter DL, Hwang WT, Frey NV . . . June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells persist and induce sustained remissions in relapsed refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7(303):303ra139. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
• Slide 28: Rapid massive expansion of clonal CART cell population in patient #10
  • Initially published in Fraietta JA, Nobles CL, Sammons MA, . . . June CH, Melenhors JJ. Disruption of TET2 promotes the therapeutic efficacy of CD19-targeted T cells. Nature 2018; 558(7709):307-312
• Slide 29: Mapping CAR integration site in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 31: Long-term stable persistence of TET2-deficient CAR T cells in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28
• Slide 32: Epigenetic and genetic changes uncovered by ATAC-seq in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 33: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 34: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 36: CAR T for myeloma: BCMA
  • From Rickert RC, Jellusova J, Miletic AV. Signaling by the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily in B-cell biology and disease. Immunol Rev 2011; 244(1):115-33. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
• Slide 38: CAR T for myeloma: Patient #1
  • Photo originally published by UT Southwestern Medical Center. Available at: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2018/wright-car-t.html
• Slide 39: Autoimmunity is the “Achilles’ Heel” of immunotherapy
  • First published in June CH, Warshauer JT, and Bluestone JA. Is autoimmunity the Achilles’ heel of cancer immunotherapy? Nat Med 2017;23(5):540-7
• Slide 41: Multiplex CRISPR /Cas9 editing: Universal T cells TCR, HLA, PD-1, CTLA-4 and Fas
  • From Ren J, Zhang X, Liu X, Fang C, Jiang S, June CH, Zhao Y. A versatile system for rapid multiplex genome-edited CAR T cell generation. Oncotarget 2017; 8:17002-17011.
• Slide 45: CAR T-cell trials for cancer are now global
  • From June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 2018; 359:1361-1365. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

Disclaimer

The content and views presented in this educational activity are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Hemedicus or Frontline Medical Communications. This material is prepared based upon a review of multiple sources of information, but it is not exhaustive of the subject matter. Therefore, healthcare professionals and other individuals should review and consider other publications and materials on the subject matter before relying solely upon the information contained within this educational activity.

Release Date: July 15, 2018
Expiration Date: July 14, 2019

Note: This activity is no longer available for credit

Introductory Comments: (Duration: 9 minutes)

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD

Presentation: (Duration: 39 minutes)

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

Provided by:

Learning Objectives

• Review clinical data and individual case studies to determine where CAR T-cell therapy might be appropriate in the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

• Discuss the management of cytotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy.

Target Audience

Hematologists, oncologists, and other members of the healthcare team who treat or manage patients with hematologic malignancies.

Statement of Need

It is critical that clinicians managing patients with acute leukemia and other hematologic malignancies are cognizant of exciting breakthroughs and are also able to integrate recent progress into practice. However, given the overwhelming influx of data, it is no surprise that many hematology professionals face difficulties in identifying the most relevant findings for clinical practice. Hematologists are unable to stay abreast of the latest evidence on investigational agents. Educational programs are thus crucial to address this important professional practice gap.

Faculty

Carl H. June, MD
Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Disclosures: Consultant: Novartis; Grant/Research support and royalties/IPR: Novartis
Stockholder: Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc.

Aaron P. Rapoport, MD
Bone Marrow Transplant Program
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland
Disclosures: No relevant financial relationships with a commercial supporter

Permissions

• Slide 3: Complex tumor, host and environmental factors govern the strength and timing of anti-cancer immune responses
  • Reprinted from Immunity, Vol 39/No 1, Chen DS, Mellman I, Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle, pp 1-10, 2013, with permission from Elsevier
• Slide 9: Genes differentially expressed in CART19 cellular infusion products from CLL patients
  • From Fraietta JA, Lacey SF, Orlando EJ, . . . June CH, Melenhorst JJ. Determinants of response and resistance to CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Med 2018; 24:563-571
• Slide 10: Characterization of CLL CAR T cells in NSG CLL model
  • Same as slide 9
• Slide 15: First adult ALL patient
  • Photos originally published in Kaiser Health News/Photo courtesy of Dr Keith Eaton. Available at: https://khn.org/news/cascade-of-costs-could-push-new-gene-therapy-above-1-million-per-patient/
• Slide 21: Efficient trafficking of CTL019 T Cells to CNS in ALL
  • From N Engl J Med, Grupp SA, Kalos M, Barrett D, . . V. June CH, Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for acute lymphoid leukemia, Volume No 368, pp 1509-1518. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society. Reprinted with permission from Massachusetts Medical Society.
• Slide 26: Long-term persistence and expression of CTL019 is associated with durable remission in leukemia: Predictive Biomarker
  • From Porter DL, Hwang WT, Frey NV . . . June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells persist and induce sustained remissions in relapsed refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7(303):303ra139. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
• Slide 28: Rapid massive expansion of clonal CART cell population in patient #10
  • Initially published in Fraietta JA, Nobles CL, Sammons MA, . . . June CH, Melenhors JJ. Disruption of TET2 promotes the therapeutic efficacy of CD19-targeted T cells. Nature 2018; 558(7709):307-312
• Slide 29: Mapping CAR integration site in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 31: Long-term stable persistence of TET2-deficient CAR T cells in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28
• Slide 32: Epigenetic and genetic changes uncovered by ATAC-seq in Pt #10
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 33: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 34: TET2 knock down in healthy donor T cells
  • Same as slide 28.
• Slide 36: CAR T for myeloma: BCMA
  • From Rickert RC, Jellusova J, Miletic AV. Signaling by the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily in B-cell biology and disease. Immunol Rev 2011; 244(1):115-33. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
• Slide 38: CAR T for myeloma: Patient #1
  • Photo originally published by UT Southwestern Medical Center. Available at: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2018/wright-car-t.html
• Slide 39: Autoimmunity is the “Achilles’ Heel” of immunotherapy
  • First published in June CH, Warshauer JT, and Bluestone JA. Is autoimmunity the Achilles’ heel of cancer immunotherapy? Nat Med 2017;23(5):540-7
• Slide 41: Multiplex CRISPR /Cas9 editing: Universal T cells TCR, HLA, PD-1, CTLA-4 and Fas
  • From Ren J, Zhang X, Liu X, Fang C, Jiang S, June CH, Zhao Y. A versatile system for rapid multiplex genome-edited CAR T cell generation. Oncotarget 2017; 8:17002-17011.
• Slide 45: CAR T-cell trials for cancer are now global
  • From June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 2018; 359:1361-1365. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

Disclaimer

The content and views presented in this educational activity are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Hemedicus or Frontline Medical Communications. This material is prepared based upon a review of multiple sources of information, but it is not exhaustive of the subject matter. Therefore, healthcare professionals and other individuals should review and consider other publications and materials on the subject matter before relying solely upon the information contained within this educational activity.

Ixazomib significantly improved progression-free survival as a maintenance therapy in adults with multiple myeloma who had responded to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

The drug’s sponsor, Takeda, announced that the oral proteasome inhibitor had met the primary endpoint – progression-free survival versus placebo – in the randomized, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM3 study. They also reported that adverse events were consistent with previously reported results for single-agent use of ixazomib and that there were no new safety signals.

Full study results will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Company officials plan to submit the trial data to the Food and Drug Administration and regulatory agencies around the world to gain approval of ixazomib as a single-agent maintenance therapy, according to a Takeda announcement.

The TOURMALINE-MM3 study is a double-blind study of 656 patients with multiple myeloma who have had complete response, very good partial response, or partial response to induction therapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant. In addition to progression-free survival, the trial assessed overall survival.

[email protected]

Ixazomib significantly improved progression-free survival as a maintenance therapy in adults with multiple myeloma who had responded to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

The drug’s sponsor, Takeda, announced that the oral proteasome inhibitor had met the primary endpoint – progression-free survival versus placebo – in the randomized, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM3 study. They also reported that adverse events were consistent with previously reported results for single-agent use of ixazomib and that there were no new safety signals.

Full study results will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Company officials plan to submit the trial data to the Food and Drug Administration and regulatory agencies around the world to gain approval of ixazomib as a single-agent maintenance therapy, according to a Takeda announcement.

The TOURMALINE-MM3 study is a double-blind study of 656 patients with multiple myeloma who have had complete response, very good partial response, or partial response to induction therapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant. In addition to progression-free survival, the trial assessed overall survival.

[email protected]

Ixazomib significantly improved progression-free survival as a maintenance therapy in adults with multiple myeloma who had responded to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

The drug’s sponsor, Takeda, announced that the oral proteasome inhibitor had met the primary endpoint – progression-free survival versus placebo – in the randomized, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM3 study. They also reported that adverse events were consistent with previously reported results for single-agent use of ixazomib and that there were no new safety signals.

Full study results will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Company officials plan to submit the trial data to the Food and Drug Administration and regulatory agencies around the world to gain approval of ixazomib as a single-agent maintenance therapy, according to a Takeda announcement.

The TOURMALINE-MM3 study is a double-blind study of 656 patients with multiple myeloma who have had complete response, very good partial response, or partial response to induction therapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant. In addition to progression-free survival, the trial assessed overall survival.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of NIH

A group of experts has called for improvements in reporting adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients with hematologic malignancies.

The group highlighted deficiencies in capturing chronic, cumulative, and late AEs; collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs); reporting AEs associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT); assessing long-term toxicity in survivors; reporting AEs to regulatory agencies; and tracking AEs that occur in routine clinical practice.

The experts discussed these problems and made recommendations for fixing them in The Lancet Haematology.

“The success in outcomes and survival in many hematological malignancies is historically unparalleled and fueled by scientific discovery and implementation,” said author Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“Patients are now living with the challenge of managing not just their hematological malignancy but also managing chronic therapy for their illness, with new types of acute, chronic, cumulative, and late toxicities. Measures to address the broad facets of toxicity assessment must be prioritized and further developed to ultimately enhance accurate, comprehensive, patient-centered toxicity reporting that will meaningfully inform the care of patients with blood cancers.”

Dr Thanarajasingam and a group of clinicians, investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and patient advocates analyzed the evidence on AEs and proposed recommendations to policy makers, researchers, industry, and regulators.

First, the group noted that chronic, delayed, and cumulative AEs may go unreported in patients with hematologic malignancies. Therefore, longitudinal methods for AE analysis are needed, and phase 1 trials should have longer periods for evaluating dose-limiting toxicity.

The experts also said PROs are often overlooked, but it should be standard to assess PROs in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Another of the group’s concerns is the “cumbersome” reporting of AEs associated with HSCT acting as a barrier to clinical trials. The experts recommended using registry data to develop a consensus on expected AEs after HSCT.

The group also highlighted deficiencies in the “description and management” of cumulative and late toxicities in survivors of hematologic malignancies. Potential solutions to this problem include developing infrastructure to collect data for adult survivors and standardizing the use and content of survivorship care plans.

The experts said “meaningful” AEs are often underreported to regulatory agencies, so better systems are needed for collecting and analyzing AE data, and the electronic submission of AEs should be simplified.

Finally, the group said AEs occurring in routine clinical practice are difficult to capture and analyze on a large scale. This suggests a need to optimize the systematic, objective collection of toxicity data at multiple points in real-world databases, according to the experts.

Additional details and recommendations are available in the full report.

Photo courtesy of NIH

A group of experts has called for improvements in reporting adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients with hematologic malignancies.

The group highlighted deficiencies in capturing chronic, cumulative, and late AEs; collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs); reporting AEs associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT); assessing long-term toxicity in survivors; reporting AEs to regulatory agencies; and tracking AEs that occur in routine clinical practice.

The experts discussed these problems and made recommendations for fixing them in The Lancet Haematology.

“The success in outcomes and survival in many hematological malignancies is historically unparalleled and fueled by scientific discovery and implementation,” said author Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“Patients are now living with the challenge of managing not just their hematological malignancy but also managing chronic therapy for their illness, with new types of acute, chronic, cumulative, and late toxicities. Measures to address the broad facets of toxicity assessment must be prioritized and further developed to ultimately enhance accurate, comprehensive, patient-centered toxicity reporting that will meaningfully inform the care of patients with blood cancers.”

Dr Thanarajasingam and a group of clinicians, investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and patient advocates analyzed the evidence on AEs and proposed recommendations to policy makers, researchers, industry, and regulators.

First, the group noted that chronic, delayed, and cumulative AEs may go unreported in patients with hematologic malignancies. Therefore, longitudinal methods for AE analysis are needed, and phase 1 trials should have longer periods for evaluating dose-limiting toxicity.

The experts also said PROs are often overlooked, but it should be standard to assess PROs in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Another of the group’s concerns is the “cumbersome” reporting of AEs associated with HSCT acting as a barrier to clinical trials. The experts recommended using registry data to develop a consensus on expected AEs after HSCT.

The group also highlighted deficiencies in the “description and management” of cumulative and late toxicities in survivors of hematologic malignancies. Potential solutions to this problem include developing infrastructure to collect data for adult survivors and standardizing the use and content of survivorship care plans.

The experts said “meaningful” AEs are often underreported to regulatory agencies, so better systems are needed for collecting and analyzing AE data, and the electronic submission of AEs should be simplified.

Finally, the group said AEs occurring in routine clinical practice are difficult to capture and analyze on a large scale. This suggests a need to optimize the systematic, objective collection of toxicity data at multiple points in real-world databases, according to the experts.

Additional details and recommendations are available in the full report.

Photo courtesy of NIH

A group of experts has called for improvements in reporting adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients with hematologic malignancies.

The group highlighted deficiencies in capturing chronic, cumulative, and late AEs; collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs); reporting AEs associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT); assessing long-term toxicity in survivors; reporting AEs to regulatory agencies; and tracking AEs that occur in routine clinical practice.

The experts discussed these problems and made recommendations for fixing them in The Lancet Haematology.

“The success in outcomes and survival in many hematological malignancies is historically unparalleled and fueled by scientific discovery and implementation,” said author Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“Patients are now living with the challenge of managing not just their hematological malignancy but also managing chronic therapy for their illness, with new types of acute, chronic, cumulative, and late toxicities. Measures to address the broad facets of toxicity assessment must be prioritized and further developed to ultimately enhance accurate, comprehensive, patient-centered toxicity reporting that will meaningfully inform the care of patients with blood cancers.”

Dr Thanarajasingam and a group of clinicians, investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and patient advocates analyzed the evidence on AEs and proposed recommendations to policy makers, researchers, industry, and regulators.

First, the group noted that chronic, delayed, and cumulative AEs may go unreported in patients with hematologic malignancies. Therefore, longitudinal methods for AE analysis are needed, and phase 1 trials should have longer periods for evaluating dose-limiting toxicity.

The experts also said PROs are often overlooked, but it should be standard to assess PROs in clinical trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

Another of the group’s concerns is the “cumbersome” reporting of AEs associated with HSCT acting as a barrier to clinical trials. The experts recommended using registry data to develop a consensus on expected AEs after HSCT.

The group also highlighted deficiencies in the “description and management” of cumulative and late toxicities in survivors of hematologic malignancies. Potential solutions to this problem include developing infrastructure to collect data for adult survivors and standardizing the use and content of survivorship care plans.

The experts said “meaningful” AEs are often underreported to regulatory agencies, so better systems are needed for collecting and analyzing AE data, and the electronic submission of AEs should be simplified.

Finally, the group said AEs occurring in routine clinical practice are difficult to capture and analyze on a large scale. This suggests a need to optimize the systematic, objective collection of toxicity data at multiple points in real-world databases, according to the experts.

Additional details and recommendations are available in the full report.

multiple myeloma

Tofacitinib, a pan-JAK inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, may advance as a potential treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) based on results from preclinical studies.

In these studies, tofacitinib was able to reverse proliferative effects in stromal-responsive human MM cell lines and reduce tumor growth in mouse models of MM.

Christine Lam, of University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in haematologica.

The researchers showed that, in co-cultures of MM cell lines and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), tofacitinib inhibited the growth of MM cells in a dose-dependent manner.

RNA sequencing and phosphoproteonomics revealed an upregulation of 67 transcripts in MM cell lines co-cultured with BMSCs—most related to JAK-STAT and interleukin signaling.

Additional cell culture experiments showed that tofacitinib inhibited the downstream signaling molecule STAT3, which is responsible for proliferation through the JAK/STAT pathway.

The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib did not replicate results seen with tofacitinib.

Further experiments showed that carfilzomib did not have synergistic effects with tofacitinib.

Venetoclax did demonstrate synergy with tofacitinib but only in MM cells cocultured with BMSCs, not in MM cells alone.

The researchers also tested tofacitinib in vivo. They injected mice with an MM cell line, and, after 2 weeks, mice were treated with tofacitinib for 4 weeks.

Mice treated with tofacitinib had lower tumor burden and a significant improvement in survival compared to untreated control mice.

Finally, the researchers tested tofacitinib in bone marrow mononuclear cells from patients. After stimulation with IL-6, the cells were exposed to tofacitinib.

The researchers observed “modest” viability against malignant plasma cells. They noted that because ex vivo MM plasma cells are minimally proliferative even with added cytokines or stromal stimulations, “these results may not fully reflect the potential therapeutic efficacy of tofacitinib in MM patients, where plasma cells are constantly proliferating within the [bone marrow].”

The researchers concluded that “tofacitinib is a promising agent to reverse the tumor-proliferative effects of the [bone marrow] microenvironment that can be rapidly repurposed to benefit MM patients.”

multiple myeloma

Tofacitinib, a pan-JAK inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, may advance as a potential treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) based on results from preclinical studies.

In these studies, tofacitinib was able to reverse proliferative effects in stromal-responsive human MM cell lines and reduce tumor growth in mouse models of MM.

Christine Lam, of University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in haematologica.

The researchers showed that, in co-cultures of MM cell lines and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), tofacitinib inhibited the growth of MM cells in a dose-dependent manner.

RNA sequencing and phosphoproteonomics revealed an upregulation of 67 transcripts in MM cell lines co-cultured with BMSCs—most related to JAK-STAT and interleukin signaling.

Additional cell culture experiments showed that tofacitinib inhibited the downstream signaling molecule STAT3, which is responsible for proliferation through the JAK/STAT pathway.

The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib did not replicate results seen with tofacitinib.

Further experiments showed that carfilzomib did not have synergistic effects with tofacitinib.

Venetoclax did demonstrate synergy with tofacitinib but only in MM cells cocultured with BMSCs, not in MM cells alone.

The researchers also tested tofacitinib in vivo. They injected mice with an MM cell line, and, after 2 weeks, mice were treated with tofacitinib for 4 weeks.

Mice treated with tofacitinib had lower tumor burden and a significant improvement in survival compared to untreated control mice.

Finally, the researchers tested tofacitinib in bone marrow mononuclear cells from patients. After stimulation with IL-6, the cells were exposed to tofacitinib.

The researchers observed “modest” viability against malignant plasma cells. They noted that because ex vivo MM plasma cells are minimally proliferative even with added cytokines or stromal stimulations, “these results may not fully reflect the potential therapeutic efficacy of tofacitinib in MM patients, where plasma cells are constantly proliferating within the [bone marrow].”

The researchers concluded that “tofacitinib is a promising agent to reverse the tumor-proliferative effects of the [bone marrow] microenvironment that can be rapidly repurposed to benefit MM patients.”

multiple myeloma

Tofacitinib, a pan-JAK inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis, may advance as a potential treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) based on results from preclinical studies.

In these studies, tofacitinib was able to reverse proliferative effects in stromal-responsive human MM cell lines and reduce tumor growth in mouse models of MM.

Christine Lam, of University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in haematologica.

The researchers showed that, in co-cultures of MM cell lines and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), tofacitinib inhibited the growth of MM cells in a dose-dependent manner.

RNA sequencing and phosphoproteonomics revealed an upregulation of 67 transcripts in MM cell lines co-cultured with BMSCs—most related to JAK-STAT and interleukin signaling.

Additional cell culture experiments showed that tofacitinib inhibited the downstream signaling molecule STAT3, which is responsible for proliferation through the JAK/STAT pathway.

The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib did not replicate results seen with tofacitinib.

Further experiments showed that carfilzomib did not have synergistic effects with tofacitinib.

Venetoclax did demonstrate synergy with tofacitinib but only in MM cells cocultured with BMSCs, not in MM cells alone.

The researchers also tested tofacitinib in vivo. They injected mice with an MM cell line, and, after 2 weeks, mice were treated with tofacitinib for 4 weeks.

Mice treated with tofacitinib had lower tumor burden and a significant improvement in survival compared to untreated control mice.

Finally, the researchers tested tofacitinib in bone marrow mononuclear cells from patients. After stimulation with IL-6, the cells were exposed to tofacitinib.

The researchers observed “modest” viability against malignant plasma cells. They noted that because ex vivo MM plasma cells are minimally proliferative even with added cytokines or stromal stimulations, “these results may not fully reflect the potential therapeutic efficacy of tofacitinib in MM patients, where plasma cells are constantly proliferating within the [bone marrow].”

The researchers concluded that “tofacitinib is a promising agent to reverse the tumor-proliferative effects of the [bone marrow] microenvironment that can be rapidly repurposed to benefit MM patients.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have called for renewed political commitment to improve cancer services and reduce cancer deaths.

ASCO and ESMO issued a joint statement in which they asked heads of state and health ministers to attend the United Nations Civil Society Hearing on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) in September and reconfirm their commitment to “pass legislation and invest in actions that will reduce the burden of NCDs, including cancer.”

Specifically, ESMO and ASCO said governments should:

1. Implement the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution
2. Develop and strengthen educational programs that provide lifestyle recommendations to reduce cancer risk (eg, prevent tobacco use, encourage healthy weight control, etc.)
3. Develop efficient and cost-effective primary prevention measures (eg, Helicobacter pylori eradication)
4. Ensure timely access to screening, early stage diagnosis, and treatment for all stages of cancer
5. Strengthen health systems so they can provide cancer services to all who need them
6. Provide essential secondary healthcare services that ensure an adequate number of well-trained oncology professionals who have access to necessary resources
7. Aim to reduce premature mortality by 25% by 2025 and by 33% by 2030 across all NCDs.

“Recent UN and WHO reports^1,2,3,4 note that, unless countries significantly scale-up their actions and investments, they will not meet agreed targets to reduce deaths from non-communicable diseases,” said ESMO President Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD.

“We are concerned that governments may find it easier to achieve their targets by reducing deaths from only some NCDs, leaving cancer patients behind. We believe there are cost-effective ways to improve cancer care and stand ready to assist countries in doing this by providing our expertise in cancer management to support implementation of the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution.”

“We urge member states to consider our joint call and amendments to strengthen the political declaration to be approved during the UN high-level meeting on 27 September and thus change the future outlook for cancer patients worldwide.”

1. United Nations Report by the Secretary General, Document A_72_662, 21 December 2017: http://www.who.int/ncds/governance/high-level-commission/A_72_662.pdf

2. World Health Assembly Report by the WHO Director General, Document WHA 71.2, 26 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R2-en.pdf

3. WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs Report, Time to Deliver, 1 June 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272710/9789241514163-eng.pdf?ua=1

4. WHO Report Saving Lives, Spending Less, 21 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272534/WHO-NMH-NVI-18.8-eng.pdf

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have called for renewed political commitment to improve cancer services and reduce cancer deaths.

ASCO and ESMO issued a joint statement in which they asked heads of state and health ministers to attend the United Nations Civil Society Hearing on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) in September and reconfirm their commitment to “pass legislation and invest in actions that will reduce the burden of NCDs, including cancer.”

Specifically, ESMO and ASCO said governments should:

1. Implement the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution
2. Develop and strengthen educational programs that provide lifestyle recommendations to reduce cancer risk (eg, prevent tobacco use, encourage healthy weight control, etc.)
3. Develop efficient and cost-effective primary prevention measures (eg, Helicobacter pylori eradication)
4. Ensure timely access to screening, early stage diagnosis, and treatment for all stages of cancer
5. Strengthen health systems so they can provide cancer services to all who need them
6. Provide essential secondary healthcare services that ensure an adequate number of well-trained oncology professionals who have access to necessary resources
7. Aim to reduce premature mortality by 25% by 2025 and by 33% by 2030 across all NCDs.

“Recent UN and WHO reports^1,2,3,4 note that, unless countries significantly scale-up their actions and investments, they will not meet agreed targets to reduce deaths from non-communicable diseases,” said ESMO President Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD.

“We are concerned that governments may find it easier to achieve their targets by reducing deaths from only some NCDs, leaving cancer patients behind. We believe there are cost-effective ways to improve cancer care and stand ready to assist countries in doing this by providing our expertise in cancer management to support implementation of the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution.”

“We urge member states to consider our joint call and amendments to strengthen the political declaration to be approved during the UN high-level meeting on 27 September and thus change the future outlook for cancer patients worldwide.”

1. United Nations Report by the Secretary General, Document A_72_662, 21 December 2017: http://www.who.int/ncds/governance/high-level-commission/A_72_662.pdf

2. World Health Assembly Report by the WHO Director General, Document WHA 71.2, 26 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R2-en.pdf

3. WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs Report, Time to Deliver, 1 June 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272710/9789241514163-eng.pdf?ua=1

4. WHO Report Saving Lives, Spending Less, 21 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272534/WHO-NMH-NVI-18.8-eng.pdf

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have called for renewed political commitment to improve cancer services and reduce cancer deaths.

ASCO and ESMO issued a joint statement in which they asked heads of state and health ministers to attend the United Nations Civil Society Hearing on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) in September and reconfirm their commitment to “pass legislation and invest in actions that will reduce the burden of NCDs, including cancer.”

Specifically, ESMO and ASCO said governments should:

1. Implement the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution
2. Develop and strengthen educational programs that provide lifestyle recommendations to reduce cancer risk (eg, prevent tobacco use, encourage healthy weight control, etc.)
3. Develop efficient and cost-effective primary prevention measures (eg, Helicobacter pylori eradication)
4. Ensure timely access to screening, early stage diagnosis, and treatment for all stages of cancer
5. Strengthen health systems so they can provide cancer services to all who need them
6. Provide essential secondary healthcare services that ensure an adequate number of well-trained oncology professionals who have access to necessary resources
7. Aim to reduce premature mortality by 25% by 2025 and by 33% by 2030 across all NCDs.

“Recent UN and WHO reports^1,2,3,4 note that, unless countries significantly scale-up their actions and investments, they will not meet agreed targets to reduce deaths from non-communicable diseases,” said ESMO President Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD.

“We are concerned that governments may find it easier to achieve their targets by reducing deaths from only some NCDs, leaving cancer patients behind. We believe there are cost-effective ways to improve cancer care and stand ready to assist countries in doing this by providing our expertise in cancer management to support implementation of the 2017 World Health Assembly Cancer Resolution.”

“We urge member states to consider our joint call and amendments to strengthen the political declaration to be approved during the UN high-level meeting on 27 September and thus change the future outlook for cancer patients worldwide.”

1. United Nations Report by the Secretary General, Document A_72_662, 21 December 2017: http://www.who.int/ncds/governance/high-level-commission/A_72_662.pdf

2. World Health Assembly Report by the WHO Director General, Document WHA 71.2, 26 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_R2-en.pdf

3. WHO Independent High-Level Commission on NCDs Report, Time to Deliver, 1 June 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272710/9789241514163-eng.pdf?ua=1

4. WHO Report Saving Lives, Spending Less, 21 May 2018: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272534/WHO-NMH-NVI-18.8-eng.pdf

Photo from EHA

STOCKHOLM—The alkylating peptide melflufen has demonstrated activity in patients with treatment-resistant multiple myeloma (MM).

In a phase 2 trial, melflufen plus dexamethasone produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 32.1% in MM patients who were refractory to pomalidomide and/or daratumumab and had failed treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs).

Nearly all patients experienced an adverse event (AE) related to study treatment, and most of these were hematologic events.

These results, from the ongoing HORIZON trial, were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract PF581.

The research was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB, the company developing melflufen.

“With an increasing number of patients with highly resistant myeloma, there is a real need for additional treatment options based on new mechanisms of action,” said study investigator Paul Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“[Melflufen], a peptidase-enhanced compound, with its potent activity, manageable tolerability, and lack of shared resistance mechanisms with other modalities, is a promising molecule that is making encouraging progress in clinical development.”

Patients and treatment

The data presented at EHA include 62 patients. The data cut-off was May 10, 2018.

The patients had a median age of 62.5 (range, 41-82), 54% had high-risk cytogenetics, and 46% were ISS stage III. The patients had a median of 5.5 prior lines of therapy, and their median time since initial diagnosis was 6.1 years.

All patients were refractory to pomalidomide or daratumumab, 56% were refractory to both drugs, and 89% were double-refractory to IMiDs and PIs. Ninety-eight percent of patients had disease progression on or within 60 days of completing their last therapy.

Patients received melflufen at 40 mg (intravenously over 30 minutes) on day 1 of each 28-day cycle. They also received dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

At the data cutoff, 49 patients (79%) had completed at least 2 cycles of melflufen. The median number of cycles was 2 (range, 1-11).

Twenty-one patients (34%) were still receiving study treatment at the data cutoff. Reasons for discontinuation included disease progression (47%), AEs (15%), and physician decision (3%). One discontinuation was due to patient request.

Results

Fifty-six patients received at least 1 dose of melflufen and were evaluable for response.

The ORR was 32.1%, and the clinical benefit rate was 39.3%. ORR was defined as partial response (PR) or better, and clinical benefit rate was defined as minor response or better.

Two percent of patients had a complete response, 9% had a very good PR, 21% had a PR, and 7% had a minor response. Forty-five percent of patients had stable disease, and 16% progressed.

Subgroup analyses showed that response didn’t vary across refractory subsets, but it did vary according to the underlying disease and health status of the patient.

Treatment-related AEs occurred in 97% of all patients (60/62), and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 77% (n=48).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (60%), anemia (31%), leukopenia (6%), lymphopenia (6%), febrile neutropenia (6%), and infections (6%).

Twenty-one percent of patients had at least 1 treatment-related serious AE. The most frequent were febrile neutropenia (6%) and pneumonia (3%).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

Photo from EHA

STOCKHOLM—The alkylating peptide melflufen has demonstrated activity in patients with treatment-resistant multiple myeloma (MM).

In a phase 2 trial, melflufen plus dexamethasone produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 32.1% in MM patients who were refractory to pomalidomide and/or daratumumab and had failed treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs).

Nearly all patients experienced an adverse event (AE) related to study treatment, and most of these were hematologic events.

These results, from the ongoing HORIZON trial, were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract PF581.

The research was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB, the company developing melflufen.

“With an increasing number of patients with highly resistant myeloma, there is a real need for additional treatment options based on new mechanisms of action,” said study investigator Paul Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“[Melflufen], a peptidase-enhanced compound, with its potent activity, manageable tolerability, and lack of shared resistance mechanisms with other modalities, is a promising molecule that is making encouraging progress in clinical development.”

Patients and treatment

The data presented at EHA include 62 patients. The data cut-off was May 10, 2018.

The patients had a median age of 62.5 (range, 41-82), 54% had high-risk cytogenetics, and 46% were ISS stage III. The patients had a median of 5.5 prior lines of therapy, and their median time since initial diagnosis was 6.1 years.

All patients were refractory to pomalidomide or daratumumab, 56% were refractory to both drugs, and 89% were double-refractory to IMiDs and PIs. Ninety-eight percent of patients had disease progression on or within 60 days of completing their last therapy.

Patients received melflufen at 40 mg (intravenously over 30 minutes) on day 1 of each 28-day cycle. They also received dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

At the data cutoff, 49 patients (79%) had completed at least 2 cycles of melflufen. The median number of cycles was 2 (range, 1-11).

Twenty-one patients (34%) were still receiving study treatment at the data cutoff. Reasons for discontinuation included disease progression (47%), AEs (15%), and physician decision (3%). One discontinuation was due to patient request.

Results

Fifty-six patients received at least 1 dose of melflufen and were evaluable for response.

The ORR was 32.1%, and the clinical benefit rate was 39.3%. ORR was defined as partial response (PR) or better, and clinical benefit rate was defined as minor response or better.

Two percent of patients had a complete response, 9% had a very good PR, 21% had a PR, and 7% had a minor response. Forty-five percent of patients had stable disease, and 16% progressed.

Subgroup analyses showed that response didn’t vary across refractory subsets, but it did vary according to the underlying disease and health status of the patient.

Treatment-related AEs occurred in 97% of all patients (60/62), and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 77% (n=48).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (60%), anemia (31%), leukopenia (6%), lymphopenia (6%), febrile neutropenia (6%), and infections (6%).

Twenty-one percent of patients had at least 1 treatment-related serious AE. The most frequent were febrile neutropenia (6%) and pneumonia (3%).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

Photo from EHA

STOCKHOLM—The alkylating peptide melflufen has demonstrated activity in patients with treatment-resistant multiple myeloma (MM).

In a phase 2 trial, melflufen plus dexamethasone produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 32.1% in MM patients who were refractory to pomalidomide and/or daratumumab and had failed treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs).

Nearly all patients experienced an adverse event (AE) related to study treatment, and most of these were hematologic events.

These results, from the ongoing HORIZON trial, were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract PF581.

The research was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB, the company developing melflufen.

“With an increasing number of patients with highly resistant myeloma, there is a real need for additional treatment options based on new mechanisms of action,” said study investigator Paul Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“[Melflufen], a peptidase-enhanced compound, with its potent activity, manageable tolerability, and lack of shared resistance mechanisms with other modalities, is a promising molecule that is making encouraging progress in clinical development.”

Patients and treatment

The data presented at EHA include 62 patients. The data cut-off was May 10, 2018.

The patients had a median age of 62.5 (range, 41-82), 54% had high-risk cytogenetics, and 46% were ISS stage III. The patients had a median of 5.5 prior lines of therapy, and their median time since initial diagnosis was 6.1 years.

All patients were refractory to pomalidomide or daratumumab, 56% were refractory to both drugs, and 89% were double-refractory to IMiDs and PIs. Ninety-eight percent of patients had disease progression on or within 60 days of completing their last therapy.

Patients received melflufen at 40 mg (intravenously over 30 minutes) on day 1 of each 28-day cycle. They also received dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

At the data cutoff, 49 patients (79%) had completed at least 2 cycles of melflufen. The median number of cycles was 2 (range, 1-11).

Twenty-one patients (34%) were still receiving study treatment at the data cutoff. Reasons for discontinuation included disease progression (47%), AEs (15%), and physician decision (3%). One discontinuation was due to patient request.

Results

Fifty-six patients received at least 1 dose of melflufen and were evaluable for response.

The ORR was 32.1%, and the clinical benefit rate was 39.3%. ORR was defined as partial response (PR) or better, and clinical benefit rate was defined as minor response or better.

Two percent of patients had a complete response, 9% had a very good PR, 21% had a PR, and 7% had a minor response. Forty-five percent of patients had stable disease, and 16% progressed.

Subgroup analyses showed that response didn’t vary across refractory subsets, but it did vary according to the underlying disease and health status of the patient.

Treatment-related AEs occurred in 97% of all patients (60/62), and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 77% (n=48).

Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (60%), anemia (31%), leukopenia (6%), lymphopenia (6%), febrile neutropenia (6%), and infections (6%).

Twenty-one percent of patients had at least 1 treatment-related serious AE. The most frequent were febrile neutropenia (6%) and pneumonia (3%).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.