Multiple Myeloma

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

CHICAGO – Are today’s myeloma drugs affordable? Two Mayo Clinic researchers agreed that costs are high but not whether the price is offset by the value.

“I don’t think there is any debate here. It’s like debating whether the Earth is flat or not,” S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said during a debate at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “These drugs are expensive.”

“I would trust Dr. Rajkumar with my life if I were diagnosed with myeloma,” countered Rafael Fonseca, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., “But I think he’s wrong on drug economics.”

Dr. Rajkumar said the total lifetime costs to treat all patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 2017 were $22.4 billion, a “conservative estimate” that excluded hospital, infusion, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and ancillary costs.

“Every single drug is expensive,” he said, referring to newer approved myeloma therapies that cost up to $192,000/year individually, and up to $590,000/year in triplet or quadruplet combination regimens, according to estimates he included in a related article he wrote for the 2018 ASCO Educational Book.

Of $50 billion spent in 2017 on cancer drugs, 80% of that spending was based on just 35 drugs, of which 6 were myeloma drugs – and myeloma is just 1% of all cancers. “Maybe it’s because of all the progress we’ve made in myeloma, but unless you think none of the other cancers should have the type of progress we have, this is not going to be affordable,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 cost $100,000/year or more, with an average of $150,000/year, according to Dr. Rajkumar. He compared that with the average U.S. annual gross household income of $52,000, saying that the high price of drugs has contributed to compliance problems and medical bankruptcy.

While Dr. Fonseca agreed that drug prices are “skyrocketing,” he challenged the notion that the increases were not affordable in his presentation and an associated ASCO Educational Book article.

In his talk, Dr. Fonseca said the availability of new myeloma drugs has led to “astounding” improvements in overall survival, but today’s best drugs are still not good enough. “We cannot afford to stop innovation and the move forward as we are ever so close to curing a large fraction of myeloma patients,” he said.

The increasing cost of drugs has been offset by societal and health effects, Dr. Fonseca argued.

The war on cancer from 1988 to 2000 added 23 million additional life-years, which has equated to $1.9 trillion in social value for Americans, according to one analysis he cited. In one myeloma-specific study, investigators found myeloma drug costs increased from $36,607 in 2004 to $109,544 in 2009, but those increases were balanced out by $67,900 in health benefits.

Although the financial impact of myeloma on the individual patient can be significant, it’s not bankruptcies, but out-of-pocket costs such as copayments, that have the most direct effect on patients, Dr. Fonseca said. Research shows medical bankruptcies are not associated with drug copayments, he added, but rather other medical expenses, such as hospital and physician bills, along with loss of income and limited savings.

Dr. Rajkumar – unconvinced that myeloma drugs are currently affordable – urged action on several fronts, including value-based pricing or tying the price of a drug to how much value it produces.

The Medicare program has to be able to negotiate prices, he added, and patients should be allowed to reimport cancer drugs from other countries for personal use. He also pushed for more to be done to facilitate the entry of generics and biosimilars into the marketplace.

He also called for a relaxation of FDA regulations to lower drug development costs. “We have so many regulations so that every T is crossed and every I is dotted, to the point that it costs $30,000, $40,000 per patient to do a trial,” he said.

But Dr. Fonseca opposed market interference, saying that price controls would kill innovation.

“The patented drugs of today are the generics of the future, and absent innovation, we won’t have future generics,” he said in his presentation. “Price fixing kills innovation. ... So if we engage in that, today’s best is simply the best there is going to be.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Fonseca reported consulting work with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Janssen, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Kite Pharma, and Juno Therapeutics, and scientific advisory board work with Adaptive Biotechnologies.

CHICAGO – Are today’s myeloma drugs affordable? Two Mayo Clinic researchers agreed that costs are high but not whether the price is offset by the value.

“I don’t think there is any debate here. It’s like debating whether the Earth is flat or not,” S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said during a debate at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “These drugs are expensive.”

“I would trust Dr. Rajkumar with my life if I were diagnosed with myeloma,” countered Rafael Fonseca, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., “But I think he’s wrong on drug economics.”

Dr. Rajkumar said the total lifetime costs to treat all patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 2017 were $22.4 billion, a “conservative estimate” that excluded hospital, infusion, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and ancillary costs.

“Every single drug is expensive,” he said, referring to newer approved myeloma therapies that cost up to $192,000/year individually, and up to $590,000/year in triplet or quadruplet combination regimens, according to estimates he included in a related article he wrote for the 2018 ASCO Educational Book.

Of $50 billion spent in 2017 on cancer drugs, 80% of that spending was based on just 35 drugs, of which 6 were myeloma drugs – and myeloma is just 1% of all cancers. “Maybe it’s because of all the progress we’ve made in myeloma, but unless you think none of the other cancers should have the type of progress we have, this is not going to be affordable,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 cost $100,000/year or more, with an average of $150,000/year, according to Dr. Rajkumar. He compared that with the average U.S. annual gross household income of $52,000, saying that the high price of drugs has contributed to compliance problems and medical bankruptcy.

While Dr. Fonseca agreed that drug prices are “skyrocketing,” he challenged the notion that the increases were not affordable in his presentation and an associated ASCO Educational Book article.

In his talk, Dr. Fonseca said the availability of new myeloma drugs has led to “astounding” improvements in overall survival, but today’s best drugs are still not good enough. “We cannot afford to stop innovation and the move forward as we are ever so close to curing a large fraction of myeloma patients,” he said.

The increasing cost of drugs has been offset by societal and health effects, Dr. Fonseca argued.

The war on cancer from 1988 to 2000 added 23 million additional life-years, which has equated to $1.9 trillion in social value for Americans, according to one analysis he cited. In one myeloma-specific study, investigators found myeloma drug costs increased from $36,607 in 2004 to $109,544 in 2009, but those increases were balanced out by $67,900 in health benefits.

Although the financial impact of myeloma on the individual patient can be significant, it’s not bankruptcies, but out-of-pocket costs such as copayments, that have the most direct effect on patients, Dr. Fonseca said. Research shows medical bankruptcies are not associated with drug copayments, he added, but rather other medical expenses, such as hospital and physician bills, along with loss of income and limited savings.

Dr. Rajkumar – unconvinced that myeloma drugs are currently affordable – urged action on several fronts, including value-based pricing or tying the price of a drug to how much value it produces.

The Medicare program has to be able to negotiate prices, he added, and patients should be allowed to reimport cancer drugs from other countries for personal use. He also pushed for more to be done to facilitate the entry of generics and biosimilars into the marketplace.

He also called for a relaxation of FDA regulations to lower drug development costs. “We have so many regulations so that every T is crossed and every I is dotted, to the point that it costs $30,000, $40,000 per patient to do a trial,” he said.

But Dr. Fonseca opposed market interference, saying that price controls would kill innovation.

“The patented drugs of today are the generics of the future, and absent innovation, we won’t have future generics,” he said in his presentation. “Price fixing kills innovation. ... So if we engage in that, today’s best is simply the best there is going to be.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Fonseca reported consulting work with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Janssen, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Kite Pharma, and Juno Therapeutics, and scientific advisory board work with Adaptive Biotechnologies.

CHICAGO – Are today’s myeloma drugs affordable? Two Mayo Clinic researchers agreed that costs are high but not whether the price is offset by the value.

“I don’t think there is any debate here. It’s like debating whether the Earth is flat or not,” S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said during a debate at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “These drugs are expensive.”

“I would trust Dr. Rajkumar with my life if I were diagnosed with myeloma,” countered Rafael Fonseca, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., “But I think he’s wrong on drug economics.”

Dr. Rajkumar said the total lifetime costs to treat all patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 2017 were $22.4 billion, a “conservative estimate” that excluded hospital, infusion, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and ancillary costs.

“Every single drug is expensive,” he said, referring to newer approved myeloma therapies that cost up to $192,000/year individually, and up to $590,000/year in triplet or quadruplet combination regimens, according to estimates he included in a related article he wrote for the 2018 ASCO Educational Book.

Of $50 billion spent in 2017 on cancer drugs, 80% of that spending was based on just 35 drugs, of which 6 were myeloma drugs – and myeloma is just 1% of all cancers. “Maybe it’s because of all the progress we’ve made in myeloma, but unless you think none of the other cancers should have the type of progress we have, this is not going to be affordable,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

Drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 cost $100,000/year or more, with an average of $150,000/year, according to Dr. Rajkumar. He compared that with the average U.S. annual gross household income of $52,000, saying that the high price of drugs has contributed to compliance problems and medical bankruptcy.

While Dr. Fonseca agreed that drug prices are “skyrocketing,” he challenged the notion that the increases were not affordable in his presentation and an associated ASCO Educational Book article.

In his talk, Dr. Fonseca said the availability of new myeloma drugs has led to “astounding” improvements in overall survival, but today’s best drugs are still not good enough. “We cannot afford to stop innovation and the move forward as we are ever so close to curing a large fraction of myeloma patients,” he said.

The increasing cost of drugs has been offset by societal and health effects, Dr. Fonseca argued.

The war on cancer from 1988 to 2000 added 23 million additional life-years, which has equated to $1.9 trillion in social value for Americans, according to one analysis he cited. In one myeloma-specific study, investigators found myeloma drug costs increased from $36,607 in 2004 to $109,544 in 2009, but those increases were balanced out by $67,900 in health benefits.

Although the financial impact of myeloma on the individual patient can be significant, it’s not bankruptcies, but out-of-pocket costs such as copayments, that have the most direct effect on patients, Dr. Fonseca said. Research shows medical bankruptcies are not associated with drug copayments, he added, but rather other medical expenses, such as hospital and physician bills, along with loss of income and limited savings.

Dr. Rajkumar – unconvinced that myeloma drugs are currently affordable – urged action on several fronts, including value-based pricing or tying the price of a drug to how much value it produces.

The Medicare program has to be able to negotiate prices, he added, and patients should be allowed to reimport cancer drugs from other countries for personal use. He also pushed for more to be done to facilitate the entry of generics and biosimilars into the marketplace.

He also called for a relaxation of FDA regulations to lower drug development costs. “We have so many regulations so that every T is crossed and every I is dotted, to the point that it costs $30,000, $40,000 per patient to do a trial,” he said.

But Dr. Fonseca opposed market interference, saying that price controls would kill innovation.

“The patented drugs of today are the generics of the future, and absent innovation, we won’t have future generics,” he said in his presentation. “Price fixing kills innovation. ... So if we engage in that, today’s best is simply the best there is going to be.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Fonseca reported consulting work with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Janssen, AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Kite Pharma, and Juno Therapeutics, and scientific advisory board work with Adaptive Biotechnologies.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

STOCKHOLM—Adding elotuzumab (E) to treatment with pomalidomide (P) and low-dose dexamethasone (d) can produce “clinically meaningful” results in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to an investigator for the ELOQUENT-3 trial.

In this phase 2 trial, patients who received EPd had double the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) of patients who received Pd.

Additionally, adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the treatment arms.

Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece, presented these results as a late-breaking abstract (LB2606) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM. They had to have received lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The patients were randomized to receive EPd (n=60) or Pd (n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Pomalidomide was given orally at 4 mg on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. In the Pd arm, dexamethasone was given as a 20 mg (for patients older than 75) or 40 mg (75 and younger) tablet weekly.

In the EPd arm, dexamethasone was split between oral (8 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg tablets) and intravenous doses (8 mg or 28 mg).

Elotuzumab was given at 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 2 cycles and 20 mg/kg monthly from cycle 3 on.

Patient characteristics

The patients’ median age was 69 (range, 43-81) in the EPd arm and 66 (range, 36-81) in the Pd arm. They were a median of 4.8 years (EPd) or 4.4 years (Pd) from diagnosis.

The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 2-8) in both groups.

Ninety percent of patients in the EPd arm and 84% of those in the Pd arm were refractory to lenalidomide. Seventy-eight percent and 82%, respectively, were refractory to a PI. And 68% and 72%, respectively, were refractory to both lenalidomide and a PI.

Treatment duration

Dr Dimopoulos noted that twice as many patients remained on treatment with EPd compared to Pd at the time of database lock (February 21, 2018). Forty percent of EPd patients (n=24) and 20% of Pd patients (n=11) were still on treatment at that time.

Patients’ primary reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression—43% of EPd recipients and 56% of Pd recipients. Two percent of EPd recipients and 4% of Pd recipients withdrew due to treatment-related toxicity. Four percent of patients in the Pd arm (and none in the EPd arm) withdrew due to maximum clinical benefit.

The median number of treatment cycles was 9 (range, 4-13) in the EPd arm and 5 (range, 3-10) in the Pd arm.

Efficacy

The ORR was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm. The odds ratio was 3.25 (P=0.0029).

Eight percent of patients in the EPd arm had a complete response or stringent complete response, as did 2% of patients in the Pd arm.

The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the Pd arm and has not been reached in the EPd arm.

“Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” Dr Dimopoulos said.

The median PFS was 10.3 months with EPd and 4.7 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62). There were 13 deaths in the EPd arm and 18 deaths in the Pd arm.

Safety

Dr Dimopoulos said AEs were comparable between the treatment arms. He pointed out that neutropenia was less common with EPd compared to Pd, despite similar pomalidomide dose intensity. And exposure-adjusted hematologic AEs and infections were lower with EPd than with Pd.

Ninety-seven percent of patients in the EPd arm and 95% in the Pd arm had at least 1 AE.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in the EPd arm and 8 in the Pd arm.

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure, and general physical health deterioration.

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection, multiple organ failure and infection, myocardial infarction, and plasma cell myeloma.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

STOCKHOLM—Adding elotuzumab (E) to treatment with pomalidomide (P) and low-dose dexamethasone (d) can produce “clinically meaningful” results in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to an investigator for the ELOQUENT-3 trial.

In this phase 2 trial, patients who received EPd had double the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) of patients who received Pd.

Additionally, adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the treatment arms.

Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece, presented these results as a late-breaking abstract (LB2606) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM. They had to have received lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The patients were randomized to receive EPd (n=60) or Pd (n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Pomalidomide was given orally at 4 mg on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. In the Pd arm, dexamethasone was given as a 20 mg (for patients older than 75) or 40 mg (75 and younger) tablet weekly.

In the EPd arm, dexamethasone was split between oral (8 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg tablets) and intravenous doses (8 mg or 28 mg).

Elotuzumab was given at 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 2 cycles and 20 mg/kg monthly from cycle 3 on.

Patient characteristics

The patients’ median age was 69 (range, 43-81) in the EPd arm and 66 (range, 36-81) in the Pd arm. They were a median of 4.8 years (EPd) or 4.4 years (Pd) from diagnosis.

The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 2-8) in both groups.

Ninety percent of patients in the EPd arm and 84% of those in the Pd arm were refractory to lenalidomide. Seventy-eight percent and 82%, respectively, were refractory to a PI. And 68% and 72%, respectively, were refractory to both lenalidomide and a PI.

Treatment duration

Dr Dimopoulos noted that twice as many patients remained on treatment with EPd compared to Pd at the time of database lock (February 21, 2018). Forty percent of EPd patients (n=24) and 20% of Pd patients (n=11) were still on treatment at that time.

Patients’ primary reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression—43% of EPd recipients and 56% of Pd recipients. Two percent of EPd recipients and 4% of Pd recipients withdrew due to treatment-related toxicity. Four percent of patients in the Pd arm (and none in the EPd arm) withdrew due to maximum clinical benefit.

The median number of treatment cycles was 9 (range, 4-13) in the EPd arm and 5 (range, 3-10) in the Pd arm.

Efficacy

The ORR was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm. The odds ratio was 3.25 (P=0.0029).

Eight percent of patients in the EPd arm had a complete response or stringent complete response, as did 2% of patients in the Pd arm.

The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the Pd arm and has not been reached in the EPd arm.

“Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” Dr Dimopoulos said.

The median PFS was 10.3 months with EPd and 4.7 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62). There were 13 deaths in the EPd arm and 18 deaths in the Pd arm.

Safety

Dr Dimopoulos said AEs were comparable between the treatment arms. He pointed out that neutropenia was less common with EPd compared to Pd, despite similar pomalidomide dose intensity. And exposure-adjusted hematologic AEs and infections were lower with EPd than with Pd.

Ninety-seven percent of patients in the EPd arm and 95% in the Pd arm had at least 1 AE.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in the EPd arm and 8 in the Pd arm.

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure, and general physical health deterioration.

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection, multiple organ failure and infection, myocardial infarction, and plasma cell myeloma.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

STOCKHOLM—Adding elotuzumab (E) to treatment with pomalidomide (P) and low-dose dexamethasone (d) can produce “clinically meaningful” results in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to an investigator for the ELOQUENT-3 trial.

In this phase 2 trial, patients who received EPd had double the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS) of patients who received Pd.

Additionally, adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the treatment arms.

Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece, presented these results as a late-breaking abstract (LB2606) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial enrolled MM patients who had refractory or relapsed and refractory MM. They had to have received lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).

The patients were randomized to receive EPd (n=60) or Pd (n=57) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Pomalidomide was given orally at 4 mg on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. In the Pd arm, dexamethasone was given as a 20 mg (for patients older than 75) or 40 mg (75 and younger) tablet weekly.

In the EPd arm, dexamethasone was split between oral (8 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg tablets) and intravenous doses (8 mg or 28 mg).

Elotuzumab was given at 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 2 cycles and 20 mg/kg monthly from cycle 3 on.

Patient characteristics

The patients’ median age was 69 (range, 43-81) in the EPd arm and 66 (range, 36-81) in the Pd arm. They were a median of 4.8 years (EPd) or 4.4 years (Pd) from diagnosis.

The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 2-8) in both groups.

Ninety percent of patients in the EPd arm and 84% of those in the Pd arm were refractory to lenalidomide. Seventy-eight percent and 82%, respectively, were refractory to a PI. And 68% and 72%, respectively, were refractory to both lenalidomide and a PI.

Treatment duration

Dr Dimopoulos noted that twice as many patients remained on treatment with EPd compared to Pd at the time of database lock (February 21, 2018). Forty percent of EPd patients (n=24) and 20% of Pd patients (n=11) were still on treatment at that time.

Patients’ primary reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression—43% of EPd recipients and 56% of Pd recipients. Two percent of EPd recipients and 4% of Pd recipients withdrew due to treatment-related toxicity. Four percent of patients in the Pd arm (and none in the EPd arm) withdrew due to maximum clinical benefit.

The median number of treatment cycles was 9 (range, 4-13) in the EPd arm and 5 (range, 3-10) in the Pd arm.

Efficacy

The ORR was 53% in the EPd arm and 26% in the Pd arm. The odds ratio was 3.25 (P=0.0029).

Eight percent of patients in the EPd arm had a complete response or stringent complete response, as did 2% of patients in the Pd arm.

The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the Pd arm and has not been reached in the EPd arm.

“Elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed a significant and clinically meaningful 46% reduction in the risk of progression or death,” Dr Dimopoulos said.

The median PFS was 10.3 months with EPd and 4.7 months with Pd (hazard ratio=0.54, P=0.0078).

Although overall survival data are not yet mature, there was a trend favoring EPd over Pd (hazard ratio=0.62). There were 13 deaths in the EPd arm and 18 deaths in the Pd arm.

Safety

Dr Dimopoulos said AEs were comparable between the treatment arms. He pointed out that neutropenia was less common with EPd compared to Pd, despite similar pomalidomide dose intensity. And exposure-adjusted hematologic AEs and infections were lower with EPd than with Pd.

Ninety-seven percent of patients in the EPd arm and 95% in the Pd arm had at least 1 AE.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included constipation (2% and 0%), hyperglycemia (8% and 7%), bone pain (3% and 0%), dyspnea (3% and 2%), fatigue (0% and 4%), respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%), and upper respiratory tract infection (0% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included anemia (10% and 20%), neutropenia (13% and 27%), thrombocytopenia (8% and 5%), and lymphopenia (8% and 2%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of special interest (in the EPd and Pd arms, respectively) included infections (13% and 22%), vascular disorders (3% and 0%), cardiac disorders (7% and 4%), and neoplasms (2% and 11%).

There were 5 grade 5 AEs in the EPd arm and 8 in the Pd arm.

In the EPd arm, grade 5 AEs included infection (n=3), cardiac failure, and general physical health deterioration.

In the Pd arm, grade 5 AEs included malignant neoplasm progression (n=4), infection, multiple organ failure and infection, myocardial infarction, and plasma cell myeloma.

Photo by Andrew D. Bowser

CHICAGO—bb2121, the anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, induced deep and durable ongoing responses in heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM) patients, updated results of a phase 1 study show.

At active doses (≥150 x 10⁸ CAR+ T cells), the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapy produced an overall response rate of 95.5%, including a 50% rate of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, with a median duration of response of 10.8 months.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 months in the dose-escalation cohort.

Noopur S. Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, reported these results at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 8007*). The study is sponsored by Celgene Corporation and bluebird bio.

To date, bb2121 has been manageable for patients at doses as high as 800 x 10⁸ CAR T cells, Dr Raje noted.

She updated the findings of CRB-401 (NCT02658929), which included 43 patients with relapsed/refractory MM, including 21 in a dose-escalation (DE) cohort and 22 in a dose-expansion (Exp) cohort.

Patients received one infusion of bb2121 anti-BCMA CAR T cells after a lymphodepleting conditioning regimen including fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.

Patients were a median age of 58 (range, 37 – 74) and 65 (range, 44 – 75) in the DE and Exp cohorts, respectively.

Eight patients (38%) in the DE cohort and 9 (41%) in the Exp cohort had high-risk cytogenetics and had received a median of 7 (range, 3 – 14) and 8 (range, 3 – 23) prior regimens, respectively.

All patients in the DE cohort and 86% in the Exp cohort had a prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and 29% and 23% in each cohort, respectively, had more than one ASCT.

Results

Patients in the DE cohort had a median PFS of 11.8 months at active doses.

All 16 responding patients who were evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) achieved MRD negativity and had a median PFS of 17.7 months.

The investigators observed a dose-response relationship across the active dose ranges and higher peak CAR T expansion in responding patients compared with those who did not respond.

The investigators also noted that the tumor response was independent of tumor BCMA expression.

bb2121 persisted for 6 months or longer in 44% of responding patients.

“This should be tested a little bit earlier now, because what we’ve done here is show the proof of concept, and really treated these very end-stage myeloma patients,” Dr Raje observed.

Adverse events of interest

“We found that this product is extremely well tolerated,” Dr Raje said. “We saw, certainly, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in over 60% of patients, but most of the CRS was managed, and it was grade 1 and 2 with very little grade 3 CRS. [W]e just had 1 patient with grade 4 neurotoxicity who is now completely recovered.”

The 2 grade 3 CRS events observed in this study resolved in 24 hours, Dr Raje noted.

Infused patients (n=43) also experienced neutropenia (81%), thrombocytopenia (61%), and anemia (56%).

Thirty-one of 40 patients (78%) recovered their absolute neutrophil count to 1000/μL or greater by day 32, and 22 of 40 (55%) patients recovered their platelet counts to 50,000/μL or greater by day 32.

Commentary

BCMA is the “latest promising target” in MM, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and this bb2121 data represents the largest and most mature experience with the CAR T approach in the disease.

However, patients are still relapsing, and the meaning of MRD negativity is unclear in this setting, Dr Parameswaran said in a presentation referencing the results of the study.

“Unfortunately, this is not yet a cure, so I’m going advise my patients who are in stringent CR and on maintenance not to go for CAR T cells unless they relapse,” he said.

An ongoing global trial of bb2121, known as KarMMa, is open for enrollment in North America and Europe, and additional studies are planned in earlier lines of myeloma.

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract. 

Photo by Andrew D. Bowser

CHICAGO—bb2121, the anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, induced deep and durable ongoing responses in heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM) patients, updated results of a phase 1 study show.

At active doses (≥150 x 10⁸ CAR+ T cells), the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapy produced an overall response rate of 95.5%, including a 50% rate of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, with a median duration of response of 10.8 months.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 months in the dose-escalation cohort.

Noopur S. Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, reported these results at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 8007*). The study is sponsored by Celgene Corporation and bluebird bio.

To date, bb2121 has been manageable for patients at doses as high as 800 x 10⁸ CAR T cells, Dr Raje noted.

She updated the findings of CRB-401 (NCT02658929), which included 43 patients with relapsed/refractory MM, including 21 in a dose-escalation (DE) cohort and 22 in a dose-expansion (Exp) cohort.

Patients received one infusion of bb2121 anti-BCMA CAR T cells after a lymphodepleting conditioning regimen including fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.

Patients were a median age of 58 (range, 37 – 74) and 65 (range, 44 – 75) in the DE and Exp cohorts, respectively.

Eight patients (38%) in the DE cohort and 9 (41%) in the Exp cohort had high-risk cytogenetics and had received a median of 7 (range, 3 – 14) and 8 (range, 3 – 23) prior regimens, respectively.

All patients in the DE cohort and 86% in the Exp cohort had a prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and 29% and 23% in each cohort, respectively, had more than one ASCT.

Results

Patients in the DE cohort had a median PFS of 11.8 months at active doses.

All 16 responding patients who were evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) achieved MRD negativity and had a median PFS of 17.7 months.

The investigators observed a dose-response relationship across the active dose ranges and higher peak CAR T expansion in responding patients compared with those who did not respond.

The investigators also noted that the tumor response was independent of tumor BCMA expression.

bb2121 persisted for 6 months or longer in 44% of responding patients.

“This should be tested a little bit earlier now, because what we’ve done here is show the proof of concept, and really treated these very end-stage myeloma patients,” Dr Raje observed.

Adverse events of interest

“We found that this product is extremely well tolerated,” Dr Raje said. “We saw, certainly, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in over 60% of patients, but most of the CRS was managed, and it was grade 1 and 2 with very little grade 3 CRS. [W]e just had 1 patient with grade 4 neurotoxicity who is now completely recovered.”

The 2 grade 3 CRS events observed in this study resolved in 24 hours, Dr Raje noted.

Infused patients (n=43) also experienced neutropenia (81%), thrombocytopenia (61%), and anemia (56%).

Thirty-one of 40 patients (78%) recovered their absolute neutrophil count to 1000/μL or greater by day 32, and 22 of 40 (55%) patients recovered their platelet counts to 50,000/μL or greater by day 32.

Commentary

BCMA is the “latest promising target” in MM, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and this bb2121 data represents the largest and most mature experience with the CAR T approach in the disease.

However, patients are still relapsing, and the meaning of MRD negativity is unclear in this setting, Dr Parameswaran said in a presentation referencing the results of the study.

“Unfortunately, this is not yet a cure, so I’m going advise my patients who are in stringent CR and on maintenance not to go for CAR T cells unless they relapse,” he said.

An ongoing global trial of bb2121, known as KarMMa, is open for enrollment in North America and Europe, and additional studies are planned in earlier lines of myeloma.

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract. 

Photo by Andrew D. Bowser

CHICAGO—bb2121, the anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, induced deep and durable ongoing responses in heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM) patients, updated results of a phase 1 study show.

At active doses (≥150 x 10⁸ CAR+ T cells), the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapy produced an overall response rate of 95.5%, including a 50% rate of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, with a median duration of response of 10.8 months.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 months in the dose-escalation cohort.

Noopur S. Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, reported these results at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 8007*). The study is sponsored by Celgene Corporation and bluebird bio.

To date, bb2121 has been manageable for patients at doses as high as 800 x 10⁸ CAR T cells, Dr Raje noted.

She updated the findings of CRB-401 (NCT02658929), which included 43 patients with relapsed/refractory MM, including 21 in a dose-escalation (DE) cohort and 22 in a dose-expansion (Exp) cohort.

Patients received one infusion of bb2121 anti-BCMA CAR T cells after a lymphodepleting conditioning regimen including fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.

Patients were a median age of 58 (range, 37 – 74) and 65 (range, 44 – 75) in the DE and Exp cohorts, respectively.

Eight patients (38%) in the DE cohort and 9 (41%) in the Exp cohort had high-risk cytogenetics and had received a median of 7 (range, 3 – 14) and 8 (range, 3 – 23) prior regimens, respectively.

All patients in the DE cohort and 86% in the Exp cohort had a prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and 29% and 23% in each cohort, respectively, had more than one ASCT.

Results

Patients in the DE cohort had a median PFS of 11.8 months at active doses.

All 16 responding patients who were evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) achieved MRD negativity and had a median PFS of 17.7 months.

The investigators observed a dose-response relationship across the active dose ranges and higher peak CAR T expansion in responding patients compared with those who did not respond.

The investigators also noted that the tumor response was independent of tumor BCMA expression.

bb2121 persisted for 6 months or longer in 44% of responding patients.

“This should be tested a little bit earlier now, because what we’ve done here is show the proof of concept, and really treated these very end-stage myeloma patients,” Dr Raje observed.

Adverse events of interest

“We found that this product is extremely well tolerated,” Dr Raje said. “We saw, certainly, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in over 60% of patients, but most of the CRS was managed, and it was grade 1 and 2 with very little grade 3 CRS. [W]e just had 1 patient with grade 4 neurotoxicity who is now completely recovered.”

The 2 grade 3 CRS events observed in this study resolved in 24 hours, Dr Raje noted.

Infused patients (n=43) also experienced neutropenia (81%), thrombocytopenia (61%), and anemia (56%).

Thirty-one of 40 patients (78%) recovered their absolute neutrophil count to 1000/μL or greater by day 32, and 22 of 40 (55%) patients recovered their platelet counts to 50,000/μL or greater by day 32.

Commentary

BCMA is the “latest promising target” in MM, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and this bb2121 data represents the largest and most mature experience with the CAR T approach in the disease.

However, patients are still relapsing, and the meaning of MRD negativity is unclear in this setting, Dr Parameswaran said in a presentation referencing the results of the study.

“Unfortunately, this is not yet a cure, so I’m going advise my patients who are in stringent CR and on maintenance not to go for CAR T cells unless they relapse,” he said.

An ongoing global trial of bb2121, known as KarMMa, is open for enrollment in North America and Europe, and additional studies are planned in earlier lines of myeloma.

*Data presented at the meeting differ from the abstract. 

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), a new study reveals.

Up until now, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) had been the only therapy investigated exclusively after lenalidomide therapy, according to Paul G. Richardson, MD.

Now, he said, “a triple combination of PVd demonstrated promising activity in early phase clinical trials of lenalidomide-refractory patients.”

Dr Richardson, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the findings of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (abstract 8001) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The oral immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide, a standard-of-care treatment in R/R MM, has demonstrated synergistic anti-myeloma activity with dexamethasone and proteasome inhibitors.

A combination of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is indicated for MM patients after 2 or more prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

“Lenalidomide is an established therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr Richardson explained. “Therefore, patients for whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option represent a clinically relevant population with unmet need.”

Phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928)

Dr Richardson reported the final PFS and safety data from the first phase 3 pomalidomide triplet trial comparing PVd against bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in an entirely post-lenalidomide treated population.

The 559 patients had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and 2 or more cycles of prior lenalidomide. They were randomized to receive PVd (281 patients, median age 67 years) or Vd (278 patients, median age 68 years).

In 21-day cycles, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg per day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on day 1 and 8 of cycles 9 and higher; and dexamethasone 20 mg per day (10 mg for those over age 75) on the days of and after bortezomib.

The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

After a median follow-up of 16 months, “PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 39% compared with Vd,” Dr Richardson said.

Median PFS was 11.2 months in the PVd group and 7.1 months in the Vd group. Overall survival data are not mature.

The overall response rate was significantly higher with PVd (82.2%) vs Vd (50%).

And the overall response rate was even higher in patients with only 1 prior line of therapy (90.1% vs 54.8%, respectively).

“PVd led to deeper responses with higher stringent complete response/complete response and more very good partial responses than Vd,” Dr Richardson noted.

“PFS was improved with PVd vs Vd across patient subgroups and regardless of lenalidomide refractoriness. The PFS benefit with PVd was maintained through the next line of therapy.”

He reported longer treatment duration and exposure with PVd compared with Vd.

Safety

The safety profile was consistent with known toxicities associated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone, he said.

Most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were higher with PVd than Vd, including neutropenia (42% vs 9%) and infections (31% vs 18%).

In conclusion, Dr Richardson said, “These results support the use of PVd in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide.”

Future analyses of the data will include correlatives, minimal residual disease, and quality of life, he said.

The trial was sponsored by Celgene. 

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), a new study reveals.

Up until now, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) had been the only therapy investigated exclusively after lenalidomide therapy, according to Paul G. Richardson, MD.

Now, he said, “a triple combination of PVd demonstrated promising activity in early phase clinical trials of lenalidomide-refractory patients.”

Dr Richardson, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the findings of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (abstract 8001) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The oral immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide, a standard-of-care treatment in R/R MM, has demonstrated synergistic anti-myeloma activity with dexamethasone and proteasome inhibitors.

A combination of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is indicated for MM patients after 2 or more prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

“Lenalidomide is an established therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr Richardson explained. “Therefore, patients for whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option represent a clinically relevant population with unmet need.”

Phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928)

Dr Richardson reported the final PFS and safety data from the first phase 3 pomalidomide triplet trial comparing PVd against bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in an entirely post-lenalidomide treated population.

The 559 patients had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and 2 or more cycles of prior lenalidomide. They were randomized to receive PVd (281 patients, median age 67 years) or Vd (278 patients, median age 68 years).

In 21-day cycles, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg per day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on day 1 and 8 of cycles 9 and higher; and dexamethasone 20 mg per day (10 mg for those over age 75) on the days of and after bortezomib.

The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

After a median follow-up of 16 months, “PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 39% compared with Vd,” Dr Richardson said.

Median PFS was 11.2 months in the PVd group and 7.1 months in the Vd group. Overall survival data are not mature.

The overall response rate was significantly higher with PVd (82.2%) vs Vd (50%).

And the overall response rate was even higher in patients with only 1 prior line of therapy (90.1% vs 54.8%, respectively).

“PVd led to deeper responses with higher stringent complete response/complete response and more very good partial responses than Vd,” Dr Richardson noted.

“PFS was improved with PVd vs Vd across patient subgroups and regardless of lenalidomide refractoriness. The PFS benefit with PVd was maintained through the next line of therapy.”

He reported longer treatment duration and exposure with PVd compared with Vd.

Safety

The safety profile was consistent with known toxicities associated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone, he said.

Most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were higher with PVd than Vd, including neutropenia (42% vs 9%) and infections (31% vs 18%).

In conclusion, Dr Richardson said, “These results support the use of PVd in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide.”

Future analyses of the data will include correlatives, minimal residual disease, and quality of life, he said.

The trial was sponsored by Celgene. 

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—The addition of pomalidomide to bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), a new study reveals.

Up until now, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) had been the only therapy investigated exclusively after lenalidomide therapy, according to Paul G. Richardson, MD.

Now, he said, “a triple combination of PVd demonstrated promising activity in early phase clinical trials of lenalidomide-refractory patients.”

Dr Richardson, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, presented the findings of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (abstract 8001) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

The oral immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide, a standard-of-care treatment in R/R MM, has demonstrated synergistic anti-myeloma activity with dexamethasone and proteasome inhibitors.

A combination of pomalidomide and dexamethasone is indicated for MM patients after 2 or more prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

“Lenalidomide is an established therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr Richardson explained. “Therefore, patients for whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option represent a clinically relevant population with unmet need.”

Phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial (NCT01734928)

Dr Richardson reported the final PFS and safety data from the first phase 3 pomalidomide triplet trial comparing PVd against bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in an entirely post-lenalidomide treated population.

The 559 patients had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and 2 or more cycles of prior lenalidomide. They were randomized to receive PVd (281 patients, median age 67 years) or Vd (278 patients, median age 68 years).

In 21-day cycles, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg per day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on day 1 and 8 of cycles 9 and higher; and dexamethasone 20 mg per day (10 mg for those over age 75) on the days of and after bortezomib.

The primary endpoint was PFS.

Results

After a median follow-up of 16 months, “PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 39% compared with Vd,” Dr Richardson said.

Median PFS was 11.2 months in the PVd group and 7.1 months in the Vd group. Overall survival data are not mature.

The overall response rate was significantly higher with PVd (82.2%) vs Vd (50%).

And the overall response rate was even higher in patients with only 1 prior line of therapy (90.1% vs 54.8%, respectively).

“PVd led to deeper responses with higher stringent complete response/complete response and more very good partial responses than Vd,” Dr Richardson noted.

“PFS was improved with PVd vs Vd across patient subgroups and regardless of lenalidomide refractoriness. The PFS benefit with PVd was maintained through the next line of therapy.”

He reported longer treatment duration and exposure with PVd compared with Vd.

Safety

The safety profile was consistent with known toxicities associated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone, he said.

Most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were higher with PVd than Vd, including neutropenia (42% vs 9%) and infections (31% vs 18%).

In conclusion, Dr Richardson said, “These results support the use of PVd in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide.”

Future analyses of the data will include correlatives, minimal residual disease, and quality of life, he said.

The trial was sponsored by Celgene. 

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.

©ASCO/Michael R. Schmidt

CHICAGO—A once-weekly regimen of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone shows a favorable benefit-risk profile for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM), according to a new study.

“The more convenient dosing schedule can improve access to an efficacious therapy for patients unable to make twice-weekly visits to the clinic,” said investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, of the Hospital Clinico Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL in Salamanca, Spain.

Dr Mateos presented results of the randomized, phase 3 study (abstract 8000) at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting. The results were also published in The Lancet.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib at 27 mg/m² is approved as a single agent and in combination with lenalidomide or dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM.

To develop a more convenient carfilzomib regimen, once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone was assessed in the phase 1/2 CHAMPION-1 study, showing good response rates (77%) and a median PFS of 12.6 months.

At ASCO, Dr Mateos presented the results from the pre-planned interim analysis of the phase 3 ARROW study (NCT02412878), comparing the two-drug regimen once-weekly vs twice-weekly.

Study design

The 478 patients, median age 66 years, had 2 to 3 prior therapies and prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, she said.

Investigators randomized patients to receive either once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone.

The once-weekly group received carfilzomib 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 and 70 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent cycles.

The twice-weekly group received the same carfilzomib dose on day 1, cycle 1 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 thereafter. All patients received dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and day 22 (cycles 1–9 only).

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

The study met the primary endpoint of PFS, with a median PFS for the once-weekly dose of 11.2 months and 7.6 months for the twice-weekly dose.

In addition, “patients who received once-weekly carfilzomib plus dexamethasone achieved a statistically significant higher overall response rate (62.9%) than patients who received the twice-weekly dose (40.8%),” Dr Mateos said.

Similarly, more patients achieved a complete response or better (7.1%) with the once-weekly dose than the twice-weekly dose (1.7%).

Safety

The overall safety profile was comparable between the 2 treatment groups and no new safety risks were identified.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 67.6% (once-weekly) and 61.7% (twice-weekly) of patients.

Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events occurred in 5 patients (2.1%) in the once-weekly group and in 2 patients (0.9%) in the twice-weekly group.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension and cardiac failure was similar in both groups.

“Exposure-adjusted incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was slightly higher in the once-weekly vs the twice-weekly group,” Dr Mateos explained, “but the exposure-adjusted incidence for severe adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of carfilzomib or death were similar between the treatment groups,” she said.

The ARROW study was supported by Amgen Inc.

©ASCO/Todd Buchanan 2018

CHICAGO—Cord blood (CB) is a viable source of natural killer (NK) cells for adoptive cellular therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Ex-vivo expanded cord blood NK cells were well tolerated without significant graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a phase 2 study.

Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, reported these results as abstract 8006.*

The phase 2 study (NCT01729091) included 33 patients with symptomatic MM who were appropriate candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

For each patient, investigators chose cord blood units with at least a 4/6 match at HLA-A, -B and –DR.

Prior to the autologous graft, patients received lenalidomide and melphalan. Lenalidomide was given based on preclinical data suggesting synergy between that immunomodulatory agent and NK cells, Dr Shah said.

Patients were a median age of 59 (range, 25 – 72), 36% had a history of progressive disease or relapse, and 73% had adverse cytogenetics/FISH, were ISS III, or had a history of progressive disease or relapse.

Results

Dr Shah observed that in a generally high-risk population, responses to treatment with cord blood NK cells in the setting of ASCT were “encouraging,” with 79% of patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better.

Twenty-one patients (64%) achieved a complete response (CR) or near CR. And 61% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by day 100.

Patients had an estimated 3-year progression-free survival of 52%.

Three patients died, all from disease progression, and 13 patients have progressed.

The investigators observed no infusional toxicities, no GVHD, no CRS, and no neurotoxicity.

One patient experienced graft failure and was rescued with an autologous back-up graft.

"We are able to detect the donor-derived NK cells up to 13 days after infusion,” Dr Shah said, “but I think a more sensitive analysis with flow chimerism will not only allow us to detect more patients, but also better interrogate them to truly understand the in vivo phenotype and activation status of these cells."

Dr Shah indicated she and her colleagues became interested in studying cord blood for NK cell therapy because it is a known source of hematopoietic cells that is immediately available, does not require donor manipulation, and has more flexibility in genetic matching.

Previously, Dr Shah and colleagues conducted a phase 1 study, in which 12 patients received cord blood NK cells up to a dose of 1 x 10⁸ NK cells/kg. “This was determined to be adequate and safe to move on to the phase 2,” she said.

Despite encouraging results, more research needs to be done, according to Dr Shah. “I don't think this is the end-all, be-all for NK cell therapy.”

Some future directions include combination with antibody therapy, improving NK persistence in vivo using cytokine manipulation, and possibly engineering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified NK cells, Dr Shah observed.

It’s also possible that HLA match may not be needed: “If that is the case, we will truly have an off-the-shelf source of NK cells that we can apply more readily to various patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Celgene Corporation, Stading-Younger Cancer Research Foundation, and the MD Anderson High-Risk Multiple Myeloma Moonshot Project.  

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

©ASCO/Todd Buchanan 2018

CHICAGO—Cord blood (CB) is a viable source of natural killer (NK) cells for adoptive cellular therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Ex-vivo expanded cord blood NK cells were well tolerated without significant graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a phase 2 study.

Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, reported these results as abstract 8006.*

The phase 2 study (NCT01729091) included 33 patients with symptomatic MM who were appropriate candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

For each patient, investigators chose cord blood units with at least a 4/6 match at HLA-A, -B and –DR.

Prior to the autologous graft, patients received lenalidomide and melphalan. Lenalidomide was given based on preclinical data suggesting synergy between that immunomodulatory agent and NK cells, Dr Shah said.

Patients were a median age of 59 (range, 25 – 72), 36% had a history of progressive disease or relapse, and 73% had adverse cytogenetics/FISH, were ISS III, or had a history of progressive disease or relapse.

Results

Dr Shah observed that in a generally high-risk population, responses to treatment with cord blood NK cells in the setting of ASCT were “encouraging,” with 79% of patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better.

Twenty-one patients (64%) achieved a complete response (CR) or near CR. And 61% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by day 100.

Patients had an estimated 3-year progression-free survival of 52%.

Three patients died, all from disease progression, and 13 patients have progressed.

The investigators observed no infusional toxicities, no GVHD, no CRS, and no neurotoxicity.

One patient experienced graft failure and was rescued with an autologous back-up graft.

"We are able to detect the donor-derived NK cells up to 13 days after infusion,” Dr Shah said, “but I think a more sensitive analysis with flow chimerism will not only allow us to detect more patients, but also better interrogate them to truly understand the in vivo phenotype and activation status of these cells."

Dr Shah indicated she and her colleagues became interested in studying cord blood for NK cell therapy because it is a known source of hematopoietic cells that is immediately available, does not require donor manipulation, and has more flexibility in genetic matching.

Previously, Dr Shah and colleagues conducted a phase 1 study, in which 12 patients received cord blood NK cells up to a dose of 1 x 10⁸ NK cells/kg. “This was determined to be adequate and safe to move on to the phase 2,” she said.

Despite encouraging results, more research needs to be done, according to Dr Shah. “I don't think this is the end-all, be-all for NK cell therapy.”

Some future directions include combination with antibody therapy, improving NK persistence in vivo using cytokine manipulation, and possibly engineering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified NK cells, Dr Shah observed.

It’s also possible that HLA match may not be needed: “If that is the case, we will truly have an off-the-shelf source of NK cells that we can apply more readily to various patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Celgene Corporation, Stading-Younger Cancer Research Foundation, and the MD Anderson High-Risk Multiple Myeloma Moonshot Project.  

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

©ASCO/Todd Buchanan 2018

CHICAGO—Cord blood (CB) is a viable source of natural killer (NK) cells for adoptive cellular therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), according to a speaker at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting.

Ex-vivo expanded cord blood NK cells were well tolerated without significant graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in a phase 2 study.

Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, reported these results as abstract 8006.*

The phase 2 study (NCT01729091) included 33 patients with symptomatic MM who were appropriate candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

For each patient, investigators chose cord blood units with at least a 4/6 match at HLA-A, -B and –DR.

Prior to the autologous graft, patients received lenalidomide and melphalan. Lenalidomide was given based on preclinical data suggesting synergy between that immunomodulatory agent and NK cells, Dr Shah said.

Patients were a median age of 59 (range, 25 – 72), 36% had a history of progressive disease or relapse, and 73% had adverse cytogenetics/FISH, were ISS III, or had a history of progressive disease or relapse.

Results

Dr Shah observed that in a generally high-risk population, responses to treatment with cord blood NK cells in the setting of ASCT were “encouraging,” with 79% of patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better.

Twenty-one patients (64%) achieved a complete response (CR) or near CR. And 61% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by day 100.

Patients had an estimated 3-year progression-free survival of 52%.

Three patients died, all from disease progression, and 13 patients have progressed.

The investigators observed no infusional toxicities, no GVHD, no CRS, and no neurotoxicity.

One patient experienced graft failure and was rescued with an autologous back-up graft.

"We are able to detect the donor-derived NK cells up to 13 days after infusion,” Dr Shah said, “but I think a more sensitive analysis with flow chimerism will not only allow us to detect more patients, but also better interrogate them to truly understand the in vivo phenotype and activation status of these cells."

Dr Shah indicated she and her colleagues became interested in studying cord blood for NK cell therapy because it is a known source of hematopoietic cells that is immediately available, does not require donor manipulation, and has more flexibility in genetic matching.

Previously, Dr Shah and colleagues conducted a phase 1 study, in which 12 patients received cord blood NK cells up to a dose of 1 x 10⁸ NK cells/kg. “This was determined to be adequate and safe to move on to the phase 2,” she said.

Despite encouraging results, more research needs to be done, according to Dr Shah. “I don't think this is the end-all, be-all for NK cell therapy.”

Some future directions include combination with antibody therapy, improving NK persistence in vivo using cytokine manipulation, and possibly engineering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified NK cells, Dr Shah observed.

It’s also possible that HLA match may not be needed: “If that is the case, we will truly have an off-the-shelf source of NK cells that we can apply more readily to various patients,” she said.

The study was supported by Celgene Corporation, Stading-Younger Cancer Research Foundation, and the MD Anderson High-Risk Multiple Myeloma Moonshot Project.  

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

showing multiple myeloma

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell technology has been successfully used in the treatment of hematologic malignancies such as leukemias and lymphomas. Now, this technology has come to the forefront in multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, led by James N. Kochenderfer, MD, generated CAR T cells expressing the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is uniquely found on MM cells.

In the first in humans study, 24 patients received CAR-BCMA T cells at doses ranging between 0.3 and 3 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells/kg. Sixteen patients were treated at the highest dose. These patients had a median of 9.5 lines of prior therapy and 63% were refractory to their last treatment.

Thirteen patients had responses that were either partial or better and the overall response rate was 81%. Median event-free survival was 31 weeks. At the time of the report, 6 patients still have ongoing responses.

Patient cases

The report highlights a case study of a patient who had a large abdominal mass that resolved on computed tomography imaging, with λ light chains decreasing dramatically and becoming undetectable after CAR T-cell infusion. Recovery of normal plasma cells was noticeable with λ chain increases, but the ratio of κ to λ ratio remained normal 6 months after CAR T-cell infusion.

Using immunohistochemistry staining of CS138 before and 2 months after CAR-BMCA infusion, the researchers found effective depletion in bone marrow plasma cells in patients who were evaluated.

In patients who responded to treatment, decline in serum BCMA was also observed. However, in a patient who later progressed, BCMA increases were seen, leading the researchers to suggest that BCMA may be a tumor marker for MM.

The researchers noted that peak levels of CAR T cells occurred between 7 and 14 days after infusion and highest levels were seen in patients who showed antimyeloma responses.

Toxicity

CAR T-cell technology is also associated with accompanying toxicities.

At the highest dose, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was a substantial toxicity especially in 2 patients who had a significant MM burden: in one case 80% of bone marrow cells were MM plasma cells and in the other the MM burden was 90%.

Six of the 16 patients required vasopressor support for hypotension and 1 patient required mechanical ventilation. The researchers noted that CRS of grade 3/4 was seen in patients who had a higher MM plasma cell burden.

The researchers indicated there is room for improvement. “The importance of persistence of CAR T cells in treating MM requires additional study,” they stated.

The sometimes low or absence of BCMA expression on MM cells may prompt the search for other antigens. “Treatment outcomes varied substantially between patients, and much room for improvement remains in improving the durability of antimyeloma responses and in reducing toxicity,” they concluded.

The researchers reported their findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 

showing multiple myeloma

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell technology has been successfully used in the treatment of hematologic malignancies such as leukemias and lymphomas. Now, this technology has come to the forefront in multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, led by James N. Kochenderfer, MD, generated CAR T cells expressing the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is uniquely found on MM cells.

In the first in humans study, 24 patients received CAR-BCMA T cells at doses ranging between 0.3 and 3 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells/kg. Sixteen patients were treated at the highest dose. These patients had a median of 9.5 lines of prior therapy and 63% were refractory to their last treatment.

Thirteen patients had responses that were either partial or better and the overall response rate was 81%. Median event-free survival was 31 weeks. At the time of the report, 6 patients still have ongoing responses.

Patient cases

The report highlights a case study of a patient who had a large abdominal mass that resolved on computed tomography imaging, with λ light chains decreasing dramatically and becoming undetectable after CAR T-cell infusion. Recovery of normal plasma cells was noticeable with λ chain increases, but the ratio of κ to λ ratio remained normal 6 months after CAR T-cell infusion.

Using immunohistochemistry staining of CS138 before and 2 months after CAR-BMCA infusion, the researchers found effective depletion in bone marrow plasma cells in patients who were evaluated.

In patients who responded to treatment, decline in serum BCMA was also observed. However, in a patient who later progressed, BCMA increases were seen, leading the researchers to suggest that BCMA may be a tumor marker for MM.

The researchers noted that peak levels of CAR T cells occurred between 7 and 14 days after infusion and highest levels were seen in patients who showed antimyeloma responses.

Toxicity

CAR T-cell technology is also associated with accompanying toxicities.

At the highest dose, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was a substantial toxicity especially in 2 patients who had a significant MM burden: in one case 80% of bone marrow cells were MM plasma cells and in the other the MM burden was 90%.

Six of the 16 patients required vasopressor support for hypotension and 1 patient required mechanical ventilation. The researchers noted that CRS of grade 3/4 was seen in patients who had a higher MM plasma cell burden.

The researchers indicated there is room for improvement. “The importance of persistence of CAR T cells in treating MM requires additional study,” they stated.

The sometimes low or absence of BCMA expression on MM cells may prompt the search for other antigens. “Treatment outcomes varied substantially between patients, and much room for improvement remains in improving the durability of antimyeloma responses and in reducing toxicity,” they concluded.

The researchers reported their findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 

showing multiple myeloma

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell technology has been successfully used in the treatment of hematologic malignancies such as leukemias and lymphomas. Now, this technology has come to the forefront in multiple myeloma (MM).

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, led by James N. Kochenderfer, MD, generated CAR T cells expressing the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is uniquely found on MM cells.

In the first in humans study, 24 patients received CAR-BCMA T cells at doses ranging between 0.3 and 3 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells/kg. Sixteen patients were treated at the highest dose. These patients had a median of 9.5 lines of prior therapy and 63% were refractory to their last treatment.

Thirteen patients had responses that were either partial or better and the overall response rate was 81%. Median event-free survival was 31 weeks. At the time of the report, 6 patients still have ongoing responses.

Patient cases

The report highlights a case study of a patient who had a large abdominal mass that resolved on computed tomography imaging, with λ light chains decreasing dramatically and becoming undetectable after CAR T-cell infusion. Recovery of normal plasma cells was noticeable with λ chain increases, but the ratio of κ to λ ratio remained normal 6 months after CAR T-cell infusion.

Using immunohistochemistry staining of CS138 before and 2 months after CAR-BMCA infusion, the researchers found effective depletion in bone marrow plasma cells in patients who were evaluated.

In patients who responded to treatment, decline in serum BCMA was also observed. However, in a patient who later progressed, BCMA increases were seen, leading the researchers to suggest that BCMA may be a tumor marker for MM.

The researchers noted that peak levels of CAR T cells occurred between 7 and 14 days after infusion and highest levels were seen in patients who showed antimyeloma responses.

Toxicity

CAR T-cell technology is also associated with accompanying toxicities.

At the highest dose, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was a substantial toxicity especially in 2 patients who had a significant MM burden: in one case 80% of bone marrow cells were MM plasma cells and in the other the MM burden was 90%.

Six of the 16 patients required vasopressor support for hypotension and 1 patient required mechanical ventilation. The researchers noted that CRS of grade 3/4 was seen in patients who had a higher MM plasma cell burden.

The researchers indicated there is room for improvement. “The importance of persistence of CAR T cells in treating MM requires additional study,” they stated.

The sometimes low or absence of BCMA expression on MM cells may prompt the search for other antigens. “Treatment outcomes varied substantially between patients, and much room for improvement remains in improving the durability of antimyeloma responses and in reducing toxicity,” they concluded.

The researchers reported their findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 

Vials and a syringe

The US Food and Drug Association (FDA) has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila™) as the first biosimilar to Neulasta®.

The agents reduce the risk of infection or the duration of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with immunosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid hematologic malignancies.

The FDA approved Fulphila based on evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data.

The evidence demonstrated that Fulphila is biosimilar to Amgen’s Neulasta. The FDA, in its announcement, noted that Fulphila has been approved as a biosimilar and not as an interchangeable product.

A biosimilar is a biological product approved based on data showing it is highly similar to a biological product already approved by the FDA, termed the reference product.

A biosimilar has no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and effectiveness.

Common side effects of Fulphila include bone pain and pain in extremities.

The FDA cautions that patients with a history of serious allergic reaction to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products, should not take Fulphila.

Serious side effects from Fulphila include:

• rupture of the spleen
• acute respiratory distress syndrome
• serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis
• glomerulonephritis
• leukocytosis
• capillary leak syndrome
• potential for tumor growth

Fatal sickle cell crises have also occurred with Fulphila use.

Fulphila is not indicated for the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The FDA is planning to release a comprehensive new plan to advance policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development, according to FDA Commissioner Scott Gotlieb, MD.

“We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products,” he said in the announcement.

The FDA granted approval of Fulphila to Mylan GmbH. Mylan is co-developing Fulphila with Biocon.

Last fall, the agency had issued a complete response letter saying it could not approve the proposed biosimilar pending an update to the application.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of Fulphila (investigational drug product MYL-1401H), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity, however.

Mylan anticipates launching Fulphila in the coming weeks. 

Vials and a syringe

The US Food and Drug Association (FDA) has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila™) as the first biosimilar to Neulasta®.

The agents reduce the risk of infection or the duration of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with immunosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid hematologic malignancies.

The FDA approved Fulphila based on evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data.

The evidence demonstrated that Fulphila is biosimilar to Amgen’s Neulasta. The FDA, in its announcement, noted that Fulphila has been approved as a biosimilar and not as an interchangeable product.

A biosimilar is a biological product approved based on data showing it is highly similar to a biological product already approved by the FDA, termed the reference product.

A biosimilar has no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and effectiveness.

Common side effects of Fulphila include bone pain and pain in extremities.

The FDA cautions that patients with a history of serious allergic reaction to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products, should not take Fulphila.

Serious side effects from Fulphila include:

• rupture of the spleen
• acute respiratory distress syndrome
• serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis
• glomerulonephritis
• leukocytosis
• capillary leak syndrome
• potential for tumor growth

Fatal sickle cell crises have also occurred with Fulphila use.

Fulphila is not indicated for the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The FDA is planning to release a comprehensive new plan to advance policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development, according to FDA Commissioner Scott Gotlieb, MD.

“We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products,” he said in the announcement.

The FDA granted approval of Fulphila to Mylan GmbH. Mylan is co-developing Fulphila with Biocon.

Last fall, the agency had issued a complete response letter saying it could not approve the proposed biosimilar pending an update to the application.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of Fulphila (investigational drug product MYL-1401H), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity, however.

Mylan anticipates launching Fulphila in the coming weeks. 

Vials and a syringe

The US Food and Drug Association (FDA) has approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila™) as the first biosimilar to Neulasta®.

The agents reduce the risk of infection or the duration of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with immunosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid hematologic malignancies.

The FDA approved Fulphila based on evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data.

The evidence demonstrated that Fulphila is biosimilar to Amgen’s Neulasta. The FDA, in its announcement, noted that Fulphila has been approved as a biosimilar and not as an interchangeable product.

A biosimilar is a biological product approved based on data showing it is highly similar to a biological product already approved by the FDA, termed the reference product.

A biosimilar has no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and effectiveness.

Common side effects of Fulphila include bone pain and pain in extremities.

The FDA cautions that patients with a history of serious allergic reaction to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products, should not take Fulphila.

Serious side effects from Fulphila include:

• rupture of the spleen
• acute respiratory distress syndrome
• serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis
• glomerulonephritis
• leukocytosis
• capillary leak syndrome
• potential for tumor growth

Fatal sickle cell crises have also occurred with Fulphila use.

Fulphila is not indicated for the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The FDA is planning to release a comprehensive new plan to advance policy efforts that promote biosimilar product development, according to FDA Commissioner Scott Gotlieb, MD.

“We want to make sure that the pathway for developing biosimilar versions of approved biologics is efficient and effective, so that patients benefit from competition to existing biologics once lawful intellectual property has lapsed on these products,” he said in the announcement.

The FDA granted approval of Fulphila to Mylan GmbH. Mylan is co-developing Fulphila with Biocon.

Last fall, the agency had issued a complete response letter saying it could not approve the proposed biosimilar pending an update to the application.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of Fulphila (investigational drug product MYL-1401H), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity, however.

Mylan anticipates launching Fulphila in the coming weeks.