Explore the vast range of titles available.

Frontline daratumumab-based triplet and quadruplet standard-of-care regimens have demonstrated improved survival outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). For patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM, triplet therapy with either daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) or bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is the current standard of care. This phase 3 trial evaluated subcutaneous daratumumab plus VRd (D-VRd) in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM or for whom transplant was not planned as the initial therapy (transplant deferred). Some 395 patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred NDMM were randomly assigned to eight cycles of D-VRd or VRd followed by D-Rd or Rd until progression. The primary endpoint was overall minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate at 10 − 5 by next-generation sequencing. Major secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) or better (≥CR) rate, progression-free survival and sustained MRD-negativity rate at 10 − 5 . At a median follow-up of 58.7 months, the MRD-negativity rate was 60.9% with D-VRd versus 39.4% with VRd (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.58–3.55; P  < 0.0001). Rates of ≥CR (81.2% versus 61.6%; P  < 0.0001) and sustained MRD negativity (≥12 months; 48.7% versus 26.3%; P  < 0.0001) were significantly higher with D-VRd versus VRd. Risk of progression or death was 43% lower for D-VRd versus VRd (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41–0.79; P  = 0.0005). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles for daratumumab and VRd. Combining daratumumab with VRd produced deeper and more durable MRD responses versus VRd alone. The present study supports D-VRd quadruplet therapy as a new standard of care for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred NDMM. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03652064 . In the phase 3 CEPHEUS trial, patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were treated with subcutaneous daratumumab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-VRd), which led to a significantly deeper and more durable increase in minimal residual disease responses compared with the control arm of VRd.

Extramedullary disease (EMD), an aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM), may require a multi-targeted treatment approach rather than standard MM therapies. While precise EMD treatment outcome estimates remain challenging given small clinical trial patient numbers, pooled estimates across studies may increase outcome precision. Meta-regression analyses used Bayesian multilevel, random-effects modeling of patients with and without EMD across nine historical clinical studies of standard treatment regimens, including daratumumab, for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) from 2013 to 2019. EMD was defined as soft tissue plasmacytomas noncontiguous with bone (“true” EMD). Adjustments were performed to account for differences in baseline age, number of prior lines of therapy (LOT), and International Staging System (ISS) stage. Outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In patients with EMD ( n  = 158) versus without EMD ( n  = 2706), pooled ORR (95% credible interval) was 20.7% (11.7–33.9) versus 66.2% (53.0–77.4) with an odds ratio of 0.13 (0.09–0.20), pooled median PFS was 6.3 (4.2–9.5) versus 12.9 (8.8–18.8) months with a hazard ratio of 1.95 (1.63–2.32), and pooled median OS was 21.0 (15.9–27.9) versus 39.0 (31.0–48.5) months with a hazard ratio of 1.87 (1.53–2.26). Poorer outcomes in patients with versus without EMD were consistent following adjustment for age, number of prior LOT, and ISS stage. These results in patients with RRMM treated with standard treatment regimens confirmed notably worse outcomes in patients with versus without EMD, emphasizing continued unmet clinical need in this patient population.

In the phase 3 ALCYONE study, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) significantly improved outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we present results from the final analysis of ALCYONE. ALCYONE was an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in adults aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation, because of their age (≥65 years) or presence of substantial comorbidities, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were enrolled between Feb 9, 2015, and July 14, 2016, and were randomly assigned (1:1) by randomly permuted blocks using an interactive web-based randomisation system to receive bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) alone or D-VMP, with randomisation stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 of body surface area, twice per week on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of cycle 1 and once weekly on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of cycles 2–9), oral melphalan (9 mg/m2, once daily on days 1–4 of each cycle), and oral prednisone (60 mg/m2, once daily on days 1–4 of each cycle). Patients in the D-VMP group also received intravenous daratumumab at a dose of 16 mg/kg once weekly during cycle 1, once every 3 weeks in cycles 2–9, and once every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression, unacceptably toxicity, or the end of study. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival, has been previously reported. The ALCYONE study has completed; presented here are final analyses for selected secondary endpoints related to overall survival, depth of response, subsequent therapy, and safety. The intention-to-treat population was the primary analysis population (including for overall survival), defined as all patients who were randomly assigned to study treatment. The safety population, consisting of patients who received any dose of study treatment, was used in safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479. In total, 706 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive D-VMP (n=350) or VMP (n=356). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two treatment groups; most participants were female (379 [54%] of 706 patients) and White (601 [85%] of 706 patients). At a median follow-up of 86·7 months (IQR 28·5–85·2), median overall survival was 83·0 months (95% CI 72·5–not estimable) with D-VMP versus 53·6 months (46·3–60·9) with VMP (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·53–0·80]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (140 [40%] of 346 patients in the D-VMP group vs 138 [39%] of 354 patients in the VMP group), thrombocytopenia (120 [35%] vs 134 [38%]), and anaemia (63 [18%] vs 70 [20%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 74 (21%) of 346 patients in the D-VMP group and 56 (16%) of 354 patients in the VMP group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in five (1%) of 346 patients in the D-VMP group (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, neuroendocrine tumour, tumour lysis syndrome, and acute respiratory failure) and three (1%) of 354 patients in the VMP group (acute myeloid leukaemia, pulmonary embolism, and bacterial pneumonia). With more than 7 years of follow-up, D-VMP continued to elicit clinical benefits in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, supporting the efficacy and safety of frontline daratumumab-based therapy in this patient population. Janssen Research & Development.

This study aimed to provide real-world evidence on progression risk in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). This retrospective, observational study leveraged data from the Flatiron Health database. Eligible patients had SMM and relevant measures to apply Mayo 2018, International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) 2020, and AQUILA trial risk criteria. Time to progression to active MM (TTP), progression or death (PFS), and death or progression on first-line MM therapy (PFS2) were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier methods and multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and time from SMM diagnosis to risk classification date. Across the three risk models (Mayo 2018, IMWG 2020, and AQUILA trial), high-risk patients with SMM had 3.0–4.0 times the risk of TTP, 2.1–3.5 times the risk of PFS, and 1.7–3.2 times the risk of PFS2 versus non-high-risk patients ( p  < 0.001 for all comparisons). Similar results were observed when patients with early treatment, early progression, and/or bone disease were excluded. This study demonstrates that high-risk patients with SMM have worse prognoses than non-high-risk patients, regardless of the criteria used, and highlights a need for early intervention testing.

In the primary analysis (32.3-month median follow-up) of the randomized, phase 3 AURIGA study (NCT03901963), daratumumab-lenalidomide (D-R) maintenance significantly improved MRD-negative conversion rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 47% versus R maintenance in anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody–naïve and post-transplant MRD-positive patients with newly diagnosed MM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis across relevant subgroups, including high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) per original, revised, and modified International Myeloma Society (IMS) 2024 criteria. MRD-negative (10 −5 ) conversion rates by 12 months of maintenance were higher for D-R versus R across cytogenetically high-risk subgroups per original (31.8% vs 6.7%), revised (43.8% vs 13.3%), and modified IMS 2024 (41.2% vs 0%) criteria and cytogenetically ultra-high–risk disease (≥2 revised HRCAs; 54.5% vs 0%). Similar trends in overall MRD-negative conversion rates were observed across subgroups. D-R demonstrated a trend towards improved PFS versus R (HR [95% CI]) in cytogenetically high-risk subgroups per original (0.60 [0.21–1.70]), revised (0.53 [0.21–1.31]), and modified IMS 2024 (0.45 [0.13–1.53]) criteria and cytogenetically ultra-high–risk disease (0.61 [0.17–2.25]). Similar outcomes were observed regardless of age or race, with no additional safety concerns among older (≥65 years) or Black patients. These data support the benefit of D-R maintenance regardless of age, race, and risk status.

The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy had a significant benefit on progression-free survival among patients with multiple myeloma.

In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone increased progression-free survival and the response rate at the cost of an increase in infections.

In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.

In the MAIA study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We report updated efficacy and safety from MAIA (median follow-up, 64.5 months), including a subgroup analysis by patient age (<70, ≥70 to <75, ≥75, and ≥80 years). Overall, 737 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM were randomized 1:1 to D-Rd or Rd. The primary endpoint, PFS, was improved with D-Rd versus Rd (median, 61.9 vs 34.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.67; P  < 0.0001). Median OS was not reached in the D-Rd group versus 65.5 months in the Rd group (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53–0.83; P  = 0.0003); estimated 60-month OS rates were 66.6% and 53.6%, respectively. D-Rd achieved higher rates of complete response or better (≥CR; 51.1% vs 30.1%), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (32.1% vs 11.1%), and sustained MRD negativity (≥18 months: 16.8% vs 3.3%) versus Rd (all P  < 0.0001). D-Rd demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across age groups. No new safety concerns were observed. Updated results (median follow-up, >5 years) continue to support frontline use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM.

In the MAIA study (median follow-up, 56.2 months), daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In this post hoc analysis of clinically important subgroups in MAIA (median follow-up, 64.5 months), transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM were randomized 1:1 to D-Rd or Rd. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10 ). PFS favored D-Rd versus Rd in most subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79), frail patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85), patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80), and patients with isolated gain(1q21) (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.67). ORRs, MRD-negativity rates, and sustained (≥12 months) MRD-negativity rates were higher with D-Rd versus Rd across subgroups. In patients aged ≥75 years, rates of grade 3/4 and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar for D-Rd and Rd, but discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower for D-Rd. Results support use of D-Rd for high-risk patients, supporting D-Rd as a standard of care for transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02252172.