Explore the vast range of titles available.

The addition of daratumumab to lenalinomide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated myeloma who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation resulted in a higher response rate, an increased depth of response, and longer progression-free survival than lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status in patients with a complete response. A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. (Funded by Sanofi and a Cancer Center Support Grant; IMROZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03319667.).

Patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy have improved progression-free survival, primarily following autologous stem-cell transplantation. A beneficial effect of lenalidomide maintenance therapy on overall survival in this setting has been inconsistent between individual studies. Minimal data are available on the effect of maintenance lenalidomide in more aggressive disease states, such as patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance versus observation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including cytogenetic risk and transplantation status subgroup analyses. The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial with three randomisation stages done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (allocation by transplantation eligibility status); intensification treatment (allocation by response to induction therapy); and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to maintenance treatment. Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol and had achieved at least a minimal response to protocol treatment, including lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 from Jan 13, 2011, to Jun 27, 2013, and 2:1 from Jun 28, 2013, to Aug 11, 2017) to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg orally on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation, and stratified by allocated induction and intensification treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment. Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 11, 2017, 1917 patients were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial. 1137 patients were assigned to lenalidomide maintenance and 834 patients to observation. After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 18–50), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 36–42) with lenalidomide and 20 months (18–22) with observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·41–0·53]; p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 78·6% (95% Cl 75·6–81·6) in the lenalidomide group and 75·8% (72·4–79·2) in the observation group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·73–1·05]; p=0·15). Progression-free survival was improved with lenalidomide compared with observation across all prespecified subgroups. On prespecified subgroup analyses by transplantation status, 3-year overall survival in transplantation-eligible patients was 87·5% (95% Cl 84·3–90·7) in the lenalidomide group and 80·2% (76·0–84·4) in the observation group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52–0·93]; p=0·014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66·8% (61·6–72·1) in the lenalidomide group and 69·8% (64·4–75·2) in the observation group (1·02 [0·80–1·29]; p=0·88). By cytogenetic risk group, in standard-risk patients, 3-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 80·0–90·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 81·3% (74·2–86·7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65·8–81·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 63·7% (52·8–72·7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62·9% (46·0–75·8) compared with 43·5% (22·2–63·1). Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking lenalidomide were haematological, including neutropenia (362 [33%] patients), thrombocytopenia (72 [7%] patients), and anaemia (42 [4%] patients). Serious adverse events were reported in 494 (45%) of 1097 patients receiving lenalidomide compared with 150 (17%) of 874 patients on observation. The most common serious adverse events were infections in both the lenalidomide group and the observation group. 460 deaths occurred during maintenance treatment, 234 (21%) in the lenalidomide group and 226 (27%) in the observation group, and no deaths in the lenalidomide group were deemed treatment related. Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma compared with observation, but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial population. The manageable safety profile of this drug and the encouraging results in subgroup analyses of patients across all cytogenetic risk groups support further investigation of maintenance lenalidomide in this setting. Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, and Myeloma UK.

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.

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.

CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65–79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10 −5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10 −5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19–34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44–61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89–5.28, P  < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10 −5 and 10 −6 , and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P  < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P  = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10 −5 , the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 . In patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, addition of weekly bortzomib to isatuximab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone leads to increased minimal residual disease negativity compared with isatuximab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

In a large, multinational, randomized trial, continuous lenalidomide maintenance therapy after triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and autologous stem-cell transplantation resulted in longer progression-free survival than triplet therapy alone.

In patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, 1-year progression-free survival was 20 percentage points higher with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone than with bortezomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Background Within the French-Australian CLL6 RESIDUUM trial, an ancillary study aimed at assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) receiving a two-year consolidation of lenalidomide (LEN) or observation (OBS) after classical immunochemotherapy leaving them with detectable residual disease. Methods Data from French patients involved in this the trial were used here. The EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire was completed by patients at baseline, and then at months 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 after consolidation. Repeated measures mixed-effects models were used to assess HRQoL changes between baseline and each checkpoint for each HRQoL scale. Results Baseline data showed overall a good global health status with mean scores of 76.3 and 72.1 in the LEN and OBS arms respectively, on the 0–100 scale. At 12 months, LEN patients had significantly more diarrhea than OBS patients ( p  = 0.003) and social functioning was significantly impaired at month 18 ( p  = 0.05). A 10-point difference appeared in the LEN arm for dyspnea and digestive disorders from month 12 on. Multivariate analysis showed a deleterious effect of LEN on global health ( p  = 0.02) and functional scales ( p  = 0.003). Conclusion This study provides HRQoL values in a French cohort of CLL patients in consolidation treatment. Supplementation with lenalidomide as consolidation therapy in CLL leads to late health deterioration, especially diarrhea, after 12 months of treatment. Quantitative assessment of HRQoL should be balanced against benefits in disease control to determine overall health benefits.

In the MASTER study (NCT03224507), daratumumab+carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) demonstrated promising efficacy in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In GRIFFIN (NCT02874742), daratumumab+lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved outcomes for transplant-eligible NDMM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs; del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], or gain/amp[1q21]). Among 123 D-KRd patients, 43.1%, 37.4%, and 19.5% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Among 120 D-RVd patients, 55.8%, 28.3%, and 10.8% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Rates of complete response or better (best on study) for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs were 90.6%, 89.1%, and 70.8% for D-KRd, and 90.9%, 78.8%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. At median follow-up (MASTER, 31.1 months; GRIFFIN, 49.6 months for randomized patients/59.5 months for safety run-in patients), MRD-negativity rates as assessed by next-generation sequencing (10 –5 ) were 80.0%, 86.4%, and 83.3% for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs for D-KRd, and 76.1%, 55.9%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. PFS was similar between studies and superior for 0 or 1 versus ≥2 HRCAs: 36-month PFS rates for D-KRd were 89.9%, 86.2%, and 52.4%, and 96.7%, 90.5%, and 53.5% for D-RVd. These data support the use of daratumumab-containing regimens for transplant-eligible NDMM with HCRAs; however, additional strategies are needed for ultra-high–risk disease (≥2 HRCAs). Video Abstract 935yYg7rG1hc1uCFy66-b8