Explore the vast range of titles available.

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 the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10–5) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status.

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.).

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.

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.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1–8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing. Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5–23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8–37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1–not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83–1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death). The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs. US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen.

SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 to VRd. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients. Median follow up is 84 months. Median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003. Median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114. Both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Median duration of Rd maintenance was 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS. VRd continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age.

Oral-drug based regimens are useful in certain circumstances for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI-NDMM), but few studies have compared Ixazomib based regimen with lenalidomide based regimen head-to-head. We carried out a prospective randomized, open, parallel group trial in patients with TI-NDMM in 3 China centers from March 2020 to December 2022. Sixty-three patients were available for final analysis, ICd (Ixazomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, n = 31) and RCd (lenalidomide/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, n = 32). The primary objective was to compare the two regimens by analyzing the overall response rate (ORR), safety profiles, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We also explored clinical and the biological characteristics of the patients with primary drug resistance. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between ICd and RCd groups, with the median age 70 vs. 70 years; 12.9% vs. 12.5% of patients had stage III disease; 25.8% vs. 28.1% had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. The overall response rate (ORR) at the end of 4 cycles was 87.1% vs. 71.9% (odds ratio [OR], 1.212; 95% CI, 0.938–1.565; P = 0.213); the best ≥ VGPR rate was 41.9% vs. 31.2% (OR, 1.342; 95% CI 0.694–2.597; P = 0.439). Among high-risk cytogenetic patients, ORR was higher in the ICd group, 75% vs. 55.5% (P = 0.620), respectively. After 35 months follow-up, the median PFS were 22 and 23 months between ICd and RCd groups (P = 0.897). Median OS was not reached, estimated 3-year OS rate was 86.4% vs. 85.4% (P = 0.774). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (6.5% in the ICd group vs. 31.3% in the RCd group), anemia (19.4% vs. 18.8%), pneumonia (0 vs. 15.6%) and diarrhea (12.9% vs. 0). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) induced dose reduction and discontinuation were 22.6% vs. 37.5% and 3.2% vs. 6.3% in the ICd vs. RCd group, respectively. Exploration data showed that patients with t (4;14) were insensitive to initial RCd treatment. The ICd regimen showed a tendency towards improved ORR compared to RCd regimen. Both ICd and RCd regimens demonstrated less dose reduction and treatment discontinuation, suggesting their tolerability and feasibility for older individuals with TI-NDMM. Trial registration: This study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR). Trial registration number: ChiCTR2000029863. Date of registration: 15/02/2020.

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

Background Results of conventional induction chemotherapies in primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) need to be improved. Ibrutinib, a BTK inhibitor, and lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug, have shown promising results at relapse, supporting to further assess their individual use in combination with high-dose methotrexate-based chemotherapy. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL were randomized to receive four 28-day cycles of ibrutinib or lenalidomide in combination with R-MPV (rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine and prednisone) in a 3 + 3 design. Responders then received a consolidation with R-Cytarabine and an intensive chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. The objective of the phase IB study was to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) based on the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurring during the first induction cycle. Results Twenty-six patients (median age 52) were randomized. Four DLTs were observed: one grade 5 aspergillosis and pneumocystosis, one grade 4 catheter-related infection and two grade 3 increased alanine aminotransferase levels. RP2D of ibrutinib and lenalidomide were 560 mg daily (D3-14 and D17-28) and 15 mg daily (D1-21) respectively, in combination with R-MPV. In both arms, the most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were hepatic cytolysis, neutropenia and infections. One grade 4 Lyell’s syndrome was reported at cycle 2 in the lenalidomide arm. After 4 induction cycles, the overall response rates were 76.9% and 83.3% in the lenalidomide and ibrutinib arm, respectively. Conclusion Targeted induction therapies combining lenalidomide or ibrutinib with R-MPV are feasible for first-line PCNSL. The safety profile is consistent with the known safety profiles of R-MPV and both targeted therapies. The phase II part of the study is ongoing. Trial registration NCT04446962.