Explore the vast range of titles available.

Among patients with smoldering multiple myeloma at high risk for progression, progression-free survival at 5 years was 63.1% with daratumumab monotherapy, as compared with 40.8% with active monitoring.

Investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms of disease progression from precursor plasma cell disorders to active disease increases our understanding of multiple myeloma (MM) pathogenesis and supports the development of novel therapeutic strategies. In this analysis, single-cell RNA sequencing, surface protein profiling, and B lymphocyte antigen receptor profiling of unsorted, whole bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cell samples was used to study molecular changes in tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). A cell atlas of the BM microenvironment was generated from 123 subjects including healthy volunteers and patients with monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS), smoldering MM (SMM), and MM. These analyses revealed commonalities in molecular pathways, including MYC signaling, E2F targets and interferon alpha response, that were altered during disease progression. Evidence of early dysregulation of the immune system in MGUS and SMM, which increases and impacts many cell types as the disease progresses, was found. In parallel with disease progression, population shifts in CD8 + T cells, macrophages, and classical dendritic cells were observed, and the resulting differences in CD8 + T cells and macrophages were associated with poor overall survival outcomes. Potential ligand-receptor interactions that may play a role during the transition from precursor stages to MM were identified, along with potential biomarkers of disease progression, some of which may represent novel therapeutic targets. MIF, IL15, CD320, HGF and FAM3C were detected as potential regulators of the TME by plasma cells, while SERPINA1 and BAFF (TNFSF13B) were found to have the highest potential to contribute to the downstream changes observed between precursor stage and MM cells. These findings demonstrate that myeloma tumorigenesis is associated with dysregulation of molecular pathways driven by gradually occurring immunophenotypic changes in the tumor and TME. Trial registration: This project has been registered at EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with protocol number NOPRODMMY0001 and EudraCT Number 2018-004443-23 on 12 December 2018.

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.

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.

Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85–1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. Amgen.

Belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916), an immunoconjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen, showed single-agent activity in the phase 1 DREAMM-1 study in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We further investigated the safety and activity of belantamab mafodotin in the DREAMM-2 study. DREAMM-2 is an open-label, two-arm, phase 2 study done at 58 multiple myeloma specialty centres in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with disease progression after three or more lines of therapy and who were refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors, and refractory or intolerant (or both) to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were recruited, centrally randomly assigned (1:1) with permuted blocks (block size 4), and stratified by previous lines of therapy (≤4 vs >4) and cytogenetic features to receive 2·5 mg/kg or 3·4 mg/kg belantamab mafodotin via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks on day 1 of each cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The intention-to-treat population comprised all randomised patients, regardless of treatment administration. The safety population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of belantamab mafodotin. The primary outcome was the proportion of randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population who achieved an overall response, as assessed by an independent review committee. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03525678, and is ongoing. Between June 18, 2018, and Jan 2, 2019, 293 patients were screened and 196 were included in the intention-to-treat population (97 in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 99 in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort). As of June 21, 2019 (the primary analysis data cutoff date), 30 (31%; 97·5% CI 20·8–42·6) of 97 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 34 (34%; 23·9–46·0) of 99 patients in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the safety population were keratopathy (in 26 [27%] of 95 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 21 [21%] of 99 patients in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort), thrombocytopenia (19 [20%] and 33 [33%]), and anaemia (19 [20%] and 25 [25%]); 38 (40%) of 95 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 47 (47%) of 99 in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort reported serious adverse events. Two deaths were potentially treatment related (one case of sepsis in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and one case of haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort). Single-agent belantamab mafodotin shows anti-myeloma activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. GlaxoSmithKline.

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.

CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18–65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7–85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4–76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9–not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8–49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40–0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6–NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8–NE]; 0·76 [0·58–1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9–NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2–38·7]; 0·34 [0·26–0·44]; p<0·0001). The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

Venetoclax is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, which induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown encouraging clinical efficacy with acceptable safety and tolerability in a phase 1 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received one to three previous therapies were enrolled from 90 hospitals in 16 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) centrally using an interactive response technology system and a block size of three to receive venetoclax (800 mg per day orally) or placebo with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). Treatment was given in 21-day cycles for the first eight cycles and 35-day cycles from the ninth cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and the number of previous therapies. Sponsors, investigators, study site personnel, and patients were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02755597. Between July 19, 2016, and Oct 31, 2017, 291 patients were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax (n=194) or placebo (n=97). With a median follow-up of 18·7 months (IQR 16·6–21·0), median progression-free survival according to independent review committee was 22·4 months (95% CI 15·3–not estimable) with venetoclax versus 11·5 months (9·6–15·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·44–0·90]; p=0·010). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients in the venetoclax group vs seven [7%] of 96 patients in the placebo group), pneumonia (30 [16%] vs nine [9%]), thrombocytopenia (28 [15%] vs 29 [30%]), anaemia (28 [15%] vs 14 [15%]), and diarrhoea (28 [15%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 93 (48%) patients in the venetoclax group and 48 (50%) patients in the placebo group, with eight (4%) treatment-emergent fatal infections reported in the venetoclax group and none reported in the placebo group. Three deaths in the venetoclax group (two from pneumonia and one from septic shock) were considered treatment-related; no deaths in the placebo group were treatment-related. The primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with venetoclax versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. However, increased mortality was seen in the venetoclax group, mostly because of an increased rate of infections, highlighting the importance of appropriate selection of patients for this treatment option. AbbVie and Genentech.

Treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is challenging as patients exhaust all available therapies and the disease becomes refractory to standard drug classes. Here we report the final results of LocoMMotion, the first prospective study of real-world clinical practice (RWCP) in triple-class exposed (TCE) patients with RRMM, with a median follow-up of 26.4 months (range, 0.1–35.0). Patients ( N   =  248) had received median 4 prior LOT (range, 2–13) at enrollment. 91 unique regimens were used in index LOT. Overall response rate was 31.9% (95% CI, 26.1–38.0), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9–5.6) and median overall survival was 13.8 months (95% CI, 10.8–17.0). 152 patients (61.3%) had subsequent LOTs with 134 unique regimens, of which 78 were used in first subsequent LOT. Median PFS2 (from start of study through first subsequent LOT) was 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.4–13.0). 158 patients died on study, 67.7% due to progressive disease. Additional subgroup analyses and long-term safety summaries are reported. The high number of RWCP treatment regimens utilized and poor clinical outcomes confirm a lack of standardized treatment for TCE patients with RRMM, highlighting the need for new treatments with novel mechanisms.