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.

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.

Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m 2 dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference −0·4%, 95% CI −14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9–16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1–15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5–11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6–10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1–80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1–85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

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.

The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in superior response rate and progression-free survival, as compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone, at a cost of more frequent neutropenia and infusion reactions. The incorporation of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs into the standard of care has improved outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma over the past 10 years, 1 – 3 but most patients still eventually have a relapse. 4 Relapse can occur even after standard complete remission in the context of first-line therapy, and studies are therefore evaluating deeper responses in a category termed “minimal residual disease–negative” (i.e., results below the threshold for minimal residual disease) that is prognostic with regard to a rate of disease progression in a time-to-event analysis and overall survival. 5 , 6 However, this category of minimal residual disease status has . . .

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.