Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 3278-3278

Abstract: BACKGROUND As lenalidomide (LEN) becomes increasingly established as a standard of care in the treatment (Tx) of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including those who have become refractory to LEN, represent a clinical reality. These pts represent the largest population with MM at first relapse in the United States and a growing population globally. To date, they have been poorly studied and remain difficult to treat. Previous trials have demonstrated a clinical benefit with pomalidomide (POM) therapy in LEN-refractory pts with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM), including those who were heavily pretreated (median of 5 prior regimens) (San Miguel et al. Lancet Oncol 2013; Richardson et al. Blood 2014; Dimopoulos et al. Blood 2016). These studies led to the approval of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in RRMM. The pomalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) regimen has shown promising activity in early-phase clinical trials in LEN-refractory pts. In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, PVd showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable safety profile compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in intent-to-treat population of pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated; 70% of pts were LEN refractory (Richardson et al. ASCO 2018 abstract 8001). Here, we present efficacy and safety results in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts treated at first relapse. METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles: POM 4 mg/day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and DEX 20 mg/day (10 mg/day if aged 〉 75 yrs) on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN therapy, including LEN-refractory pts. BORT-exposed pts were eligible to enroll, provided they did not have progressive disease during therapy or within 60 days of the last dose of a BORT-containing regimen with BORT dosed at 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS Out of 559 pts enrolled patients, 226 were treated in the second line (2L), data cut off October 26, 2017: 111 with PVd and 115 with Vd. Median follow-up for 2L pts was 16.4 mos. Among 2L pts, 129 (57.1%) were LEN refractory (64 PVd; 65 Vd) and 97 (42.9%) were LEN nonrefractory (47 PVd; 50 Vd). In LEN-refractory pts (PVd vs Vd) median age was 68.0 vs 69.0 yrs, 57.8% vs 58.5% were male, and 56.3% vs 47.7% had prior BORT. In LEN-nonrefractory pts, median age was 66.0 vs 65.5 yrs, 63.8% vs 38% were male, and 66.0% vs 72.0% had prior BORT. Other key baseline characteristics were similar between Tx arms and subgroups. Median PFS was 17.8 mos with PVd vs 9.5 mos with Vd in LEN-refractory (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94; Figure 1A) and 22.0 vs 12.0 mos in LEN-nonrefractory pts (HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.01; Figure 1B). Response outcomes are shown in Figure 2. ORR was 85.9% with PVd vs 50.8% with Vd in LEN-refractory pts (P 〈 .001) and 95.7% vs 60.0% in LEN-nonrefractory pts (P 〈 .001). In 2L LEN-refractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (35.9% vs 12.9%), thrombocytopenia (17.2% vs 22.6%), and anemia (17.2% vs 8.1%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 29.7% vs 21.0% of pts. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were neutropenia (36.2% vs 6.3%) and thrombocytopenia (23.4% vs 18.8%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 27.7% vs 8.3% of pts. In 2L LEN-refractory pts, median Tx duration of PVd vs Vd was 9.7 vs 6.1 mos. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, median Tx duration of Pvd vs Vd was 13.6 vs 6.6 mos. CONCLUSIONS To date, OPTIMISMM is the only phase 3 trial to address Tx of pts with RRMM following LEN exposure in early lines and the first to report data in LEN-refractory pts after first relapse. PVd reduced the risk of progression and death by 45% and 46% vs Vd in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts, respectively. Further, in both subgroups, 2L Tx with PVd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses compared with Vd. AEs with PVd therapy were generally consistent with the known AEs of POM, BORT, and DEX. These data further demonstrate that PVd is effective and tolerable in pts for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including LEN-refractory pts, supporting its use as 2L therapy in RRMM. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anderson:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. White:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Salomo:Cilag: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Bensmaine:Celgene: Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-111869

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: The Lancet Oncology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 20, No. 6 ( 2019-06), p. 781-794

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1470-2045

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2049730-1

In: Leukemia, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 35, No. 6 ( 2021-06), p. 1722-1731

Abstract: In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) demonstrated superior efficacy vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide, including those refractory to lenalidomide. This analysis evaluated outcomes in patients at first relapse ( N  = 226) by lenalidomide-refractory status, prior bortezomib exposure, and prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Second-line PVd significantly improved PFS vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (17.8 vs 9.5 months; P  = 0.0276) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory patients (22.0 vs 12.0 months; P  = 0.0491), patients with prior bortezomib (17.8 vs 12.0 months; P  = 0.0068), and patients with (22.0 vs 13.8 months; P  = 0.0241) or without (16.5 vs 9.5 months; P  = 0.0454) prior SCT. In patients without prior bortezomib, median PFS was 20.7 vs 9.5 months ( P  = 0.1055). Significant improvement in overall response rate was also observed with PVd vs Vd in lenalidomide-refractory (85.9% vs 50.8%; P   〈  0.001) and lenalidomide-nonrefractory (95.7% vs 60.0%; P   〈  0.001) patients, with similar results regardless of prior bortezomib or SCT. No new safety signals were observed. These data demonstrate the benefit of PVd at first relapse, including immediately after upfront lenalidomide treatment failure and other common first-line treatments.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0887-6924 , 1476-5551

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-01021-3

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008023-2

In: European Journal of Haematology, Wiley, Vol. 108, No. 1 ( 2022-01), p. 73-83

Abstract: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) by age, renal function, and high‐risk cytogenetic abnormalities in lenalidomide‐pretreated patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse. Methods OPTIMISMM was a phase 3, multicenter, open‐label, randomized study (NCT01734928; N = 559). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Results Overall, 226 patients had received one prior line of therapy. PVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in patients aged ≤65 years (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 months; P  = .0258) and 〉 65 years (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 months; P  = .0369). Median PFS in patients with renal impairment (RI; creatinine clearance 〈 60 mL/min) was 15.1 months with PVd vs 9.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34‐1.34] ). In patients without RI, median PFS was 22.0 vs 13.1 months (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27‐0.76]). In patients with high‐risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 14.7 vs 9.9 months (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.13‐1.17] ). PVd significantly improved overall response rate vs Vd in all subgroups. The safety profile of PVd was consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings confirmed the benefits of PVd at first relapse, including in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0902-4441 , 1600-0609

URL: Issue

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1111/ejh.v108.1

DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13706

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2027114-1

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 3120-3120

Abstract: BACKGROUND Lenalidomide (LEN), an established treatment (Tx) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, is routinely administered until disease progression. Therefore, patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer an option at first relapse, including LEN-refractory pts, are a clinically relevant and growing population. Tx of these pts remains challenging, as they have been poorly represented in phase 3 clinical trials. OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928), a phase 3 trial specifically designed to address this population, demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with pomalidomide (POM), bortezomib (BORT), and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) compared with BORT and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated (70% LEN refractory) (Richardson PG, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:781-794). Here, we report the efficacy and safety of PVd in pts treated after 1 prior line of therapy (LOT) according to age, prior stem cell transplant (SCT), and in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HR CAs). METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles. POM 4 mg/day was given on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and dexamethasone 20 mg/day (10 mg/day for pts aged 〉 75 yrs) was given on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN, including LEN-refractory pts. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS As of October 26, 2017, 226 of 559 pts enrolled in OPTIMISMM had 1 prior LOT; 100 pts were aged ≤ 65 yrs (49 PVd, 51 Vd) and 126 were aged 〉 65 yrs (62 PVd, 64 Vd). In pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (PVd vs Vd), the median age was 58.0 vs 59.0 yrs, 63.3% vs 47.1% were male, 55.1% vs 51.0% were LEN refractory, and 83.7% vs 72.5% had prior BORT. In pts aged 〉 65 yrs, the median age was 73.0 vs 71.5 yrs, 58.1% vs 51.6% were male, 59.7% vs 60.9% were LEN refractory, and 41.9% vs 46.9% had prior BORT. After 1 prior LOT, PVd vs Vd significantly improved PFS in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 mos; P = .0305) and those 〉 65 yrs (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 mos; P = .0348) (Figure). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with PVd vs Vd across the age groups (Table). The rate of ≥ very good partial response (VGPR) was 65.3% vs 17.6% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and 58.1% vs 26.6% in pts aged 〉 65 yrs. Comparable PFS and ORR outcomes were noted for an age cutoff of ≤ 70 yrs (median PFS, 17.8 vs 13.1 mos with PVd [n = 71] vs Vd [n = 78] ; ORR, 88.7% [≥ VGPR, 62.0%] vs 55.1% [≥ VGPR, 21.8%] , respectively) vs 〉 70 yrs (median PFS, 16.5 vs 9.5 mos with PVd [n = 40] vs Vd [n = 37] ; ORR, 92.5% [≥ VGPR, 60.0%] vs 54.1% [≥ VGPR, 24.3%] , respectively). These PFS and ORR findings were similar to those reported in pts with and pts without prior SCT (Table). Median PFS was 22.0 mos with PVd vs 13.8 mos with Vd in pts with prior SCT (P = .0241) and 16.5 vs 9.5 mos, respectively, in pts without prior SCT (P = .0454). Pts with HR CAs (n = 32 [18 PVd, 14 Vd]), defined as having a del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16), had a median PFS of 14.7 mos with PVd and 9.9 mos with Vd. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (49.0% vs 6.3%), infections (30.6% vs 14.6%), and thrombocytopenia (26.5% vs 18.8%) in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and neutropenia (25.8% vs 12.9%), infections (27.4% vs 16.1%), and thrombocytopenia (14.5% vs 22.6%) in pts aged 〉 65 yrs. CONCLUSIONS In pts with LEN-pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at first relapse, PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 50% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and by 43% in pts aged 〉 65 yrs vs Vd. Additionally, across age subgroups, second-line Tx with PVd vs Vd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses. Similar findings were observed in pts with and pts without prior SCT. PVd also benefited pts with HR CAs vs Vd. Overall, TEAEs with PVd were generally consistent with the known profiles of the constituent agents. These data in pts at first relapse continue to demonstrate that PVd is effective and safe as a second-line Tx following LEN, regardless of age, prior SCT status, and presence of HR CAs. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Weisel:GSK: Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anderson:Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel or accommodations, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Casal:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes. The triplet combination is not currently approved in the US for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-124349

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Elsevier BV, Vol. 19, No. 10 ( 2019-10), p. e32-e33

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2152-2650

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.048

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2540998-0

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2193618-3