Implications of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Crisis on Clinical Cancer Care: Report of the University Cancer Center Hamburg

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemia, routine clinical work was immediately, deeply, and sustainably impacted in Germany and worldwide. The infrastructure of almost all hospitals is currently redirected to provide a maximum of intensive care resources, including the necessary staff. In parallel, routine as well as emergency clinical care for all patients in need has to be secured. This challenge becomes particularly evident in cancer care. In order to maintain adequate oncological care at all levels of provision and to conduct especially curative and intensive treatments with a maximum of safety, continuous adaption of the oncology care system has to be ensured. Intensive communication with colleagues and patients is needed as is consequent expert networking and continuous reflection of the own developed strategies. In parallel, it is of high importance to actively avoid cessation of innovation in order not to endanger the continuous improvement in prognosis of cancer patients. This includes sustained conduction of clinical trials as well as ongoing translational research. Here, we describe measures taken at the University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH) − a recognized comprehensive oncology center of excellence − during the COVID-19 crisis. We aim to provide support and potential perspectives to generate a discussion basis on how to maintain high-end cancer care during such a crisis and how to conduct patients safely into the future.

Developments in continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

The evolving paradigm of continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches in multiple myeloma (MM) offers prolonged disease control and improved outcomes compared to traditional fixed-duration approaches. Potential benefits of long-term strategies include sustained control of disease symptoms, as well as continued cytoreduction and clonal control, leading to unmeasurable residual disease and the possibility of transforming MM into a chronic or functionally curable condition. "Continuous therapy" commonly refers to administering a doublet or triplet regimen until disease progression, whereas maintenance approaches typically involve single-agent or doublet treatment following more intensive prior therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or doublet, triplet, or even quadruplet induction therapy. However, the requirements for agents and regimens within these contexts are similar: treatments must be tolerable for a prolonged period of time, should not be associated with cumulative or chronic toxicity, should not adversely affect patients' quality of life, should ideally be convenient with a minimal treatment burden for patients, and should not impact the feasibility or efficacy of subsequent treatment at relapse. Multiple agents have been and are being investigated as long-term options in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), including the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide and thalidomide, the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab, and isatuximab. Here we review the latest results with long-term therapy approaches in three different settings in NDMM: (1) maintenance treatment post ASCT; (2) continuous frontline therapy in nontransplant patients; (3) maintenance treatment post-frontline therapy in the nontransplant setting. We also discuss evidence from key phase 3 trials. Our review demonstrates how the paradigm of long-term treatment is increasingly well-established across NDMM treatment settings, potentially resulting in further improvements in patient outcomes, and highlights key clinical issues that will need to be addressed in order to provide optimal benefit.

Oral Selinexor-Dexamethasone for Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) and forces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibits nuclear factor κB, and reduces oncoprotein messenger RNA translation, is a potential novel treatment for myeloma that is refractory to current therapeutic options.

METHODS

We administered oral selinexor (80 mg) plus dexamethasone (20 mg) twice weekly to patients with myeloma who had previous exposure to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and an alkylating agent and had disease refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory agent, and daratumumab (triple-class refractory). The primary end point was overall response, defined as a partial response or better, with response assessed by an independent review committee. Clinical benefit, defined as a minimal response or better, was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients in the United States and Europe were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and 123 were included in the safety population. The median age was 65 years, and the median number of previous regimens was 7; a total of 53% of the patients had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A partial response or better was observed in 26% of patients (95% confidence interval, 19 to 35), including two stringent complete responses; 39% of patients had a minimal response or better. The median duration of response was 4.4 months, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.6 months. Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typically grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 events were noted in up to 25% of patients, and no grade 4 events were reported). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% of the patients (grade 3 in 25% and grade 4 in 33%). Thrombocytopenia led to bleeding events of grade 3 or higher in 6 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Selinexor-dexamethasone resulted in objective treatment responses in patients with myeloma refractory to currently available therapies. (Funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics; STORM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336815.).

Cereblon gene expression and correlation with clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide: an analysis of STRATUS

We analyzed gene expression levels of CRBN, cMYC, IRF4, BLIMP1, and XBP1 in 224 patients with multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in the STRATUS study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01712789; EudraCT number: 2012-001888-78). Clinical responses were observed at all CRBN expression levels. A trend in progression-free survival (PFS; p = .038) and a potential trend in overall survival (OS; p = .059) favoring high CRBN expressers were observed; however, no notable difference in overall response rate (ORR) was observed. ORR (30%), median PFS (17.7 weeks), and median OS (52.3 weeks) in low-CRBN expressers were comparable to those in the STRATUS intent-to-treat population (ORR, 33%; median PFS, 20.0 weeks; median OS, 51.7 weeks). A trend in ORR (p = .050) favoring higher cMYC expressers was observed with no notable difference in PFS or OS. This analysis does not support exploring CRBN as a biomarker for selecting patients for pomalidomide therapy.

Population pharmacokinetics of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with various degrees of impaired renal function

Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in patients who often have comorbid renal conditions. To assess the impact of renal impairment on pomalidomide exposure, a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model of pomalidomide in rrMM patients with various degrees of impaired renal function was developed. Intensive and sparse pomalidomide concentration data collected from two clinical studies in rrMM patients with normal renal function, moderately impaired renal function, severely impaired renal function not requiring dialysis, and with severely impaired renal function requiring dialysis were pooled over the dose range of 2 to 4 mg, to assess specifically the influence of the impaired renal function as a categorical variable and a continuous variable on pomalidomide clearance and plasma exposure. In addition, pomalidomide concentration data collected on dialysis days from both the withdrawal (arterial) side and from the returning (venous) side of the dialyzer, from rrMM patients with severely impaired renal function requiring dialysis, were used to assess the extent to which dialysis contributes to the removal of pomalidomide from blood circulation. PPK analyses demonstrated that moderate to severe renal impairment not requiring dialysis has no influence on pomalidomide clearance or plasma exposure, as compared to those patients with normal renal function, while pomalidomide exposure increased approximately 35% in patients with severe renal impairment requiring dialysis on nondialysis days. In addition, dialysis increased total body pomalidomide clearance from 5 L/h to 12 L/h, indicating that dialysis will significantly remove pomalidomide from the blood circulation. Thus, pomalidomide should be administered post-dialysis on the days of dialysis.

Bortezomib before and after high-dose therapy in myeloma: long-term results from the phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial

The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology Group-65/German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group-HD4 (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4) phase III trial compared bortezomib (BTZ) before and after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM, PAD arm) compared with classical cytotoxic agents prior and thalidomide after HDM (VAD arm) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients aged 18-65 years. Here, the long-term follow-up and data on second primary malignancies (SPM) are presented. After a median follow-up of 96 months, progression-free survival (censored at allogeneic transplantation, PFS) remained significantly prolonged in the PAD versus VAD arm (hazard ratio (HR)=0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.65-0.89, P=0.001). Overall survival (OS) was similar in the PAD versus VAD arm (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.08, P=0.24). The incidence of SPM were similar between the two arms (7% each, P=0.73). The negative prognostic effects of the cytogenetic aberration deletion 17p13 (clone size ⩾10%) and renal impairment at baseline (serum creatinine >2 mg dl^-1) on PFS and OS remained abrogated in the PAD but not VAD arm. OS from first relapse/progression was similar between the study arms (HR=1.02, P=0.85). In conclusion, the survival benefit with BTZ induction/maintenance compared with classical cytotoxic agents and thalidomide maintenance is maintained without an increased risk of SPM.

Durvalumab (DURVA) plus daratumumab (DARA) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)

TPS8054

Background: DARA, a monoclonal antibody (mAb) against CD38, is approved for RRMM. Combination treatment (Tx) with DARA + DURVA, a mAb against programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), may enhance host anti-MM immunity and response. DARA and PD-L1 mAbs have each demonstrated clinical activity in combination with pomalidomide (POM) + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in MM. Thus, the phase 2 MEDI4736-MM-003 trial is evaluating DURVA + DARA in RRMM, and, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of POM + LoDEX to DARA + DURVA either upon progressive disease (PD) with DARA + DURVA or as up-front Tx will be assessed. Methods: ≈ 144 pts with RRMM are being enrolled. Pts with measurable MM who received ≥ 3 prior anti-MM Txs, including a protease inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, or are double-refractory to these 2 agents will be included. Exclusion criteria include allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT), autologous SCT ≤ 12 weeks, and prior DARA or other CD38 antibody therapies. Primary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Secondary endpoints are time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and pharmacokinetics. The study includes a 3 + 3 safety run-in phase to confirm the tolerability of the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2Ds) of DURVA and DARA. Dose-limiting toxicities will be evaluated during the first Tx cycle. Safety and efficacy will be assessed by a Simon 2-stage design (Table). POM + LoDEX may be added to DARA + DURVA in pts who received ≥ 2 cycles of DARA + DURVA and had confirmed PD. Based on preliminary safety and efficacy, the 4-drug regimen may be explored as up-front Tx. Tx with either the 2- or 4-drug regimens will continue until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Pts treated with POM will be followed for second primary malignancies every 6 mos until the end of the trial. To date, 6 pts have enrolled in the run-in phase. Clinical trial information: NCT02807454. [Table: see text]

Safety and efficacy of daratumumab-based regimens in elderly (≥75 y) patients (Pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Subgroup analysis of POLLUX and CASTOR

8033

Background: Daratumumab (D) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd; POLLUX) or with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd; CASTOR) demonstrated prolonged PFS and tolerability compared with Rd and Vd alone, respectively, in RRMM pts. We examined the safety and efficacy profiles of DRd and DVd in elderly (≥75 y) pts from these phase 3 studies. Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were enrolled. All pts in POLLUX were treated until progression; CASTOR pts received 8 cycles of Vd ± daratumumab. Different D (16 mg/kg) dosing schedules were used in POLLUX (qw for cycles 1-2, q2w for cycles 3-6, and q4w thereafter) and CASTOR (qw in Cycles 1-3, q3w for Cycles 4-8, and q4w thereafter). Elderly pts received a reduced dexamethasone dose (20 mg once weekly). Results: In POLLUX, 29/286 (DRd) and 35/283 (Rd) were ≥75 y, with 86% and 91% having ECOG status ≤1, respectively. With 17.3 months of median follow up, 10% in DRd and 11% in Rd discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Common (>10%) grade 3/4 TEAEs for DRd included neutropenia and hypokalemia (Table). Twelve (41%) DRd pts experienced infusion-related reactions (IRR) and 4 (14%) experienced grade 3/4 IRR; none discontinued due to IRR. Median PFS was not reached (NR) in DRd vs 11.4 months in Rd (HR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.55; P=0.0007), and ≥CR % was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (52% vs 9%; P=0.0002). In CASTOR, 23/251 (DVd) and 35/247 (Vd) were ≥75 y, with 100% and 94% having ECOG status ≤1, respectively. With 13.0 months of median follow up, rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs were similar (15% vs 20%). Thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and pneumonia were common grade 3/4 TEAEs for DVd (Table). Thirteen (65%) pts reported IRR (10% grade 3/4) and no pts discontinued due to IRR. Median PFS was NR in DVd vs 8.1 months in Vd (HR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.61; P=0.0007), and significantly higher ≥CR % was observed in DVd vs Vd (25% vs 3%; P=0.0154). Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles in elderly pts were generally comparable with the overall population in each study. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134 and NCT02076009. [Table: see text]

Phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study: Extended four year follow-up (FU) of elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) vs Ld in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)

8028

Background: Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody, has a dual mechanism of action: directly activating NK cells and tagging myeloma cells for recognition/death via antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. In a 3-y FU, ELOQUENT-2 (NCT01239797) showed a sustained 27% reduction in risk of disease progression/death for ELd vs Ld and OS trend in favor of ELd (Dimopoulos et al, ASH 2015). Here we present extended 4-y FU data (median FU 46 mo). Methods: RRMM patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ELd or Ld in 28-d cycles until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary endpoints: PFS, ORR. Secondary endpoint: OS. Results: Of 646 RRMM pts, 321 were randomized to ELd, 325 to Ld; ~ twice as many pts remain on therapy in ELd vs Ld (17 vs 9%) at data cut-off (Oct 18, 2016). Discontinuation was mainly due to disease progression (both arms 54%). At 4-y FU, ELd had 29% reduction in risk of progression/death vs Ld (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.86) and relative improvement of 50% in PFS (21 vs 14%). Pts with ≥VGPR (ELd 112 [35%], Ld 95 [29%]) had greatest reduction in risk of progression/death (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46–0.94). ORR was 79% (ELd) vs 66% (Ld). OS will be presented. G3–4 AEs in ≥5% of pts included second primary malignancies (SPMs), vascular diseases, cardiac disorders and infections (ELd vs Ld: 9 vs 6%, 10 vs 8%, 5 vs 8%, 33 vs 26%). Overall rate (any grade) of infection and SPMs was 84 vs 75% and 17 vs 11% for ELd vs Ld. However, pts had longer exposure to ELd vs Ld (median [Q1, Q3] treatment cycles (19 [9, 42] vs 14 [6, 25]). There were fewer deaths with ELd vs Ld (165 vs 186), mainly due to disease progression and infection in both arms. Conclusions: Elotuzumab in combination with Ld consistently met its efficacy objectives at 4-y FU. ELd showed durable, clinically relevant improvement in PFS, with 29% reduction in risk of progression/death, consistent with 2-y (30%) and 3-y FU (27%). Safety, including rate of SPMs, was consistent with previous findings, with minimal incremental AEs with addition of elotuzumab to Ld. These data represent the longest median FU of an immuno-oncology agent in MM. Study funding: BMS. Writing support: C Tomas, Caudex, funded by BMS. Clinical trial information: NCT01239797.

MOR202 with low-dose dexamethasone (Dex) and in combination with pomalidomide/dex and lenalidomide/dex in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Interim analysis of a phase I/IIa dose-escalation study

8024

Background: CD38 is a type II transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by MM cells. MOR202, a human IgG1 CD38 monoclonal antibody, has shown high single-agent activity in preclinical models of MM and synergy in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM). Methods: This interim analysis of a multicenter phase I/IIa study reports safety and efficacy data from RRMM patient (pt) cohorts treated with clinically relevant doses of MOR202 (2-hour IV infusion; 4, 8 and 16 mg/kg q1w) + Dex (≤40 mg), or at 8 or 16 mg/kg q1w with an IMiD/Dex. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose of MOR202. Results: As of January 2017, 79 pts had been treated, including 44 in clinically relevant cohorts: 18 received MOR202 + Dex, 15 MOR202 + LEN/Dex and 11 MOR202 + POM/Dex. Pts had received a median of 3, 2 and 3 prior treatment lines, respectively. The MTD of MOR202 was not reached. Combinations were generally well tolerated, with grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) mainly hematological; 2 pts discontinued due to a MOR202-related AE (one grade 4 thrombocytopenia; one grade 3 acute kidney failure). Infusion-related reactions (all grade 1 or 2) were seen in only 3/44 (7%) pts, and mainly occurred during the first infusion. In the MOR202 + Dex cohort, 5/17 (29%) evaluable pts (receiving at least 1 cycle of treatment) had a response, including 3 with partial responses (PRs) and 2 with very good PRs (VGPRs). Responses were also seen in 11/13 (85%, 8 PRs, 3 VGPRs) evaluable pts in the MOR202 + LEN/Dex cohort and 5/9 (56%, 2 complete responses, 3 PRs) in the MOR202 + POM/Dex cohort. Longest response duration was 17 months (MOR202/Dex). Preliminary analysis showed preservation of high CD38 levels on MM cells under MOR202 therapy. Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts with RRMM, a 2-hour infusion of MOR202 administered at up to 16 mg/kg with Dex or in combination with an IMiD/Dex, showed a favorable safety profile, including excellent infusion tolerability. Promising preliminary efficacy and long-lasting tumor control was seen. Clinical trial information: NCT01421186.

Daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Efficacy and safety update (CASTOR)

8036

Background: Daratumumab (D), a human, CD38-targeting mAb, is well tolerated and induces deep and durable responses in patients (pts) with RRMM. We provide an update of CASTOR (NCT02136134), a multicenter, phase 3, randomized study of DVd vs Vd in RRMM. Methods: All pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) and were administered 8 cycles (Q3W) of Vd (1.3 mg/m2 SC bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 20 mg PO/IV dexamethasone on days 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12) ± D (16 mg/kg IV once weekly in Cycles 1-3, every 3 weeks for Cycles 4-8, then every 4 weeks until progression). Bortezomib-refractory pts were ineligible. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed upon suspected CR and at 6 and 12 months following the first dose at sensitivities of 10–4, 10–5, and 10–6using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). Results: Pts received a median (range) of 2 (1-10) prior LOTs. 66% were previously treated with bortezomib and 21% were refractory to lenalidomide in their last prior LOT. After a median follow-up of 13.0 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached vs 7.1 months; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P< 0.0001). This PFS benefit was seen regardless of number of prior LOTs received, with greatest benefit observed in 1 prior line pts (median: not reached vs 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; P< 0.0001). ORR was also significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (84% vs 63%), along with ≥VGPR (62% vs 29%) and ≥CR (26% vs 10%; P< 0.0001 for all). MRD-negative rates were ≥4-fold higher at all three sensitivity thresholds with DVd vs Vd (10% vs 2% at 10–5 threshold). Pts who achieved MRD negativity demonstrated prolonged PFS compared with MRD-positive pts. 37 (15%) and 58 (24%) deaths were observed in DVd vs Vd, respectively, and follow up is ongoing. The most common grade 3/4 TEAE was thrombocytopenia (45% vs 33%). Updated efficacy and safety data will be presented. Conclusions: DVd provided significant benefits with respect to PFS, ORR, depth of response, and MRD-negative rate vs Vd. No new safety signals were reported. These data continue to support the use of DVd in RRMM pts and indicate that pts with 1 prior LOT will derive the most benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134.

Efficacy of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd) or bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DVd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on cytogenetic risk status

8006

Background: In 2 randomized phase 3 trials of RRMM patients (pts), DRd (POLLUX) or DVd (CASTOR) significantly improved PFS and deepened responses compared with Rd or Vd alone, respectively. The novel mechanism of action of daratumumab (D) may improve the poor prognosis associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in RRMM. Therefore, we examined the efficacy of DRd and DVd among RRMM pts with standard (std) or high cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Bone marrow aspirates were collected at screening and assessed centrally via next generation sequencing (NGS). Pts with high-risk cytogenetics included those who had ≥1 of the following abnormalities: t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p; std-risk pts were defined as those confirmed negative for these abnormalities. Efficacy analyses included PFS and ORR. Results: Samples from 311/569 pts in POLLUX and 353/498 pts in CASTOR were assessed via NGS. In POLLUX, the median duration of follow-up was 17.3 months. Significantly longer median PFS and numerically higher ORR were observed with DRd vs Rd among high-risk patients, and significant improvements in these outcomes were observed in std-risk patients (Table). In CASTOR, the median duration of follow-up was 13.0 months. Significantly longer median PFS and higher ORR were observed with DVd vs Vd among both high- and std-risk pts (Table). Concordance rates for t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p were high (88%-98%) between NGS and FISH. Updated data, including subgroup analyses, will be presented. Conclusions: In RRMM pts, the addition of D to standard-of-care regimens improved outcomes regardless of cytogenetic risk status. Targeting CD38 by combining D with Rd or Vd appears to improve the poor outcomes associated with high-risk cytogenetic status. See table. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134 and NCT02076009. [Table: see text]

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and moderate renal impairment: a pooled analysis of three clinical trials

Renal impairment (RI) is a major comorbidity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Here we present the pooled safety and efficacy analysis of three clinical trials (MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010) of pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) in patients with moderate RI (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 to <60 mL/min) and without RI (≥ 60 mL/min). Trial protocols were approved by the institutional review board of each site involved. Patients with RI were older than patients without RI, although other baseline characteristics were similar. The dosing and safety profile of POM + LoDEX was similar across RI subgroups. Median overall response rate, progression-free survival, time to progression, and duration of response were not significantly different between RI subgroups. However, patients with vs. without RI had significantly shorter median overall survival (10.5 vs. 14.0 months, respectively; p = .004). This analysis demonstrates that POM + LoDEX is a safe and effective treatment for patients with moderate RI. The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00833833 (MM-002), NCT01311687 (MM-003), and NCT01712789 (MM-010) and at EudraCT as 2010-019820-30 (MM-003) and 2012-001888-78 (MM-010).

Relationship of response and survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in the MM-003 trial randomized phase III trial (NIMBUS)

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients have poor overall survival (OS). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) significantly extends OS in RRMM vs. high-dose dexamethasone. Survival of patients with stable disease (SD) was compared to patients with progressive disease (PD) or ≥ partial response (≥PR) at cycles (C) 3, 5, and 7. Among 302 patients randomized to POM + LoDEX, at C3 19.2% achieved ≥ PR, 38.4% SD, and 14.6% PD. Patients with SD at C3 (17.4%) and C5 (13.6%) showed improved responses at C7. Median OS from randomization by response at C3 was 22.4 months for ≥ PR (n = 58, HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.40-1.08, p = 0.0976 vs. SD), 16.2 months for SD (n = 116), and 6.3 months for PD (n = 44, HR 3.43; 95% CI 2.23-5.27, p < 0.0001 vs. SD). Similar patterns were observed for C5 and C7. Results show that POM + LoDEX should be a standard treatment after lenalidomide and bortezomib, including in SD patients.

Analysis of renal impairment in MM-003, a phase III study of pomalidomide + low - dose dexamethasone versus high - dose dexamethasone in refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated for refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after bortezomib and lenalidomide failure. The phase III trial MM-003 compared pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone. This subanalysis grouped patients by baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 30 - < 60 mL/min (n=93, pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone; n=56, high-dose dexamethasone) or ≥ 60 mL/min (n=205, pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone; n=93, high-dose dexamethasone). Median progression-free survival was similar for both subgroups and favored pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone: 4.0 versus 1.9 months in the group with baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 30 - < 60 mL/min (P<0.001) and 4.0 versus 2.0 months in the group with baseline creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min (P<0.001). Median overall survival for pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone was 10.4 versus 4.9 months (P=0.030) and 15.5 versus 9.2 months (P=0.133), respectively. Improved renal function, defined as an increase in creatinine clearance from < 60 to ≥ 60 mL/min, was similar in pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone patients (42% and 47%, respectively). Improvement in progression-free and overall survival in these patients was comparable with that in patients without renal impairment. There was no increase in discontinuations of therapy, dose modifications, and adverse events in patients with moderate renal impairment. Pomalidomide at a starting dose of 4 mg + low-dose dexamethasone is well tolerated in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and of comparable efficacy if moderate renal impairment is present. This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov identifier 01311687 and EudraCT identifier 2010-019820-30.

Cytogenetics and long-term survival of patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone

Patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who no longer receive benefit from novel agents have limited treatment options and short expected survival. del(17p) and t(4;14) are correlated with shortened survival. The phase 3 MM-003 trial demonstrated significant progression-free and overall survival benefits from treatment with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone compared to high-dose dexamethasone among patients in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment had failed. At an updated median follow-up of 15.4 months, the progression-free survival was 4.0 versus 1.9 months (HR, 0.50; P<0.001), and median overall survival was 13.1 versus 8.1 months (HR, 0.72; P=0.009). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with high-dose dexamethasone, improved progression-free survival in patients with del(17p) (4.6 versus 1.1 months; HR, 0.34; P <0.001), t(4;14) (2.8 versus 1.9 months; HR, 0.49; P=0.028), and in standard-risk patients (4.2 versus 2.3 months; HR, 0.55; P<0.001). Although the majority of patients treated with high-dose dexamethasone took pomalidomide after discontinuation, the overall survival of patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone or high-dose dexamethasone was 12.6 versus 7.7 months (HR, 0.45; P=0.008) in patients with del(17p), 7.5 versus 4.9 months (HR, 1.12; P=0.761) in those with t(4;14), and 14.0 versus 9.0 months (HR, 0.85; P=0.380) in standard-risk subjects. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone than in those treated with high-dose dexamethasone both among standard-risk patients (35.2% versus 9.7%) and those with del(17p) (31.8% versus 4.3%), whereas it was similar in patients with t(4;14) (15.9% versus 13.3%). The safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was consistent with initial reports. In conclusion, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is efficacious in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and del(17p) and/or t(4;14). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01311687 and with EudraCT as 2010-019820-30.

Impact of prior treatment and depth of response on survival in MM-003, a randomized phase 3 study comparing pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Pomalidomide is a distinct oral IMiD(®) immunomodulatory agent with direct antimyeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. The pivotal, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial MM-003 compared pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone vs high-dose dexamethasone in 455 patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma after failure of bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment. Initial results demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival with an acceptable tolerability profile for pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone vs high-dose dexamethasone. This secondary analysis describes patient outcomes by treatment history and depth of response. Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone significantly prolonged progression-free survival and favored overall survival vs high-dose dexamethasone for all subgroups analyzed, regardless of prior treatments or refractory status. Both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that no variable relating to either the number (≤ or > 3) or type of prior treatment was a significant predictor of progression-free survival or overall survival. No cross-resistance with prior lenalidomide or thalidomide treatment was observed. Patients achieving a minimal response or better to pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone treatment experienced a survival benefit, which was even higher in those achieving at least a partial response (17.2 and 19.9 months, respectively, as compared with 7.5 months for patients with less than minimal response). These data suggest that pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone should be considered a standard of care in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01311687; EudraCT: 2010-019820-30.

Paraneoplastic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor secretion in soft tissue sarcoma mimicking myeloproliferative neoplasia: a case report

Background

While paraneoplastic leukocytosis is a common phenomenon in solid tumors, extreme elevations of white blood counts (WBC) in the range of more than 100,000/μl are uncommon in patients with non-hematologic malignancies. Leukocytosis with mature neutrophils due to a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) producing tumor is only seen on rare occasions.

Case presentation

Massive neutrophil leukocytosis of approximately 100,000/μl was diagnosed in a 57-year-old Caucasian woman with metastatic undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma. A bone marrow trephine biopsy revealed massively increased granulopoiesis, but no evidence of monoclonal myeloproliferative disease. After the primary tumor had been resected, white blood count (WBC) plummeted and went back to nearly normal levels within one week. With progressive metastatic disease, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) plasma levels were found to be increased by 10-fold. White blood count (WBC) strictly correlated with tumor burden and response to chemotherapy. In the final stage of treatment resistent disease, white blood count (WBC) approximated 300,000/μl.

Conclusion

We report on a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) secreting undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma, which was associated with extreme neutrophil counts. White blood count (WBC) were closely correlated with tumor burden and associated with an aggressive clinical course. We suggest that paraneoplastic neutrophilia represents a poor prognostic sign in soft tissue sarcoma. In patients with similar constellations, antitumor therapy must not be delayed.

Quality of life (QOL) improvements for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients (pts) enrolled in MM-003

8583

Background: Poor prognosis and therapy exhaustion have been associated with reduced QOL in RRMM. In MM-003, a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial, POM + LoDEX (n = 302) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; n = 153) in pts who failed lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) and progressed on their last therapy. This analysis evaluated QOL changes in these pts. Methods: To assess pt-reported outcomes, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed. Minimal important differences for 5 clinically relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (Global Health Status, Physical Functioning, Fatigue, Emotional Functioning, and Pain) were calculated as meaningful change thresholds (1 standard error of measurement) from baseline through cycle (C) 5. Time to QOL worsening was compared between arms using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Favorable trends were observed for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in each of the 5 relevant domains. The cross-sectional analysis indicated statistically or marginally significant (P < .10) differences favoring POM + LoDEX in Global Health Status (C2, 4), Physical Function (C2, 3, 4), Emotional Function (C2, 3, 4), and Fatigue (C2) scores. Longitudinal comparisons between arms confirmed the significance of score changes for Global Health Status (C2; P = .01), Physical Functioning (C3 and 4; P = .018 and .028, respectively), Emotional Functioning (C3; P = .018), and Fatigue (C5; P = .008) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX. HiDEX pts exhibited clinically meaningful worsening in Global Health Status and Physical Functioning scores vs. POM + LoDEX by C2 (P = .04) and C3 (P = .02), respectively. POM + LoDEX extended median time to meaningful worsening vs. HiDEX for Global Health Status (114 vs. 85 days, P = .05), Physical Functioning (174 vs. 106 days; P = .09), Fatigue (113 vs. 60 days; P = .02), Emotional Functioning (190 vs. 124 days; P = .04), and Pain (147 vs. 113 days; P = .2). Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts who failed LEN and BORT, POM + LoDEX resulted in better clinical outcomes as well as improvement in clinically relevant QOL measurements over the course of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

MM-003: A phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label study of pomalidomide (POM) plus low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)

8510

Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.