Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study

In the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338), the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone led to increased progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. There is an unmet treatment need, particularly among patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, those who have renal impairment, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior lines of treatment. In this review, the subgroup analyses from the ICARIA-MM study, representing subpopulations with poor prognostic factors, are discussed. Overall, the addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone improved progression-free survival and disease response rates across different subgroups, regardless of prognostic factor.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

METHODS

We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2-3 vs >3) and age (<75 years vs ≥75 years). Treatments were assigned based on a permuted blocked randomisation scheme with a block size of four. The isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group received isatuximab intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 in each cycle, and oral or intravenous dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Dose reductions for adverse reactions were permitted for pomalidomide and dexamethasone, but not for isatuximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by an independent response committee and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02990338.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, we randomly assigned 307 patients to treatment: 154 to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone, and 153 to pomalidomide-dexamethasone. At a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 10·1-13·9), median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·9-13·9) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6·5 months (4·5-8·3) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group; hazard ratio 0·596, 95% CI 0·44-0·81; p=0·001 by stratified log-rank test. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone vs pomalidomide-dexamethasone) were infusion reactions (56 [38%] vs 0), upper respiratory tract infections (43 [28%] vs 26 [17%]), and diarrhoea (39 [26%] vs 29 [20%]). Adverse events with a fatal outcome were reported in 12 patients (8%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group and 14 (9%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (<1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

INTERPRETATION

The addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Isatuximab is an important new treatment option for the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, particularly for patients who become refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

FUNDING

Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

A phase III randomized, open label, multicenter study comparing isatuximab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)

8004

Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone versus pomalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: ICARIA Phase III study design

Treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains an unmet need. Isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody has shown efficacy and tolerability as a monotherapy and combination therapy in Phase I/II studies in RRMM. Here, we describe the design of the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338) which will evaluate isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex) (Pom/dex) versus Pom/dex alone in RRMM. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Response will be determined by an independent response review committee using IMWG criteria (2016) and safety will be assessed throughout. Approximately 300 patients (150 in each arm) are expected to enroll. The first patient was recruited in January 2017 and accrual is ongoing.

Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI vs. Placebo Plus FOLFIRI in Second-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of Survival from the Phase III VELOUR Study Subsequent to Exclusion of Patients who had Recurrence During or Within 6 Months of Completing Adjuvant Oxaliplatin-Based Therapy

The aim of this post hoc analysis of the VELOUR study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00561470) was to investigate the treatment effect of adding aflibercept to second-line infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had failed any prior oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Adjuvant rapid relapsers (ARR), who were enrolled directly following relapse during or within 6 months of completion of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 124, including 17 patients who also received bevacizumab as part of their adjuvant therapy), were excluded from the original VELOUR intention-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1226). After exclusion of the ARR, overall survival (OS) in the ITT minus ARR (ITT-ARR) population (N = 1102) was longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.90; median survival difference 1.87 months]. In the subgroup of patients assigned to the prior bevacizumab stratum at randomization, OS was numerically longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm (HR 0.81; 95 % CI 0.63-1.04; median survival difference 2.14 months). Comparison of the post hoc analysis results with the primary analysis from VELOUR suggests that the inclusion of the directly enrolled ARR may have understated the aflibercept treatment benefit for both bevacizumab-pretreated and bevacizumab-naïve patients in the strictly second-line setting although no definitive conclusion may be inferred. The benefit associated with the addition of aflibercept to second-line FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC was observed whatever the timing of first-line disease progression. There were no unexpected safety concerns.

A phase III, randomized, open-label study of isatuximab (SAR650984) plus pomalidomide (Pom) and dexamethasone (Dex) versus Pom and Dex in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

TPS8057

Background: Treatment for refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) remains an unmet need. Isatuximab (ISA), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with multiple mechanisms of tumor killing, has shown efficacy and an acceptable tolerability profile in Phase 1/2 studies in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) (Richter et al. ASCO 2016; Vij et al. ASCO 2016). Methods: This Phase III, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study (NCT02990338; ICARIA-MM) is being conducted to evaluate the clinical benefit of ISA in combination with Pom and low-dose Dex (Pom/Dex) versus Pom/Dex for the treatment of adult patients with RRMM and demonstrated disease progression within 60 days of the last therapy, and who have received at least 2 prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib, carfilzomib, or ixazomib) alone or in combination. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either ISA (10 mg/kg IV on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the 1st cycle; Days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles) plus Pom (4 mg on Days 1–21) and Dex (40 mg for patients < 75 years of age and 20 mg for patients ≥75 years of age, on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22) or Pom and Dex. Treatment cycles will be 28 days each. Patients will continue therapy until disease progression, occurrence of unacceptable adverse events (AEs), or their decision to discontinue the study, whichever comes first. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS), i.e. time from randomization to progressive disease or death from any cause. Response will be determined by IMWG criteria (2016). Key secondary endpoints include overall response rate and overall survival (OS). Safety evaluations include treatment-emergent AEs/serious AEs (including infusion-associated reactions), laboratory parameters, vital signs and assessment of physical examination. Statistical analyses will be conducted according to a pre-specified plan; approximately 300 patients (150 in each arm) are expected to be enrolled in this study. The first patient was recruited in January 2017. Study funding: Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

Ombrabulin plus cisplatin versus placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Ombrabulin (AVE8062) disrupts the vasculature of established tumours and has shown preclinical synergistic anti-tumour activity when combined with cisplatin. In this phase 3 trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin compared with placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas.

METHODS

We did this multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study at 44 centres in ten countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and who had previously received treatment with anthracycline and ifosfamide were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous infusion of ombrabulin 25 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or intravenous infusion of placebo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Patients were allocated to treatment using a permuted blocks randomisation scheme (block size of four) via an interactive voice-response system, and stratified by histological subtype. Patients, medical staff, study investigators, and individuals who handled and analysed the data were masked to treatment assignment. Our primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done on all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is now closed, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699517.

FINDINGS

Between June 13, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 355 patients to ombrabulin plus cisplatin (n=176) or placebo plus cisplatin (n=179). Median duration of follow-up was 27·9 (IQR 20·9-33·2) in the placebo group and 30·5 months (20·7-37·6) in the ombrabulin group. Progression-free survival was slightly, but significantly, improved in the ombrabulin group compared with the placebo group (median 1·54 months [95% CI 1·45-2·69] vs 1·41 [1·38-1·58] months; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·59-0·98]; p=0·0302). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred more frequently in individuals in the ombrabulin group than in those in the placebo group and included neutropenia (34 [19%] in the ombrabulin group vs 14 [8%] in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (15 [8%] vs six [3%] for placebo). Adverse events leading to death occurred in 18 patients in the ombrabulin group and 10 patients in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

The combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival; however, it did not show a sufficient clinical benefit in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas to support its use as a therapeutic option. Predictive biomarkers are needed for the rational clinical development of tumour vascular-disrupting drugs for soft-tissue sarcomas.

FUNDING

Sanofi.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo (Pbo)-controlled phase III study of ombrabulin plus cisplatin in patients (pts) with advanced-stage soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapies

10506

Background: Ombrabulin (AVE8062) is a vascular disrupting agent that damages established tumor vasculature and has demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity with cisplatin in vivo. In a phase I study, ombrabulin 25 mg/m² plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² was identified as the recommended dose in pts with solid tumors (AACR 2008; Abs 08-AB-4925). This phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin in pts with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (NCT00699517). Methods: Pts (aged ≥18 yrs, ECOG PS ≤2) with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who had received prior anthracycline and ifosfamide, with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced disease, were randomized (1:1) to receive either ombrabulin 25 mg/m² or Pbo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between arms; secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Overall, 355 pts (median age 52 yrs; 51.5% male) were randomized (176 ombrabulin, 179 Pbo) in 44 centers worldwide. Median duration of follow-up was 27.9 and 30.5 months in Pbo and ombrabulin arms, respectively. PFS analysis showed a statistically significant improvement with ombrabulin (median 1.54 vs 1.41 months Pbo; HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98; p=0.0302), with 3- and 6-month rates in favor of ombrabulin vs Pbo: 35.4% vs 24.9% and 19.3% vs 10.6%, respectively. A trend for an improvement with ombrabulin was observed in 3 of the 4 prespecified histology strata: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and “other”, but not for pleomorphic. Analysis of OS did not show statistically significant improvement with ombrabulin (median 11.43 vs 9.33 months Pbo, HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.09). OS rates at 1 year were in favor of ombrabulin (48.6% vs 42.4% Pbo). Grade 3/4 TEAEs more frequently seen with ombrabulin included neutropenia (19.2% vs 7.9% Pbo) and thrombocytopenia (8.5% vs 3.4% Pbo). Conclusions: Although this trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, the combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin did not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit in pts with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma to warrant further study. Clinical trial information: NCT00699517.

Aflibercept and Docetaxel versus Docetaxel alone after platinum failure in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled phase III trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept), a recombinant human fusion protein targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with or without docetaxel in platinum-pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 913 patients were randomly assigned to (ziv-)aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenous (IV; n = 456) or IV placebo (n = 457), both administered every 3 weeks and in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy outcomes, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were balanced between arms; 12.3% of patients had received prior bevacizumab. (Ziv-)Aflibercept did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.17; stratified log-rank P = .90). The median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept and 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.9 months) for placebo. In exploratory analyses, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept versus 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 4.3 months) for placebo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035); overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (95% CI, 19.1% to 27.4%) in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus 8.9% (95% CI, 6.1% to 11.6%; P < .001) in the placebo arm. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurring more frequently in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus the placebo arm were neutropenia (28.0% v 21.1%, respectively), fatigue (11.1% v 4.2%, respectively), stomatitis (8.8% v 0.7%, respectively), and hypertension (7.3% v 0.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The addition of (ziv-)aflibercept to standard docetaxel therapy did not improve OS. In exploratory analyses, secondary efficacy end points did seem to be improved in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm. The study regimen was associated with increased toxicities, consistent with known anti-VEGF and chemotherapy-induced events.