CheckMate 602: A Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Trial of Combinations of Nivolumab, Elotuzumab, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. S330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Donna Reece ◽  
Hesham Mohamed ◽  
Suresh Shelat ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. e370-e380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Hareth Nahi ◽  
Wojciech Legiec ◽  
Sebastian Grosicki ◽  
Vladimir Vorobyev ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1900-1900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Weisel ◽  
Thomas G Hopkins ◽  
Doug Fecteau ◽  
Weichao Bao ◽  
Corinne Quigley ◽  
...  

Background: Belantamab mafodotin is a humanized, afucosylated, anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) monoclonal antibody conjugated to monomethyl auristatin F via a maleimidocaproyl linker (mcMMAF). Upon binding to BCMA on the surface of plasma cells, it is rapidly internalized and the cytotoxic moiety (cys-mcMMAF) is released, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity is enhanced, and immunogenic cell death occurs. In vitro and in vivo cytotoxic activity against both myeloma cell lines and primary patient cells has been demonstrated in preclinical studies. In the first-in-human phase 1 study (DREAMM-1/BMA117159, NCT02064387), belantamab mafodotin had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated a rapid, deep, and durable clinical response as a monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In a cohort of 35 heavily pretreated patients with RRMM (57% with ≥5 lines of prior therapy) who received belantamab mafodotin 3.4 mg/kg by intravenous (IV) infusion every 3 weeks (Q3W) overall response rate (ORR) of 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.1, 76.1) was demonstrated. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.0 months (95% CI: 3.1, not estimable [NE]) and the median duration of response (DoR) was 14.3 months (95% CI: 10.6, NE). Belantamab mafodotin monotherapy in patients with RRMM is being further evaluated against the standard-of-care pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pom/Dex) regimen in the DREAMM-3 study. Methods: The phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label DREAMM-3 study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of belantamab mafodotin monotherapy compared with Pom/Dex, an established standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. In this global study, patients treated with ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including ≥2 consecutive cycles of both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and refractory to the last line of treatment, will be eligible for inclusion. Participants with prior allogeneic transplant will be excluded, as will those with prior exposure to BCMA-targeted therapies and Pom. Approximately 320 participants will be randomized (2:1) to receive either belantamab mafodotin or Pom/Dex and will be stratified by age, exposure to anti-CD38 therapy, and number of prior lines of treatment. Belantamab mafodotin will be administered IV Q3W, at the dose confirmed in the ongoing DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678). Pom will be administered orally at 4 mg on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle, with Dex 40 or 20 mg (depending on age) on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Treatment in both arms will continue until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint is PFS, and overall survival is a key secondary endpoint. Additional secondary endpoints include ORR, time to response, minimal residual disease negativity rate (10-5 threshold assessed by next-generation sequencing), DoR, safety, and health-related quality of life. Bone marrow and blood samples will be collected for biomarker research. The study is planned to start in late 2019. Acknowledgments: Editorial assistance was provided by Sarah Hauze, PhD, at Fishawack Indicia Ltd, UK, and funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Study is funded by GlaxoSmithKline (ID: 207495); drug linker technology is licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody is produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Weisel: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hopkins:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fecteau:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bao:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Quigley:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jewell:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nichols:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Opalinska:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4083-4083
Author(s):  
Jianming He ◽  
Heather Berringer ◽  
Bart Heeg ◽  
Tobias Kampfenkel ◽  
Harikumaran R. Dwarakanathan ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 APOLLO study demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical responses with daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Pd) vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Based on these results, D-Pd became 1 of many treatment regimens approved in this patient population. In the absence of head-to-head data, indirect comparisons can provide important information to help optimize treatment for patients with RRMM. However, indirect comparisons of aggregated clinical trial data can be subject to selection and confounding bias, thus limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from the comparison. Several statistical methodologies are available that can be used to control for baseline differences and estimate the relative treatment effect of different treatment regimens. Here, we report the results of indirect comparisons that used patient-level data to compare improvement in PFS with D-Pd vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) and D-Pd vs Vd in patients with RRMM with prior immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure. Methods: Data for the D-Pd cohort came from the APOLLO (NCT03180736) and EQUULEUS (NCT01998971) studies. APOLLO is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with RRMM and ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) including lenalidomide and a PI were randomized to D-Pd (N=151) or Pd (N=153). EQULEUUS was a nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1b trial that evaluated D-Pd in 103 patients with RRMM and ≥1 prior LOT, including lenalidomide and a PI. Data for the D-Vd and Vd cohorts came from CASTOR (NCT02136134), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing D-Vd (N=251) vs Vd (N=247) in patients with RRMM and ≥1 prior LOT. Harmonized eligibility criteria (≥1 prior LOT including an IMiD and a PI; no prior pomalidomide) were applied prior to weighting/matching. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), propensity score matching (PSM), and cardinality matching (CM) were explored to adjust for imbalances in patient characteristics at baseline. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression for sIPTW and PSM. CM is an optimization-based method to find the mathematically-guaranteed largest matched sample meeting prespecified maximum standardized mean difference criteria for matching covariates, thereby overcoming limitations of PSM associated with limited covariate overlap, which was identified in this sample. Age, sex, cytogenetic risk (high/standard/missing), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, 1, or 2), International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II, III, or missing), MM type (IgG/non-IgG/missing), prior autologous stem cell transplant (yes/no), number of prior LOT (1, 2-3, or ≥4), refractory to lenalidomide status (yes/no/not received), refractory to IMiD/PI status (IMiD only, PI only, both, neither), and years since diagnosis were considered for adjustment. The analysis focused on PFS; overall survival was not analyzed as these data are immature. Results: After harmonized eligibility criteria were applied, 253, 104, and 122 patients from the D-Pd, D-Vd, and Vd cohorts, respectively, were included for comparison. A naïve comparison of baseline characteristics identified differences between D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts. After sIPTW, PSM, and CM adjusting, some imbalances between the D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts remained. ISS stage and MM type could not be adjusted for due to the amount of missing data in EQUULEUS. The CM method yielded better balance than sIPTW. The effective sample sizes (ESS) for each method are shown in the Table. The ESS for PSM was too low for comparison of PFS. PFS hazard ratios favored D-Pd over D-Vd and Vd and were statistically significant for sIPTW and CM (Figure). Conclusions: This indirect treatment comparison showed a PFS benefit for D-Pd compared with well-established SOC regimens D-Vd and Vd in patients with RRMM with previous exposure to an IMiD and a PI. Although the low ESS of sIPTW and PSM is a limitation, these findings provide support in favor of using D-Pd in a population of patients with difficult-to-treat MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures He: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Heeg: Janssen: Research Funding. Kampfenkel: Janssen: Current Employment. Dwarakanathan: Janssen: Other: Data related vendor services. Johnston: Johnson & Johnson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mendes: Janssen-Cilag Farmacêutica: Current Employment. Lam: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bathija: Janssen: Current Employment; Parexel International: Ended employment in the past 24 months.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS8058-TPS8058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Zafar Usmani ◽  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Nizar J. Bahlis ◽  
Sebastian Grosicki ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document