Multiple myeloma (MM) patients typically receive several lines of combination therapy and first-line treatment commonly includes lenalidomide. As patients age, they become less tolerant to treatment, ...requiring convenient/tolerable/lenalidomide-free options. Carfilzomib and/or bortezomib-exposed/intolerant, lenalidomide-refractory MM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib-dexamethasone (ixa-dex) (n = 73) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (pom-dex) (n = 49) until progression/toxicity. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 months with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (HR 0.847, 95% CI 0.535-1.341, P = 0.477; median follow-up: 15.3 vs 17.3 months); there was no statistically significant difference between arms. In patients with 2 and ≥3 prior lines of therapy, respectively, mPFS was 11.0 vs 5.7 months (HR 1.083, 95% CI 0.547-2.144) and 5.7 vs 3.7 months (HR 0.686, 95% CI 0.368-1.279). Among ixa-dex vs pom-dex patients, 69% vs 81% had Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), 51% vs 53% had serious TEAEs, 39% vs 36% had TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had TEAEs leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Quality of life was similar between arms and maintained during treatment. Ixa-dex represents an important lenalidomide-free, oral option for this heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed population.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03170882.
Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients ...from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.59-0.93; median PFS mPFS 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.
Optimizing Ponatinib Treatment in CP‐CML (OPTIC) was a randomized, phase II dose‐optimization trial of ponatinib in chronic phase‐chronic myeloid leukemia (CP‐CML) resistant to ≥ 2 tyrosine kinase ...inhibitors or with T315I mutation. Patients were randomized to starting doses of 45‐, 30‐, or 15‐mg ponatinib once daily. Patients receiving 45‐ or 30‐mg reduced to 15‐mg upon achievement of ≤ 1% BCR::ABL1IS (≥ molecular response with 2‐log reduction (MR2)). The exposure‐molecular response relationship was described using a four‐state, discrete‐time Markov model. Time‐to‐event models were used to characterize the relationship between exposure and arterial occlusive events (AOEs), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Increasing systemic exposures were associated with increasing probability of transitioning from no response to ≥ MR1, and from MR1 to ≥ MR1, with odds ratios of 1.63 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06–2.73) and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.53–2.89) for a 15‐mg dose increase, respectively. Ponatinib exposure was a significant predictor of AOEs (hazard ratio (HR) 2.05, 95% CI, 1.43–2.93, for a 15‐mg dose increase). In the exposure‐safety models for neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, exposure was a significant predictor of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia (HR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.05–1.64, for a 15‐mg dose increase). Model‐based simulations predicted a clinically meaningful higher rate of ≥ MR2 response at 12 months for the 45‐mg starting dose (40.4%) vs. 30‐mg (34%) and 15‐mg (25.2%). The exposure–response analyses supported a ponatinib starting dose of 45 mg with reduction to 15 mg at response for patients with CP‐CML.
Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been ...limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed.
The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n = 425) or placebo (n = 281). TOURMALINE-MM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4
9.4 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801;
< .001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6
12.9 months; HR, 0.586;
< .001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8%
8.0%), vomiting (24.2%
4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2%
12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2%
6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%.
Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient population.
•Conversion from MRD− to MRD+ or from MRD+ to MRD− status during ixazomib or placebo maintenance modulates the risk of disease progression.•Ixazomib prolonged progression-free survival in patients ...who were MRD+ before maintenance and at a 14-month landmark analysis.
Display omitted
Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival PFS, 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD− vs MRD+ patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD− status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD− status vs those converting from MRD− to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD−. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single–time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD− status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD− status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258.
Measurable residual disease (MRD) status after initial therapy for multiple myeloma is a proven surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS), but its value during maintenance is uncertain. Paiva et al report that serial monitoring of MRD during maintenance treatment captures dynamic conversion between MRD-negative and -positive states and robustly anticipates PFS. This shows the feasibility of longer term MRD monitoring and provides a rationale for trials that investigate intervention prior to frank relapse or shortening of maintenance for those who remain MRD negative.
IMPORTANCE: In newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), disease progression due to acquired resistance to first- or second-generation BCR::ABL1 ...tyrosine kinase inhibitors is common. Ponatinib inhibits BCR::ABL1 and all single-mutation variants, including T315I. OBJECTIVE: To compare frontline ponatinib vs imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Global registrational, phase 3, open-label trial in adults aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. From January 2019 to May 2022, eligible patients at 77 sites were randomized 2:1 to ponatinib (30 mg/d) or imatinib (600 mg/d) with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after the cycle 20 phase of the trial. The last date of follow-up for this analysis was August 12, 2022. INTERVENTION: Patients received ponatinib, 30 mg/d, or imatinib, 600 mg/d, with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after cycle 20. The ponatinib dose was reduced to 15 mg on achievement of minimal residual disease–(MRD) negative complete remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point of this interim analysis was MRD-negative complete remission (≤0.01% BCR::ABL1 MR4 centrally assessed by reverse transcriptase–quantitative polymerase chain reaction), with complete remission maintained for at least 4 weeks at the end of cycle 3. The key secondary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: Of 245 patients randomized (median age, 54 years; 133 54.3% female), 232 (ponatinib, n = 154; imatinib, n = 78) who had p190 or p210 dominant isoforms verified by the central laboratory were analyzed for the primary end point. The MRD-negative complete remission rate (primary end point) was significantly higher with ponatinib (34.4% 53/154) vs imatinib (16.7% 13/78) (risk difference, 0.18 95% CI, 0.06-0.29; P = .002). At the data cutoff, event-free survival had not met the prespecified number of events. Median event-free survival was not reached in the ponatinib group and was 29 months in the imatinib group. The most common adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and comparable between groups (ponatinib, 2.5%; imatinib, 1.2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Ponatinib demonstrated a superior rate of MRD-negative complete remission at the end of induction vs imatinib when combined with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. The safety profile of ponatinib was comparable with imatinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03589326
Ponatinib, the only approved all known-BCR::ABL1 inhibitor, is a third-generation tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) designed to inhibit BCR::ABL1 with or without any single resistance mutation, ...including T315I, and induced robust and durable responses at 45 mg/day in patients with CP-CML resistant to second-generation TKIs in the PACE trial. However, cardiovascular toxicities, including arterial occlusive events (AOEs), have emerged as treatment-related AEs within this class of TKIs. The OPTIC trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ponatinib using a novel, response-based, dose-reduction strategy in patients with CP-CML whose disease is resistant to ≥2 TKIs or who harbor T315I. To assess the dose-response relationship and the effect on the safety of ponatinib, we examined the outcomes of patients with CP-CML enrolled in PACE and OPTIC who received 45 mg/day of ponatinib. A propensity score analysis was used to evaluate AOEs across both trials. Survival rates and median time to achieve ≤1% BCR::ABL1
in OPTIC were similar or better than in PACE. The outcomes of patients with T315I mutations were robust in both trials. Patients in OPTIC had a lower exposure-adjusted incidence of AOEs compared with those in PACE. This analysis demonstrates that response-based dosing for ponatinib improves treatment tolerance and mitigates cardiovascular risk.
398868
Background: The standard of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (dx) Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors ...(TKIs) in combination with chemotherapy (chemo) or steroids. Treated with 1st- or 2nd-generation TKIs, pts eventually progress due to emergence of resistance. Multiple studies have reported promising minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (neg) rates and survival outcomes with pon in combination with chemo or chemo-free regimens. PhALLCON (NCT03589326), the first randomized study comparing TKIs in pts with Ph+ALL, evaluates pon vs im in combination with reduced-intensity chemo. Methods: This phase 3 open-label trial randomized adult newly dx Ph+ALL pts 2:1 to receive pon (30 mg once daily QD) or im (600 mg QD) with reduced-intensity chemo through end of induction (EOI; Cycles 1–3), consolidation (Cycles 4–9), and post-consolidation (Cycles 10–20). After Cycle 20, pts received single-agent pon or im until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The composite primary endpoint was MRD-neg ( BCR:: ABL1 ≤0.01% ) complete remission (CR) for 4 weeks at EOI. Event-free survival (EFS: any cause death, failure to achieve CR by EOI, relapse from CR) was a key secondary endpoint. Results: 245 pts were randomized to pon (n=164) or im (n=81); median age was 54 y (37% ≥60 y). At data cutoff (Aug 2022), 78 pts (pon vs im: 42% vs 12%) were on study treatment; the top 3 reasons for discontinuation were hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% vs 37%), adverse events (12% vs 12%), and lack of efficacy (7% vs 26%). Median follow-up was 20 mo vs 18 mo (pon vs im). The primary endpoint was met (Table) by significantly higher MRD-neg CR rate for pon vs im (34.4% vs 16.7%; p=0.0021). Survival data were not mature; however, the median EFS was reached in im and not in pon, with a trend toward improvement (HR=0.652, 95% CI 0.385–1.104). Time to treatment failure reported an improvement as well (HR=0.455). The treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates (any grade Gr and Gr3/4/5) were comparable between treatment arms. Arterial occlusive events (AOEs) were infrequent and similar between the arms (Table). Conclusions: Pon was superior to im in combination with reduced-intensity chemo in pts with newly dx Ph+ALL, with a significantly higher MRD-neg CR rate at the EOI. Pon was associated with deeper and more durable responses, with a trend toward improved EFS and comparable safety vs im. Clinical trial information: NCT03589326 . Table: see text
PDF
