Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician’s choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

[Objective]: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician’s choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). [Methods]: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1. [Results]: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22–0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses. [Conclusions]: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.The CARTITUDE-1 study and these analyses were funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and Legend Biotech, Inc. Medical writing support was provided by EVERSANA and funded by Janssen Global Services, LLC

Combination of everolimus with trastuzumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (BOLERO-1) : a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND : mTOR inhibition has been shown to reverse trastuzumab resistance from hyperactivated the PIK/AKT/mTOR pathway due to PTEN loss, by sensitizing PTEN-deficient tumors towards trastuzumab. The BOLERO-1 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding everolimus to trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS : In this phase III, randomized, double-blind trial, patients were enrolled across 141 sites in 28 countries. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age, with locally assessed HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC), with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, who had not received prior trastuzumab or chemotherapy for ABC, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or bone lesions in the absence of measurable disease, without prior systemic therapy for advanced disease except endocrine therapy. The patients were randomized 2:1 (with an interactive voice and web response system) to receive either daily everolimus (10 mg/day) orally or placebo plus weekly trastuzumab intravenously at 4 mg/kg loading dose on Day-1 with subsequent weekly doses of 2 mg/kg of each 4-week cycle plus paclitaxel intravenously at a dose of 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 4- week cycle. Randomization was stratified according to prior use of trastuzumab and visceral metastasis. Patients and investigators were blinded to the assigned treatments. Identity of experimental treatments was concealed by use of everolimus and placebo that were identical in packaging, labelling, appearance, and administration schedule. The two primary objectives were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the full study population and in the subset of patients with hormone receptor-negative (HR) breast cancer at baseline; the latter was added during the course of the study, prior to unblinding based on new clinical and biological findings from other studies. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment for this trial is closed and results of the final PFS analyses are presented here. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00876395. FINDINGS : Between 10-Sep-2009 and 16-Dec-2012, 719 patients were randomized to receive everolimus (n=480) or placebo (n=239). Median follow-up was 41.3 months (IQR: 35.4 – 46.6 months). INTERPRETATION : The primary objective in the full population was not met; median PFS was 15.0 months with everolimus vs 14.5 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08; p=0.1166). In the HR subpopulation (n=311), median PFS with everolimus was 20.3 months vs 13.1 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; p=0.0049), however, the protocol-specified statistical significance threshold (p=0.0044) was not crossed. The most common adverse events (AEs) with everolimus vs placebo were stomatitis (314 [66.5%] vs 77 [32.4%] patients), diarrhea (267 [56.6%] vs 111 [46.6%] patients), and alopecia (221 [46.8%] vs 125 [52.5%]). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 AEs in the EVE arm vs PBO arm were neutropenia (117 [24.8%] of 472 patients vs 35 [14.7%] of 238 patients), stomatitis (59 [12.5%] of 472 patients vs 3 [1.3%] of 238 patients), anemia (46 [9.7%] of 472 patients vs 6 [2.5%] of 238 patients) and diarrhea (43 [9.1%] of 472 patients vs 10 [4.2%] of 238 patients) On-treatment AE-related deaths were reported in 17 [3.6%] vs 0% of patients respectively.Interpretation: The primary objective of PFS was not met. However, consistent with the preliminary observations from BOLERO-3, everolimus prolonged median PFS by 7.2 months in patients with HR, HER2+ ABC, which warrants further investigation. The safety profile was generally consistent with what was previously reported in BOLERO-3. Proactive monitoring and early management of AEs in patients treated with everolimus and chemotherapy is critical..Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-lancet-oncology2016-07-31hb201

Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician’s choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma [Dataset]

Figure A.1: Selection of Comparator Arms for ITC Analyses Figure A.2: Results of sensitivity analyses with OIs removed for OS at all (A) and first (B) index dates Figure A.3: Results of sensitivity analyses with LocoMMotion removed for OS at all (A) and first (B) index dates, and PF at first index dates (C) Table A.1: Characteristics of Data Sources for PCT arms in ITCs Table A.2: Published ITC Results and Augmented Results Included in Meta-analyses (All Index Dates) Table A.3: Published ITC Results and Augmented Results Included in Meta-analyses (First Index Dates) Table A.4: Baseline Covariates After Adjustment (mITT Populations; All Index Dates) Table A.5: Baseline Covariates After Adjustment (mITT Populations; First Index Dates) Table A.6: Outcome Definitions in ITC Analyses[Objective]: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician’s choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). [Methods]: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1. [Results]: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22–0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses. [Conclusions]: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.Peer reviewe

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Objectives: The goal of the research was to assess the quantitative relationship between median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) specifically among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase, 1970–2017) were systematically searched for RCTs in RRMM that reported OS and PFS, followed by an updated search of studies published between 2010 and 2022 in 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews, 2010–2022). The association between median PFS and median OS was assessed using the nonparametric Spearman rank and parametric Pearson correlation coefficients. Subsequently, the quantitative relationship between PFS and OS was assessed using weighted least-squares regression adjusted for covariates including age, sex, and publication year. Study arms were weighted by the number of patients in each arm. Results: A total of 31 RCTs (56 treatment arms, 10,450 patients with RRMM) were included in the analysis. The average median PFS and median OS were 7.1 months (SD 5.5) and 28.1 months (SD 11.8), respectively. The Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients between median PFS and median OS were 0.80 (P &lt; 0.0001) and 0.79 (P &lt; 0.0001), respectively. In individual treatment arms of RRMM trials, each 1-month increase in median PFS was associated with a 1.72-month (95% CI 1.26–2.17) increase in median OS. Conclusion: Analysis of the relationship between PFS and OS incorporating more recent studies in RRMM further substantiates the use of PFS to predict OS in RRMM.</p

Tisagenlecleucel in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients without measurable disease at infusion

Tisagenlecleucel demonstrated high rates of durable responses in adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) in the JULIET trial. Most patients (92%) received bridging therapies to control disease after study entry and before tisagenlecleucel infusion. Here, we examine the efficacy and safety of tisagenlecleucel in the subset of 7 patients who achieved complete response (CR) after bridging therapy and before tisagenlecleucel infusion. Tisagenlecleucel rapidly expanded in all 7 patients, and the transgene levels were measurable for up to 2 years after infusion. After infusion, all 7 patients were still in CR at the month 3 evaluation, and 5 of 7 patients remained progressionfree >12 months. Adverse events were similar to the overall JULIET population. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 4 of 7 patients (grade 2 = 2 and grade 3 = 2 using the Penn grading scale), and 1 patient experienced grade 1 neurotoxicity. No patient required tocilizumab or steroids for CRS management. These data provide preliminary evidence of tisagenlecleucel efficacy in patients with r/r DLBCL without detectable disease after bridging or salvage therapies and warrant further investigation of tisagenlecleucel as consolidative therapy in future trials

Initial Dose Escalation of ISB 1442, a Novel CD38 Biparatopic x CD47 Bispecific Antibody, in Patients with Relapsed / Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Introduction: ISB 1442 is a fully human bispecific, biparatopic antibody that targets CD38 and CD47, generated using Ichnos' Bispecific Engagement by Antibodies based on the T cell receptor (BEAT ®) platform. ISB 1442 is designed to kill CD38-expressing tumor cells through multiple mechanisms of action including blocking CD47-signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPα) axis to increase several antibody effector functions: antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) through optimized architecture, affinity to targets, and Fc engineering. ISB 1442 has 2 Fab domains binding to distinct CD38 epitopes that do not compete functionally with daratumumab. ISB 1442 is expected to have optimized tolerability with low potential for adverse effects on red blood cells (RBC) such as hemagglutination, platelet aggregation and RBC depletion (Sammicheli at al., ASH 2021, Blood (2021) 138 (Supplement 1): 73). We report here initial findings from the early dose-escalation portion of an ongoing, multi-center, open-label, single-agent phase 1/2 study (NCT05427812) of ISB 1442 in patients with RRMM. Methods: Adult patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) to prior therapies, including a proteasome inhibitors (PIs), an immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and an anti-CD38 antibodies received subcutaneous (SC) doses of ISB 1442 weekly (QW) in 28-day cycles. Patients had measurable disease per the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria (2016). Dose escalation began at 6 mg dose with single patient accelerated titration phase for the first 3 cohorts, followed by a standard titration phase with a “3 + 3” design. The primary study objective for phase 1 is to assess the safety and tolerability to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and select the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ISB 1442. For phase 2 the primary study objective is to evaluate efficacy of ISB 1442. Secondary objectives include evaluation of pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of ISB 1442. Exploratory objectives include assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD), assessment of cellular biomarkers in blood and bone marrow, and soluble factors in blood, and their correlation with efficacy, safety and other clinical endpoints of interest. Results: As of July 18, 2023, based on preliminary data from ongoing clinical database, 10 subjects had received once weekly SC injections of ISB 1442 in 4 dose-escalation groups from 6 mg to 150 mg. The majority were male (60%) and white (90%). The median age was 67 years (range 57-79). The median number of prior anti-myeloma lines of therapy was 6 (range 3-7); 70% were exposed to 5 drugs (2PIs, 2IMiDs, and CD38). The median number of ISB 1442 cycles was 1(range 1-2). Eight subjects (80%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), all were grade 1 or 2: cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (50%), injection site reactions (injection site erythema 20%, injection site bruising 10%), anemia (10%, 1 subject, grade 2) (Table 1). No grade 5 TRAE was observed. Following QW SC injection, ISB 1442 was slowly absorbed into the systemic circulation with T max generally occurring on day 2 of dosing. The ISB 1442 serum concentrations generally remained quantifiable over the entire dosing duration from 20 mg and above. The available PK data suggest an approximately dose-linear increase in serum concentration up to DL 3 (60 mg), followed by a supra-proportional increase in serum levels in subjects treated at DL 4 (150 mg). To date, 5 subjects treated at DL4 (150 mg) have experienced clinical symptoms of CRS (Grade 1-2) following the first dose of ISB 1442. Assessment of a panel of 63 soluble factors (including multiple cytokines, chemokines and growth factors) in the peripheral blood revealed that several subjects at DL3-4 exhibited transient increases (>10-fold) in macrophage inflammatory protein-1b (MIP-1b/CCL4) within 24h after treatment with ISB 1442, consistent with a macrophage-associated mechanism of action. Conclusions: Treatment with ISB 1442 was well tolerated at the dose levels evaluated. The observed clinical CRS events were moderate and potentially related to macrophage activation following ISB 1442 administration. Updated clinical, biomarker and PK data will be presented for this ongoing study

A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of everolimus in combination with pasireotide LAR or everolimus alone in advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors:COOPERATE-2 trial

Background : Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods : Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results : Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64–1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted