Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Negativity in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Treated in the Candor Study

Introduction: CANDOR is a multicenter, phase 3, randomized study of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously treated with 1-3 prior lines of therapy (NCT03158688). 466 patients received carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in 2:1 randomization (KdD: 312; Kd: 154). Based on the primary endpoint, KdD demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) vs Kd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.85]; P=0.0014). Deep responses and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity have been associated with improved PFS for patients with RRMM. Herein, we present an analysis of MRD results from CANDOR. Methods: Details of the dose and schedule were previously reported (Dimopoulos et al., Lancet 2020). The rate of patients with confirmed CR which were MRD negative (MRD[-]CR) in bone marrow aspirate at 12 months (± 4 weeks) measured by next-generation sequencing (NGS; threshold, 1 tumor cell/10-5 white blood cells) was a prespecified key secondary endpoint. Exploratory analyses included MRD[-]CR at increasing sensitivity (10-4, 10-5, 10-6) and best overall response MRD[-] status at any time point. All reported responses were by Independent Review Committee and were analyzed for the Intent-to-Treat population. MRD[-] status is at <10-5 unless otherwise specified. Results: The best overall MRD[-]CR rate at any time was 13.8% vs 3.2% in the KdD vs Kd arm (Odds ratio [OR], 4.95; P<0.0001) and the MRD[-] rate regardless of overall response status was 22.8% vs 5.8% (OR, 5.15; P<0.0001). At the 12-month landmark, the MRD[-]CR rate was 12.5% vs 1.3% in the KdD vs Kd arm (OR, 11.3; P<0.0001) and the MRD[-] rate was 17.6% vs 3.9% (OR, 5.76; P<0.0001) with the proportion of patients with MRD[-]VGPR being 4.2% vs 2.6%, respectively. The MRD[-]CR rates at the 12-month landmark for KdD vs Kd were consistent across clinically relevant subgroups (Table). At the 12-month landmark, KdD treatment resulted in a greater proportion of CR rates (26.9% vs 9.7%) and deeper MRD responses than Kd. Among patients in CR, the depth of response as measured by NGS MRD level at the 12-month landmark was deeper for KdD relative to Kd: cutoff of >10-4, 36.9% vs 73.3%; 10-4 to 10-5, 16.7% vs 13.3%; 10-5 to 10-6, 23.8% vs 13.3%; <10-6, 22.6% vs 0% for KdD vs Kd, respectively (Figure). Similar to the results at the 12-month landmark, MRD responses independent of the landmark were deeper among patients in the KdD compared to the Kd arm. With median follow-up of 6 months from the 12-month landmark, no patient with MRD[-]CR response progressed or died. Additional post hoc analyses were conducted within patients randomized to KdD to explore prognostic characteristics for MRD[-]CR. Importantly, prior lenalidomide exposure did not meaningfully impact the MRD[-]CR rate at the 12-month landmark; 13.2% (25/189), 11.4% (14/123), and 13.1% (13/99) for naïve, exposed, and refractory subgroups, respectively. For prior bortezomib, the MRD[-]CR rates were 24% (6/25), 11.5% (33/287), and 6.8% (6/88) for naïve, exposed, and refractory subgroups, respectively. The rates of MRD[-]CR at the 12- month landmark within the KdD arm were consistent across subgroups: patients refractory to the last prior therapy (yes vs no, 10.9% vs 14.3%), number of prior regimens (1-2 vs 3 prior regimens; 13.2% vs 10.1%), prior transplant (yes vs no, 11.8% vs 13.7%), duration of first remission (≤2 vs >2 years, 12.3% vs 13% and ≤1 vs >1 year, 10.7% vs 13.4%), baseline creatinine clearance (≥15 to 75 years, 12.9% vs 8.0%), or dose intensity (< vs ≥ median) for carfilzomib or daratumumab (10.5% vs 14.9% and 9.8% vs 15.6%, respectively). Data on cytogenetics will be included at the time of presentation. Conclusion: At the primary analysis, patients treated with KdD achieved significantly higher MRD[-]CR rates vs Kd at the 12-month landmark. Among patients with an MRD[-]CR, the depth of MRD was deeper with KdD vs Kd. With a median of 6 months follow-up, no patient with an MRD[-]CR has progressed; duration of response will be updated at time of presentation. Within the KdD arm, lenalidomide exposure or refractoriness did not diminish the MRD[-]CR rate. These findings support the efficacy of the KdD regimen as an effective treatment for RRMM, including patients who have become lenalidomide refractory. Disclosures Landgren: Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Other. Weisel:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosinol Dachs:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Moreau:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hajek:PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mollee:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zhang:Amgen: Current Employment. Go:Amgen: Current Employment. Morris:Amgen: Current Employment. Usmani:Celgene: Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding

Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MajesTEC-1): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study

Background: There is a need for novel therapies for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is a validated target. Teclistamab is a bispecific antibody that binds BCMA and CD3 to redirect T cells to multiple myeloma cells. The aim of the MajesTEC-1 study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of teclistamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: This open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study enrolled patients with multiple myeloma who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to established therapies. Teclistamab was administered intravenously (range 0·3−19·2 μg/kg [once every 2 weeks] or 19·2−720 μg/kg [once per week]) or subcutaneously (range 80−3000 μg/kg [once per week]) in different cohorts, with step-up dosing for 38·4 μg/kg or higher doses. The primary objectives were to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (part one) and characterise teclistamab safety and tolerability at the recommended phase 2 dose (part two). Safety was assessed in all patients treated with at least one dose of teclistamab. Efficacy was analysed in response-evaluable patients (ie, patients who received at least one dose of teclistamab and had at least one post-baseline response evaluation). This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145181. Findings: Between June 8, 2017, and March 29, 2021, 219 patients were screened for study inclusion, and 157 patients (median six previous therapy lines) were enrolled and received at least one dose of teclistamab (intravenous n=84; subcutaneous n=73). 40 patients were administered the recommended phase 2 dose, identified as once per week subcutaneous administration of teclistamab at 1500 μg/kg, after 60 μg/kg and 300 μg/kg step-up doses (median follow-up 6·1 months, IQR 3·6−8·2). There were no dose-limiting toxicities at the recommended phase 2 dose in part one. In the 40 patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome in 28 (70%; all grade 1 or 2 events) and neutropenia in 26 (65%) patients (grade 3 or 4 in 16 [40%]). The overall response rate in response-evaluable patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose (n=40) was 65% (95% CI 48−79); 58% achieved a very good partial response or better. At the recommended phase 2 dose, the median duration of response was not reached. 22 (85%) of 26 responders were alive and continuing treatment after 7·1 months’ median follow-up (IQR 5·1−9·1). At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab exposure was maintained above target exposure levels, and consistent T-cell activation was reported. Interpretation: Teclistamab is a novel treatment approach for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab showed promising efficacy, with durable responses that deepened over time, and was well tolerated, supporting further clinical development. Funding: Janssen Research & Development

Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better). RESULTS Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2

Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background In a phase lb study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.Methods In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1-21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daraturnurnab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daraturnurnab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736.Findings Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16.9 months (IQR 14.4-20.6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12.4 months [95% CI 8 3-19.3] vs 6.9 months [5.5-9.3]; hazard ratio 0.63 [95% CI 0 - 47-0 -85], two-sided p=0 - 0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group.Interpretation Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved