Cusatuzumab plus azacitidine in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (CULMINATE): part one of a randomised, phase 2, dose optimisation study

BACKGROUND

Cusatuzumab, a high-affinity anti-CD70 antibody, has shown preliminary activity as a treatment for acute myeloid leukaemia when combined with azacitidine. We aimed to determine the optimum dose for future trials of cusatuzumab in combination with azacitidine in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this randomised, phase 2, open-label, dose-optimisation study we enrolled adult patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia not eligible for intensive chemotherapy, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores of 0-2, from 40 hospitals and centres across seven countries. In part one of the trial, participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to 10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg intravenous cusatuzumab on days 3 and 17, combined with subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on days 1-7 in 28-day cycles. The primary efficacy outcome was the rate of complete remission in the intention-to-treat group. The two dose cohorts were evaluated independently without between-cohort statistical comparison. Safety analyses were performed in all patients who received one dose of study drug. Part two of the trial was planned to be a single-arm expansion to evaluate cusatuzumab plus azacitidine at the cusatuzumab dose level selected in part one (primary hypothesis ≥35% rate of complete remission vs null hypothesis of 20%); however, changes in the acute myeloid leukaemia treatment landscape during this trial made it unlikely that enrolment to part two of the study would be clinically feasible, so the study stopped at the end of part one. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04023526.

FINDINGS

103 patients were enrolled between Aug 30, 2019, and Feb 25, 2020, and randomly assigned to either cusatuzumab 10 mg/kg (n=51) or 20 mg/kg (n=52). Median follow-up was 7·2 months (IQR 10·7 months). 57 of 103 (55%) patients were male and 46 (45%) patients were female, 78 (76%) were White, one (1%) was Asian, and 24 (23%) did not report their race. In the 10 mg/kg group, complete remission rate was 12% (six of 51 patients; 95% CI 6-23) and in the 20 mg/kg group was 27% (14 of 52; 17-40). Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between the cusatuzumab 10 mg/kg (n=51) and 20 mg/kg (n=51) cohorts and included thrombocytopenia (24 patients [47%] vs 29 [57%]), anaemia (24 [47%] vs 17 [33%]), and neutropenia (20 [39%] in both cohorts). Serious TEAEs were also similar in the two cohorts (44 [86%] vs 40 [78%]). Treatment-related TEAEs leading to death were reported in both groups (three patients [6%] in the 10 mg/kg group vs one patient [2%] in the 20 mg/kg group); the reported causes of death were pneumonia (n=2) and septic shock (n=2).

INTERPRETATION

Although part one of this study was not designed to formally compare the two dose cohorts for efficacy, the totality of clinical data for cusatuzumab studies performed to date indicate that cusatuzumab 20 mg/kg plus azacitidine represents the optimal dose for further studies. A phase 1b study investigating the triple combination of cusatuzumab with venetoclax and azacitidine is underway (NCT04150887).

FUNDING

Janssen Research & Development and argenx.

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.

Isatuximab monotherapy in patients with refractory T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia or T-lymphoblastic lymphoma: Phase 2 study

The poor prognosis of acute T‐cell lymphoblastic leukemia (T‐ALL) and T‐cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (T‐LBL) in older adults and patients with relapsed/refractory illness is an unmet clinical need, as there is no defined standard of care and there are few treatment options. Abnormally elevated CD38 expression in T‐ALL and T‐LBL is associated with tumor expansion and disease development, making CD38 a potential target for anti‐T‐ALL and T‐LBL treatment. Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific epitope on CD38. The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of isatuximab monotherapy in a phase 2, multicenter, one‐arm, open‐label study in patients with relapsed or refractory T‐ALL or T‐LBL (Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT02999633). The primary endpoint was to assess the efficacy of isatuximab by overall response rate (ORR). An interim analysis based on the efficacy and safety of isatuximab in the first 19 patients enrolled was scheduled, however only 14 patients were enrolled in the study. No patient achieved complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete peripheral recovery. Most patients (11 [78.6%]) developed progressive disease and had progressive disease as their best response. A total of 10 (71.4%) patients had treatment emergent adverse events considered treatment‐related, with infusion reactions as the most frequent drug‐related TEAE, occurring in 8 (57.1%) patients. Despite the low efficacy of isatuximab in the current study, it is likely that the use of immunotherapy medication in T‐ALL will be expanded through logically targeted approaches, together with advances in the design of T‐cell therapy and clinical experience and will provide restorative options beyond chemotherapy and targeted treatments.

Effect of age and frailty on the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.

Oral ixazomib-dexamethasone versus oral pomalidomide-dexamethasone for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed multiple myeloma (MM) patients: A global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial

8020

Background: MM patients (pts) often receive several lines of therapy with multiple drug combinations and, as lenalidomide (R)-containing regimens are commonly used as first-line therapy, R-free options for subsequent lines are necessary. Additionally, as pts age and become less tolerant to treatment, more convenient regimens, such as all-oral options, with less toxicity are needed. Dexamethasone (dex)-based doublets are effective and tolerable in this setting. Methods: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-exposed and/or intolerant and R-refractory pts who had ≥2 prior therapies (N = 122) were randomized 3:2 to receive: ixazomib (ixa) 4 mg (5.5 mg from cycle 2 if tolerated) on day (d) 1, 8, 15, and dex 20 mg (≥75 years [yrs], 10 mg) on d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23; or pomalidomide (pom) 4 mg on d 1–21, and dex 40 mg (≥75 yrs, 20 mg) on d 1, 8, 15, 22, in 28-d cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by age ( < 65 vs ≥65 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at study entry (I/II vs III), and prior lines of therapy (2 vs ≥3). The study was powered to test the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the ixa-dex (n = 73) vs pom-dex (n = 49) arms, median age was 72 vs 68 yrs (36% vs 18% ≥75 yrs), 25% vs 22% of pts had ISS stage III MM, and 52% vs 53% had received ≥3 prior therapies (per stratification). At data cutoff (5/31/2020), 19% vs 20% of pts were ongoing on treatment with ixa-dex vs pom-dex; primary reasons for discontinuation were PD (47% vs 57%) and adverse events (AEs; 23% vs 12%). With median follow-up of 15.3 vs 17.3 months (mos), median PFS (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 mos with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.847; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.535–1.341; p = 0.477); the Table shows mPFS by prior lines, and secondary endpoints. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with both ixa-dex (range 1–25) and pom-dex (range 1–27); 64% of ixa-dex pts were able to escalate to a 5.5 mg dose of ixa. 69% vs 81% of ixa-dex vs pom-dex pts had grade (G) ≥3 AEs, 51% vs 53% had serious AEs, 39% vs 36% had an AE leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EORTC QLQ-C30/MY20, and EQ-5D-5L) was maintained, and similar between arms. Conclusions: Ixa-dex prolonged PFS vs pom-dex in these heavily pretreated, PI-exposed and/or intolerant, R-refractory pts, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ixa-dex was well tolerated, with lower G≥3 AE rates vs pom-dex, and comparable HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03170882.

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562 .

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020.

FINDINGS

Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died.

INTERPRETATION

A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy.

FUNDING

Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after one to three prior therapies: Initial results of the phase III BOSTON study

8501

Background: Selinexor is an oral, selective inhibitor of XPO1-mediated nuclear export, leading to the reactivation of tumor suppressor proteins. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of once weekly (QW) selinexor with bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) was well tolerated with anti-MM activity in patients (pts) with PI-sensitive and PI-refractory disease. While twice weekly (BIW) bortezomib in combination therapy is efficacious, prolonged use is limited due to peripheral neuropathy (PN, 50-60%). The BOSTON study was designed to determine if SVd improves progression free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORR) and reduces the rate of PN vs Vd. Methods: BOSTON is a global, phase 3, randomized study of QW SVd vs BIW Vd after 1-3 prior anti-MM regimens. The primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary endpoints include ORR, overall survival (OS) and PN (rates and EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 outcomes). Randomization is stratified by treatment with prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens (1 vs > 1), and Revised International Staging System (R-ISS; Stage III vs I or II). Following confirmation of progressive disease, pts on Vd could cross over to either: 1) SVd for pts able to tolerate continued bortezomib or 2) selinexor and dexamethasone for pts with bortezomib intolerance. Results:402 pts were enrolled; 195 and 207 to SVd and Vd, respectively. Median age was 67 (range: 38-90). Most (59.6%) pts were > 65 years and 57.1% were male. R-ISS stage at the time of MM diagnosis was III for 18.5% of pts. Baseline characteristics were balanced across the 2 arms. SVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd (median 13.93 vs 9.46 months, HR = 0.70, P = 0.0066). SVd was associated with a significantly higher ORR (76.4% vs 62.3%, P = 0.0012). Median OS was not reached on SVd vs 25 months on Vd (P = 0.28). Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (grade ≥3) for SVd vs Vd were thrombocytopenia (35.9% vs 15.2%), fatigue (11.3% vs 0.5%) and nausea (7.7% vs 0%). Clinically important differences were reported on the motor, autonomic and sensory scales on CIPN20. PN rates (grade ≥2) were significantly lower with SVd vs Vd (21.0% vs 34.3%, P = 0.0013). Conclusions: BOSTON is the first phase 3 study to evaluate the clinical benefit of SVd for relapsed/refractory MM. The study met the primary endpoint: once weekly SVd significantly improved PFS and ORR compared to twice weekly Vd. Rates of PN were significantly reduced with numerically fewer deaths on SVd vs Vd. Full dataset will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT03110562 .