Background: Elotuzumab (elo) is a humanized monoclonal antibody, which has been approved by the FDA for use in combination with lenalidomide (lena) and dexamethasone (dexa) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Elotuzumab is effective as a single agent, as well as in combination for multiple myeloma treatments, supporting the use of elo in pts with RRMM and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) pts. Method: After review of literature using database searches was done on 6/27/18 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), 9 prospective and 1 retrospective study with 1128 enrolled pts met the inclusion criteria to date in RRMM and 2 clinical trials including 123 pts in NDMM (Table 1). CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Regimens used in RRMM: Based on pooled analysis (95% CI), an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% (54-76.2) was calculated in 685 evaluable pts treated with elo based regimens in RRMM (Figure 1). Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 hematological adverse events (HAE) and non-hematological adverse events (NHAE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in RRMM pts (Table 2). Anemia was noted in 12.1% ( 7.7-18.6) in 559 pts, while neutropenia in 14.5% (7.5-26.4) out of 591 pts and thrombocytopenia (tcp) in 11.9% (7.9-17.4) in 198 evaluable pts. Diarrhea 5.5% (3.6-8.3), pyrexia 2.4% (1.5-4), peripheral neuropathy (PN) 8.4% (3.8-17.8) were measured in 626, 668 and 143 pts respectively. Elotuzumab as monotherapy: 1 study (n=34) evaluated the efficacy of elo as single agent in RRMM. The median age, time from diagnosis and number of prior therapies were 64.5 years (y) (46-87), 4.4 y (0.9-12.8) and 4.5 y (2-10) respectively. It produced an ORR of 1.4% (0.1-19.1 95% CI) in 34 evaluable pts. Adverse events recorded were pyrexia and fatigue in 17.6% and 8.8% pts respectively. Elotuzumab in two drug regimen: In RRMM, 2 clinical trials (n=49) evaluated the efficacy (95% CI) of elo, ORR of 25% (4.1-72.3) was calculated. The best PFS (progression free survival) produced was in combination of elo 20 mg with bortezumib (bort) 1.3mg/m2 of 9.46 months as compared to 1.8 months when elo10mg/kg + dexamethasone (dexa) 28mg was used. In our analysis for safety, common G≥ 3 HAE calculated were, thrombocytopenia 8.7% (3.3-21.1) n=49, neutropenia 10.7 % (3.5-28.4) n=28 pts and anemia 7.1% (1.8-24.5) n=28 pts. NHAE included diarrhea 1.7% (0.1-22.3), PN 10.7% (3.5-28.4), pyrexia 1.7% (0.1-22.3) in 28 evaluable pts each. Elotuzumab in three drug regimen: In RRMM, 10 clinical trials including 602 pts evaluated the efficacy of elo as a part of triple drug regimen, producing an ORR of 72.2% (54-76.2). The best results were produced with the combination of elo 10-20mg/kg + lenalidomide (lena) 25mg + dexa 40mg producing a PFS of 32.2 mo and 28.62 mo in its phase I and II cohorts respectively. Based on pooled analysis (95% CI) common HAE calculated were neutropenia 17.5% (7.6-35.4) in n=563, thrombocytopenia 12.7% (8.2-19.4) in n=149 and anemia 13% (8-20.5) in n=531 pts. Common G ≥ 3 NHAE estimated were diarrhea 5.7% (3.7-8.6), PN 6.6% (2-19.2), pyrexia 2.5% (1.5-4.1) in 598, 115 and 640 pts respectively. Elotuzumab based regimen in NDMM: A currently ongoing clinical trial NCT02272803 has produced promising results in NDMM pts. As a part of three drug regimen with dose of elo 10mg/kg-20mg/kg, lena 25mg, dexa 20mg in 40 pts produced an ORR of 87.5% (73.2-95.8) versus control group of lena 25mg plus dexa 40mg in 42 pts with an ORR of 73.8% (58-86.1). The PFS rate recorded at 1 year was 93% (79-98%) and 91% (73-97%) respectively. The HAE G ≥ 3 included, neutropenia 18% and leukopenia 15%. In another study with 41 pts, elo was used in combination with lena, bort and dexa producing an ORR of 100% and greater than grade 3 adverse events including Tcp 15%, PN 2%. Conclusion: Results produced in our study suggest that elotuzumab is highly effective when used in pts with RRMM and NDMM. Combination regimens for elo produces an ORR ranging from 79-83% with elo + lena+ dexa, proving that the best results were produced by three drug regimens. Large prospective studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of elotuzumab in combination therapies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Background: Treatment for post-transplant relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R-ALL) is not well defined. A majority of ALL relapses occur within two years after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Blinatumomab, an anti-CD19/CD3 bispecific antibody, exerts cytotoxic activity leading to apoptosis of CD19 positive B cells. Blinatumomab and DLI combination therapy is a promising new concept in cancer treatment, whereby blinatumomab might achieve an initial reduction in ALL tumor burden using T-cells, and after tumor clearance, DLI can potentially stimulate the donor immune system to achieve longer lasting remission. Methods: Literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases up to 3 July 2018. MeSH terms and keywords of blinatumomab, DLI and ALL were used. Results: Comprehensive search retrieved over 150 articles. After exclusion criteria were applied, three studies (n=15 patients) met our inclusion criteria. We summarized data on 15 patients (table 1). Outcomes were not reported homogeneously. Two studies (Ueda, M. et al. 2016; Paul, S. et al. 2017) reported CR in months and one study (Bondarenko, SN. et al. 2017) reported the response rate (RR). Before starting blinatumomab therapy, 12 patients had post-transplant bone marrow relapse, 1 patient had an extramedullary relapse and 2 patients had a minimal residual disease (MRD) without marrow relapse. Total cycles of blinatumomab ranged from 2 to 4. Total cycles of DLI ranged from 1 to 2 given after at least one cycle of blinatumomab. DLI was mostly given with blinatumomab during cycle 3 (ranged from cycle 2 to cycle 4). Blinatumomab doses were not uniformly reported. DLI doses varied between 1x107 and 5x107. Complete remission (CR) with MRD negative status was achieved after 2 cycles of blinatumomab in 3 patients, 2 of them remained in CR for 7 and 13 months. One patient achieved CR and negative MRD status 7 months after initiation of blinatumomab (total cycles of combination therapy=2). Ten patients who had median number of 2 cycles of blinatumomab showed RR of 70%. Grade I acute skin GVHD was reported in one patient during the cycle 3 of blinatumomab before the first combination therapy. One patient developed grade II aGVHD after the combination therapy (cycles were not reported). One patient developed GVHD involving mouth and skin during the second cycle of combination therapy (cycle 3). Grade 3 late-onset acute skin and gut GVHD were reported in one patient after the first dual therapy (cycle 3). No fatalities were observed with combination therapy. Therapy was stopped in one patient who had isolated central nervous system (CNS) relapse detected in the cerebral spinal fluid and orbit following allo-SCT; the patient was treated with intrathecal chemotherapy and radiation. One patient died of extramedullary and hematologic relapses seen at 6 and 11 months after initiating blinatumomab, respectively. This patient previously had a marrow relapse before starting therapy. One patient having an extramedullary disease progressed despite blinatumomab and DLI. Conclusion: Blinatumomab and DLI combination therapy appears to be safe and effective, specially for patients with MRD positive status after stem cell transplantation. Large prospective studies are required to completely understand the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction Selinexor, a SINE (selective inhibitor of nuclear export) compound, inhibits exportin 1 (XPO1) involved in transport of tumor suppressor proteins leading to apoptosis of tumor cells. XPO1 is overexpressed in variety of cancer including ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, glioma, osteosarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. The aim of this study is to summarize clinical response and adverse events of selinexor in hematological neoplasms. Methods A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight and Clinicaltrials.gov was completed on July 12, 2018. Studies focusing on efficacy and/or adverse events of selinexor in patients with hematological neoplasms were included for the review. Results Out of 321 studies found on initial search, we finalized 15 studies (8 phase I and 7 phase I/II) after screening by two reviewers. AML: Selinexor in combination with high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone has shown overall response rate (ORR) of 70% among 20 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Wang et al., 2018. Out of 12 newly diagnosed AML (ND AML) patients, 11 (92%) patients showed response with complete response (CR) in 7, CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) in 3 and partial response (PR) in 1 patient. Among 8 relapsed/refractory AML (R/R AML) patients, only 3 patients showed CR while 5 had treatment failure (TF), ORR in this subset was 38%. In 81 evaluable R/R AML patients receiving selinexor as monotherapy only 14% of the patients showed response while 31% patients had disease progression (PD) along with grade ≥3 hematological adverse events (AEs) of thrombocytopenia, anemia and neutropenia in 19%, 15% and 13% patients, respectively (Garzon et al., 2017). MM: Relapsed refractory multiple myeloma patients receiving selinexor combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone have achieved ORR of 60% with CR in 1 and PR in 5 patients (Chen et al., 2016 n=10) with grade ≥3 neutropenia in 8 patients. In another regimen with doxorubicin and dexamethasone the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 26% with 15% overall response (Rachid et al., 2017 n=27). Grade ≥3 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and hyponatremia occurred in 33%, 33% and 30% of patients, respectively. NHL: Kuruvilla et al. observed ORR in 31% patients with relapsed refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma with single-agent selinexor. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anemia occurred in 47%, 32% and 27% patients, respectively. The efficacy of selinexor in phase I and I/II clinical trials is given in table 1 while toxicity is mentioned in table 2. With selinexor, the most common hematological and nonhematological AEs noted were thrombocytopenia and hyponatremia, respectively. Conclusion: Selinexor based combination regimens have shown better clinical response against AML as compared to monotherapy. The efficacy results in multiple myeloma and other hematological malignancies are also encouraging. The adverse events like cytopenias were common as in other chemotherapy regimens. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction Recent studies in novel therapies have created opportunities for new treatment regimens to be used in the management of multiple myeloma. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors lead to epigenetic manipulation of multiple myeloma (MM) cells by reducing resistance to pro-apoptotic signals. Panobinostat is an FDA approved HDAC inhibitor for multiple myeloma. The aim of this article is to study the safety, efficacy and dose limiting toxicities of HDAC inhibitors in the early phase clinical trials in multiple myeloma. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search for phase I & I/II trials of HDAC inhibitors during last ten years using following databases: PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies involving HDAC inhibitors in multiple myeloma other than panobinostat irrespective of the age, sex or specific eligibility criteria were included. Results Out of 2537 studies, we included 25 trials (23 phase I, 2 phase I/II) of HDAC inhibitors in this systematic review having a total of 518 patients. Of these, 471(90.9%) patients were evaluable for response. Vorinostat (Vor) is the most studied drug used in 13 trials (n=281). Two trials had Vor-only regimen and the remaining 11 had combination regimens mostly with lenalidomide and bortezomib. Vor, in combination with lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (d) has showed 100% overall response rate (ORR) in 30 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients, (Kaufmann et al., 2016), fifty two percent patients achieved very good partial response (VGPR) and 28% patients showed complete response (CR). Another study using Vor + R regimen after autologous stem cell transplant in 16 NDMM patients showed VGPR in 7, stringent complete response (sCR) in 4, partial response (PR) in 2 and CR in 3 patients (Sborov et al.). Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 1 patient in this study. Richter et al, 2011 showed an ORR of 24% in 29 relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with Vor only regimen. Another study (Kaufmann et al., 2012) with Vor only regimen used in 10 RRMM patients showed stable disease (SD) in 9 and minimal response (MR) in 1 patient. ORR of 65% was achieved in 31 RRMM patients receiving Vor in combination with doxorubicin & bortezomib (Vorhees et al, 2017). Thrombocytopenia & neutropenia were reported in 94% and 59% patients respectively. Ricolinostat in combination with Rd and Vd achieved an ORR of 55% and 29% respectively in two studies with 38 and 57 evaluable patients (NCT01583283, NCT01323751). Another ricolinostat regimen with pomalidomide & dexamethasone achieved ≥PR in 6/11 RRMM patients (Madan et al., 2016). Table 1 illustrates the efficacy, number of patients and regimens used in all the studies in this systematic review. Quisinostat in a 2017 study by Moreau P et al. (NCT01464112) showed an ORR of 88% in a combination regimen with Vd in RRMM patients (N=18). Drug related adverse events were seen in 13 patients, thrombocytopenia being most common in 11 patients, 2 patients had grade 3 cardiac disorders and 1 patient had a cardiac arrest. Romidepsin in a phase I/II study (Harrison et al., 2011) combined with Vd was used in 25 RRMM patients. ORR was 60% with VGPR n=7, CR n=2, PR n=6, SD n=5 and PD n=1. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia in 16, neutropenia in 9 and peripheral neuropathy in 2 patients was seen. Popat et al used combination of two HDAC inhibitors CHR 3996 and tosedostat in 20 RRMM patients. ORR was 10% and SD was seen in 30% patients. Grade 3/4 toxicities seen were thrombocytopenia (n=12), leukopenia (n=6) and diarrhea (n=5). A phase I study on AR-42 drug in 17 RRMM patients (Sborov et al., 2017) showed SD in 10, PD in 4, MR in 3 patients with progression free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months. Thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and lymphopenia were seen in 11, 10 and 6 patients respectively. A detail of all grade 3 and higher adverse events along with dose limiting toxicity is given in table 2. Three trials (NCT02576496, NCT01947140, NCT03051841) of Edo-S101, romidepsin and CKD-581 are currently recruiting with 84, 93 and 18 planned number of patients. Conclusion Regimens containing vorinostat have shown an ORR up to 100% in NDMM patients. HDAC inhibitors have also shown promising efficacy up to 88% ORR in RRMM population. Majority of the patients developed cytopenias as hematological adverse events. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Monoclonal antibody's infusion related reactions (IRRs) include anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions and cytokine release syndrome. These reactions are related to the time of infusion. Incidence of IRRs in patients treated with daratumumab is reported to be about 42%. Severity of the most commonly reported IRRs, during the first dose of infusion are between grade I and II. Approved dosage of daratumumab is 16 mg/kg IV weekly given for 1 through 8 weeks, then every 2 weeks from 9th through 24th week, after which it is given every 4 weeks from 25th week onwards, its use is continued until disease progression. The goal of this study is to evaluate the IRRs at cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) and C1D2, using split dose daratumumab (8 mg/kg) and to look for the impact of prior leukotriene receptor antagonist administration on the incidence of IRRs. Methods: To study the IRRs at day 1 using split dose daratumumab C1D1 (8 mg/kg) and C1D2 (8 mg/kg), we performed a retrospective review of medical records of relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma patients receiving daratumumab between December 1st, 2015 to March 31st, 2018 at our center. Key variables related to each patient were recorded from Epic electronic database. Data were summarized using counts and percentages. Results: A total of 35 patients were included and the incidence of IRRs was measured. Overall, 13 (37.14%) patients developed IRRs on day 1. Out of these 13 patients, 11 (84.61%) patients had grade II IRRs, 1 (7.69%) patient had grade I IRRs and 1 (7.69%) patient had grade III IRRs. Nineteen (54.2%) patients out of a total 35 patients were pretreated with montelukast; out of these 19 patients, 5 (26.31%) patients had grade II IRRs and 1 (5.26%) patient had grade III IRRs. Thus, 31.57% patients had IRRs with montelukast pretreatment. No patient had grade I or grade IV IRRs. Sixteen (45.71%) patients out of total 35 patients were not pretreated with Montelukast; out of these 16 patients, 6 (37.5%) patients had grade II IRRs and 1 (6.25%) patient had grade I IRR. No patient had grade III or grade IV IRR. Thus, 43.75% patients had IRRs without montelukast. Overall, 12.18% reduction in IRRs was noted with pretreatment using montelukast. Conclusion: This single center study demonstrates that split dose model of daratumumab in the treatment of R/R multiple myeloma shows lower incidence of IRRs when compared to historical controls reported in the literature. Moreover, pretreatment with leukotriene receptor antagonist also appear to decreases the incidence of IRRs in our patient population. Future randomized prospective trials are needed to support these findings and improving the overall impact on tolerance for daratumumab. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Intracellular molecular inhibitors act by inducing apoptosis due to inhibition of intracellular proteins like 20S proteasome subunit, histone deacetylases (HDAC's), exportin 1 (XPO1), cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) and kinesin spindle protein (KSP). These proteins are involved in the regulation of cell cycle. The aim of our analysis is to report published literature on the clinical efficacy of intracellular molecular inhibitors in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Methods: Following Prisma guidelines, we performed a comprehensive literature search on articles published after 2011. Four hundred eighty-nine articles were identified using the following five databases (Pubmed, Embase Cochrane, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov). After a detailed screening, we finalized 13 studies involving 902 RRMM patients. We included phase I/II, II and III studies. The studies involving drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration were excluded. Results:Selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compounds: Selinexor A total of 112 RRMM patients were included. Thirty-three patients were in phase I/II while 79 patients were in phase II. All patients received selinexor (60-100 mg) in different combination regimens. Forty-eight patients were quad-refractory (refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide) while 31 patients were penta-refractory (including isatuximab/daratumumab). In 110 evaluable patients, the pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 35.45%. The ORR in the subset of quad-refractory and penta-refractory patients was 21% and 20% respectively. The best response was seen when selinexor was used in combination with bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (d) i.e. 77%.HDAC inhibitors: Vorinostat and Ricolinostat A total of 562 RRMM patients were included. Seventy-seven patients were in phase I/II, 168 patients in phase II, and 317 patients were in phase III. Five hundred and eighteen patients received vorinostat (100-400 mg) in different combination regimens while 44 patients received ricolinostat (160-240mg) in combination with Vd. The median follow-up period was 13.2-30.8 months. In 560 evaluable patients, the pooled ORR was 42.83% and 31.81% in patients who received vorinostat and ricolinostat, respectively. The best response was seen when vorinostat was used in combination with V, doxorubicin (DX) and d i.e. 67%.Proteasome inhibitors: Oprozomib and Marizomib A total of 117 RRMM patients were included. Hundred and two patients were in phase I/II while 15 patients were in phase II. Twenty-seven, 34 and 41 patients received single-agent oprozomib in the dose of 240 mg, 150-180 mg, and 240-300 mg respectively while 15 patients received single-agent marizomib (0.5 mg/m2). Out of 107 evaluable patients, the pooled ORR was 27.65% in patients who received oprozomib while no response was seen in patients who received marizomib however stable disease was seen in 31% of patients.KSP inhibitor: Filanesib A total of 50 RRMM patients were included. All patients were in phase II. Thirty-two patients received single-agent filanesib (1.5mg/m2) while 18 patients received filanesib (1.5mg/m2) in combination with d. The pooled ORR was 22%. The ORR was 19% when filanesib was used as a single agent while it was 28% when filanesib was used in combination with d.CDK inhibitors: Dinaciclib and Palbociclib A total of 61 RRMM patients were included. All patients were in phase I/II. Twenty-nine patients received single-agent dinaciclib (30-50 mg/m2) while 32 patients received palbociclib (100mg) in combination with Vd. In 52 evaluable patients, the ORR in patients who received dinaciclib was 11% while the ORR in patients who received palbociclib was 20%. Conclusion: In RRMM patients, vorinostat and selinexor when used in combination regimens demonstrated a weak efficacy with a pooled ORR of 43% and 36% respectively. The best response was seen in combination with Vd i.e. 67% and 77% respectively. The data on other intracellular molecular inhibitors (ricolinostat, oprozomib, marizomib, filanesib, dinaciclib, and palbociclib) when used either as single agents or in combination regimens, suggested a poor efficacy with an ORR of < 35%. However, future randomized well designed prospective clinical trials involving a larger population are required to further explore the efficacy of these agents in RRMM patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Rationale for anticancer vaccine therapy is based on humoral and/or cellular response against unique tumor antigens (Ag). Peptide vaccines specific for Ag are under investigation for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Among cell-based vaccines, monocyte derived dendritic cell (MDDC) fused with myeloma cells serve as Ag presenting cells to develop an immune response against a variety of targets. The purpose of this study is to report clinical response and tolerability of anti-myeloma vaccines. Methods: We included phase I and I/II trials developed between January 2008 to December 2017, where vaccines or viruses were used against MM, irrespective of the geo-location, age, and sex. We performed a comprehensive literature search (last update 3-30-2018) using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results: The initial search identified 2537 early phase studies. After screening by 2 reviewers and categorization by mechanism of action, 25 clinical trials (CT) that involved vaccines and/or viruses were included. We added 1 CT after the manual search. Therapy was given to 3 distinct classes of patients: patients without prior treatment (high risk smoldering MM or stage I MM, 4 CT), as an adjunct therapy for patients undergoing FDA approved treatments [high dose chemotherapy (HDT), allogeneic (allo-SCT) or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), 9 CT], and patients with residual or relapsed/refractory (RR) disease after FDA approved therapies (11 CT). Of the included 25 CT, 14 have published results available for analysis. For patients without prior treatments, PVX-410, a multi-peptide vaccine, resulted in at least minimal response (MR) in 50% of patients when combined with lenalidomiden and achieved stable disease (SD) for 60% of patients when used alone at 12 months follow up. Treatment with Idiotype-pulsed mature MMDC targeting idiotype proteins in MM showed MR in 30% of patients and SD in 43% of patients at 12 months. For patients receiving vaccines as an adjuvant treatment, recMAGE-A3 resulted in complete response (CR) and very good partial response (VGPR) in 46% and 54% respectively, at 3 months post ASCT follow up. By 12 months post ASCT, these responses were 38% CR and 23% VGPR. Treatment with MDDC (MAGE3 + Survivin + BCMA) resulted in SD in 42% of patients at a median of 25 months post vaccination and 55 months post ASCT. ScFv-FrC, a DNA fusion vaccine, resulted in CR in 50% and MR/SD in 21% at 52 weeks post vaccination. Ongoing CR/PR was maintained for 3+ years in 57 % patients, 4+ years in 36%, and 5+ years in 14% of patients following ASCT; OS was 64% after a median follow up of 85.6 months . Patients treated with MDDCs/tumor cells fusion vaccine had 69% SD after vaccination and 20% SD at a median of 26 months. When vaccines were given as a salvage therapy in RR MM, ImMucin vaccine showed a CR in 30% of patients during treatment, 20% maintained CR, and 13% had SD at a median of 24 months. Galinpepimut-S vaccine showed CR or very good partial response (VGPR) in 37% of patients at a median of 12 months, and 26% CR and VGPR at 18 months, with a progression free survival rate of 23.6 months. Patients receiving mHag loaded host MDDC vaccination also showed 8% CR for > 6 years (n=1) and 8% PR for 19 weeks (n=1); 33% had SD. Reolysin (wild-type reovirus), a virus-based vaccine, was used in 3 trials for RR MM patients. When alone, 42% of patients had SD and 58% had PD. When combined with dexamethasone and bortezomib 37% of patients had SD lasting for 3 cycles. Whereas, when combined with dexamethasone and carfilzomib, all patients had decrease in monoclonal proteins, with VGPR reported in 28%, PR in 43%, MR in 8%, and SD in 8% patients after 8 cycles. Most vaccines were well tolerated by patients, only grade (G) 1 and G2 side effects (SE), which were mostly flu-like symptoms and local skin reactions. G3 SE included pneumonia with mHag DC and Bcl2 peptide vaccine, GVHD with hTERT tumor vaccine, DVT and rash seen with scFv-FrC DNA vaccines. G4 SE were rare, but seen with reolysin, requiring 2 patients to be removed from study, and with DC/tumor cell fusion vaccine (1 pulmonary embolism). Conclusion Anti-myeloma vaccination therapy appears to be well tolerated, which makes it a promising adjuvant therapeutic agent against MM. Current data reveals positive immunologic activity in most patients and there is possibility of promising clinical responses with further drug development. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Despite the recent advancements in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), there is a constant need of newer therapies in order to treat the complex issue of the disease relapse and refractory disease. Isatuximab (ISA) is a non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody that acts through immune cell engagement and direct tumor targeting. We report efficacy & toxicity of ISA in newly diagnosed MM ((NDMM) as well as relapsed, refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Methods: Following Prisma guidelines, we performed a comprehensive literature search on articles published after January 2012 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinicaltrials.gov. On initial search, 246 articles were found and after a detailed screening, 6 completed and 11 ongoing phase I/II/III studies were included. Results: A total of 249 pts were included. Two hundred thirty-four pts had RRMM while 15 pts had NDMM, overall response rate (ORR) was 37.60% and 87% respectively. In a phase I trial involving 34 pts with RRMM, single-agent ISA (1-20 mg/kg) was given. The median age of pts was 64 years (y) [range (r) = 38-85]. The overall response rate (ORR) was 24% with a partial response (PR) in 18% pts. The most common adverse events (AEs) were nausea (34%), fatigue (49%), fever (29%) and headache (26%) and upper respiratory infection (23%). In a phase II trial, 97 pts with RRMM were stratified into 4 groups. Single-agent ISA [3mg/kg, every 2 week,(Q2W); 10 mg/kg, Q2W - every 4 weeks (Q4W); 10 mg/kg (Q2W), 20 mg/kg (QW-Q2W)] was given. The median age of pts was 62.5 y (r = 38-85). The ORR was 9%, 20%, 29% and 24% respectively. The cumulative ORR was 20.6%. The median time to first response was 1.4 months (M) while the median duration of response was 6.6 M. The most common AEs were nausea (33%), fatigue (30%), diarrhea (26%) and cough (24%). In a phase Ib trial, 57 pts with RRMM were stratified into 5 groups. ISA [3 mg/kg (Q2W); 5 mg/kg (Q2W); 10 mg/kg (Q2W); 10 mg/kg (QW-Q2W); 20 mg/kg (QW-Q2W)] in combination with lenalidomide (R) (25mg), and dexamethasone (D) (40 mg) was given. The median age of pts was 61 y (r = 42-76). The median time since the initial diagnosis was 4 y. The ORR was 33%, 67%, 63%, 50%, and 50% respectively. The cumulative ORR was 56% with complete response (CR) in 3.8 % pts, very good partial response (VGPR) in 32.7 % pts and PR in 19.2 % pts. The progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 M (r=4.73-16.59). The most common grade 3 and 4 AEs were neutropenia (60%), lymphopenia (58%), leukopenia (53%), anemia (25%), thrombocytopenia (38%), pneumonia (9%), fatigue (7%), and dyspnea (4%). In another phase Ib trial, 36 pts with RRMM were stratified into 3 groups. ISA (5 mg/kg; 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg) in combination with pomalidomide (P) (4 mg), and D (40 mg) was given. The ORR was 63%, 55%, and 50% respectively. The cumulative ORR was 55.5%. The median time to first response was 4.1 weeks (W) while the median duration of response was 33.1 W. The most common grade 3 AEs were neutropenia (81%), lymphopenia (75%), and leukopenia (75%). In another phase Ib trial involving 10 pts with RRMM, ISA (10-20 mg/kg) in combination with carfilzomib (CFZ) (27 mg) was given. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 4.5 (2-8). The ORR was 80% with VGPR in 20% pts and PR in 60% pts. The most common grade 3 and 4 AEs were lymphopenia (64%), anemia (9%), and neutropenia (9%). In a phase Ib trial involving 15 pts with NDMM, ISA (10 mg) in combination with bortezomib (V) (1.3 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (CY) (300 mg/m2) was given. The median age of pts was 71 y (r= 68-80). The ORR was 87% with CR in 33% pts, VGPR in 27% pts, and PR in 27% pts. The median time to first response was 1.5 M while the median duration of response was 11 M. The most common grade 3 and 4 AEs were lymphopenia (50%), leucopenia (18%), neutropenia (8%), anemia (6%) and thrombocytopenia (6%). Conclusion: In RRMM pts, ISA as a single agent has shown weaker efficacy when compared to combination regimens i.e. ORR 21% vs. 58%. The best result was seen when ISA was used in combination with CFZ demonstrating an ORR of 80%. In NDMM pts, combination regimens have shown excellent efficacy with an ORR of 87%. Nausea and fatigue were the major AEs reported with the monotherapy while neutropenia, leucopenia, and lymphopenia were the major AEs reported with the combination regimens. Further studies involving a larger population are required to gather evidence in favor of the improved efficacy and to evaluate AEs. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.