Efficacy and safety profile of deep responders to carfilzomib-based therapy: a subgroup analysis from ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR

Katja Weisel, Maria-Victoria Mateos, Francesca Gay, Michel Delforge, Gordon Cook, Zsolt Szabo, Renaud Desgraz, Lucy DeCosta, Philippe Moreau, Katja Weisel, Maria-Victoria Mateos, Francesca Gay, Michel Delforge, Gordon Cook, Zsolt Szabo, Renaud Desgraz, Lucy DeCosta, Philippe Moreau

Abstract

To understand the profile of best responders (complete response or better [≥CR]) to carfilzomib, we described the characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) data, and the safety of patients who achieved ≥CR to carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR. In post hoc analyses from ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR, median PFS and OS were longer for ≥CR patients versus those who achieved a very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR). In the carfilzomib arm of ASPIRE, median PFS was 50.4 months for ≥CR versus 22.1 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was 67.0 versus 44.2 months, respectively. In the carfilzomib arm of ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 34.0 for ≥CR versus 20.4 months for VGPR/PR; median OS was non-estimable. Despite the longer treatment duration, fewer patients with ≥CR versus VGPR/PR experienced treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of carfilzomib-based treatment in ASPIRE or ENDEAVOR. Low serum lactate dehydrogenase was the only factor associated with achieving ≥CR vs patients not achieving CR in ASPIRE in multivariate regression analyses. No association was found between cytogenetic risk status and reaching ≥CR. Carfilzomib treatment may lead to rapid and deep responses, irrespective of most patient characteristics.

Conflict of interest statement

KW has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda; served in a consulting role for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi and Takeda; and received research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Sanofi. M-VM has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda for lectures and participation in advisory boards. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda; and served as an advisor for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Oncopeptides, Abbvie, Adaptive, and Takeda. MD has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda for consultancy and advisory boards; and research honoraria from Celgene and Janssen. GC has received research funding and honoraria from Celgene, Janssen and Takeda; and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlycoMimetics and Sanofi. ZS is an employee of Amgen (Europe) GmbH and holds Amgen stocks. RD is an employee of Amgen (Europe) GmbH and holds Amgen stocks. LD is an employee of Amgen Ltd and holds Amgen stocks. PM has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Takeda; and served in a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Takeda.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
KM curves for PFS for patients who achieved a best response (≥CR) versus those who achieved VGPR/PR from a the KRd arm of ASPIRE and b the Kd arm of ENDEAVOR. KM estimates of PFS in the carfilzomib arms by response status were obtained using a naïve analysis approach. Caution is warranted when interpreting these naïve analyses owing to the absence of adjustment for bias. ≥CR complete response or better, CI, confidence interval, Kd carfilzomib and dexamethasone, KM Kaplan–Meier, KRd carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, PFS progression-free survival, PR partial response, VGPR very good partial response.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
KM curves for OS for patients who achieved a best response (≥CR) versus those who achieved VGPR/PR from a the KRd arm of ASPIRE and b the Kd arm of ENDEAVOR. KM estimates of OS in the carfilzomib arms by response status were obtained using a naïve analysis approach. Caution is warranted when interpreting these naïve analyses owing to the absence of adjustment for bias. ≥CR complete response or better, CI, confidence interval, Kd carfilzomib and dexamethasone, KM Kaplan–Meier, KRd carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, NE non-estimable, OS overall survival, PR partial response, VGPR very good partial response.

References

    1. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538–48.
    1. Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1046–60.
    1. San-Miguel JF, Mateos MV. Can multiple myeloma become a curable disease? Haematologica. 2011;96:1246–8.
    1. Naymagon L, Abdul-Hay M. Novel agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma: a review about the future. J Hematol Oncol. 2016;9:52.
    1. Yong K, Delforge M, Driessen C, Fink L, Flinois A, Gonzalez-McQuire S, et al. Multiple myeloma: patient outcomes in real-world practice. Br J Haematol. 2016;175:252–64.
    1. Sonneveld P, De Wit E, Moreau P. How have evolutions in strategies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma translated into improved outcomes for patients? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017;112:153–70.
    1. Chim CS, Kumar SK, Orlowski RZ, Cook G, Richardson PG, Gertz MA, et al. Management of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: novel agents, antibodies, immunotherapies and beyond. Leukemia. 2018;32:252–62.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Kyprolis® (carfilzomib) summary of product characteristics. 2020. [16 June]; .
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Kyprolis® (carfilzomib) prescribing information. 2019. [20 May]; .
    1. Ziogas DC, Terpos E, Kastritis E, Dimopoulos MA. An overview of the role of carfilzomib in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Exp Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18:1883–97.
    1. Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Masszi T, Spicka I, Oriol A, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:142–52.
    1. Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Palumbo A, Joshua D, Pour L, Hajek R, et al. Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:27–38.
    1. Orlowski RZ, Moreau P, Niesvizky R, Ludwig H, Oriol A, Chng WJ, et al. Carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus bortezomib-dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated overall survival, safety, and subgroups. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19:522–30 e1.
    1. Siegel DS, Dimopoulos MA, Ludwig H, Facon T, Goldschmidt H, Jakubowiak A, et al. Improvement in overall survival with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:728–34.
    1. Dimopoulos M, Wang M, Maisnar V, Minarik J, Bensinger W, Mateos MV, et al. Response and progression-free survival according to planned treatment duration in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the phase III ASPIRE study. J Hematol Oncol. 2018;11:49.
    1. Dimopoulos MA, Stewart AK, Masszi T, Spicka I, Oriol A, Hajek R, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma categorised by age: secondary analysis from the phase 3 ASPIRE study. Br J Haematol. 2017;177:404–13.
    1. Dimopoulos MA, Stewart AK, Masszi T, Spicka I, Oriol A, Hajek R, et al. Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma by previous treatment. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e554.
    1. Dimopoulos MA, Goldschmidt H, Niesvizky R, Joshua D, Chng WJ, Oriol A, et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1327–37.
    1. Moreau P, Joshua D, Chng WJ, Palumbo A, Goldschmidt H, Hajek R, et al. Impact of prior treatment on patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone vs bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study. Leukemia. 2017;31:115–22.
    1. Chng WJ, Goldschmidt H, Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Joshua D, Palumbo A, et al. Carfilzomib-dexamethasone vs bortezomib-dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma by cytogenetic risk in the phase 3 study ENDEAVOR. Leukemia. 2017;31:1368–74.
    1. van Beurden-Tan CHY, Franken MG, Blommestein HM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Sonneveld P. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of treatment outcomes in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1312–9.
    1. Laubach J, Garderet L, Mahindra A, Gahrton G, Caers J, Sezer O, et al. Management of relapsed multiple myeloma: recommendations of the International Myeloma Working Group. Leukemia. 2016;30:1005–17.
    1. Blade J, Rosinol L, Fernandez de Larrea C. How I treat relapsed myeloma. Blood. 2015;125:1532–40.
    1. Maiese EM, Ainsworth C, Le Moine JG, Ahdesmaki O, Bell J, Hawe E. Comparative efficacy of treatments for previously treated multiple myeloma: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2018;40:480–94.e23.
    1. Egan P, Drain S, Conway C, Bjourson AJ, Alexander HD. Towards stratified medicine in plasma cell myeloma. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:1760.
    1. Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E, Niesvizky R, Palumbo A. Clinical characteristics of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:827–35.
    1. Munshi NC, Anderson KC, Bergsagel PL, Shaughnessy J, Palumbo A, Durie B, et al. Consensus recommendations for risk stratification in multiple myeloma: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2. Blood. 2011;117:4696–700.
    1. Sonneveld P, Broijl A. Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2016;101:396–406.
    1. Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Revised International Staging System for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–9.
    1. Chng WJ, Dispenzieri A, Chim CS, Fonseca R, Goldschmidt H, Lentzsch S, et al. IMWG consensus on risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:269–77.
    1. Hanbali A, Hassanein M, Rasheed W, Aljurf M, Alsharif F. The evolution of prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Adv Hematol. 2017;2017:4812637.
    1. Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Roussou M, Bouwmeester W, Kroep S, et al. External validation of the multiple myeloma (MM) risk-stratification algorithm in a real-world Greek data set. Presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association, 14–17 June 2018, Stockholm, Sweden. EHA Learning Center 2018: (abstract PF571).
    1. Hájek R, Delforge M, Raab MS, Schoen P, DeCosta L, Spicka I, et al. Development and validation of a novel risk stratification algorithm for relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2019;187:447–58.
    1. Fulciniti M, Munshi NC, Martinez-Lopez J. Deep response in multiple myeloma: a critical review. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:832049.
    1. Lonial S, Anderson KC. Association of response endpoints with survival outcomes in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:258–68.
    1. Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H. The role of complete response in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:3139–46.
    1. Schinke C, Hoering A, Wang H, Carlton V, Thanandrarajan S, Deshpande S, et al. The prognostic value of the depth of response in multiple myeloma depends on the time of assessment, risk status and molecular subtype. Haematologica. 2017;102:e313–6.
    1. Mangal N, Salem AH, Menon RM, Freise KJ. Use of depth of response to predict progression-free survival in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: evaluation of results from 102 clinical trials. Hematol Oncol. 2018;36:547–53.
    1. Hari P, Romanus D, Palumbo A, Luptakova K, Rifkin RM, Tran LM, et al. Prolonged duration of therapy is associated with improved survival in patients treated for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical care in the United States. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018;18:152–60.
    1. Palumbo A, Gay F, Cavallo F, Di Raimondo F, Larocca A, Hardan I, et al. Continuous therapy versus fixed duration of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3459–66.
    1. San-Miguel JF, Dimopoulos MA, Stadtmauer EA, Rajkumar SV, Siegel D, Bravo ML, et al. Effects of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment duration on survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11:38–43.
    1. Mian HS, Wildes TM, Fiala MA. Development of a medicare health outcomes survey deficit-accumulation frailty index and its application to older patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–13.
    1. Avet-Loiseau H, Fonseca R, Siegel D, Dimopoulos MA, Spicka I, Masszi T, et al. Carfilzomib significantly improves the progression-free survival of high-risk patients in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2016;128:1174–80.
    1. Hájek R, Gonzalez-McQuire S, Szabo Z, Delforge M, DeCosta L, Raab M, et al. A novel risk stratification algorithm for estimating the risk of death in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma—external validation in a retrospective chart review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034209.
    1. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–46.
    1. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, Blade J, Barlogie B, Anderson K, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20:1467–73.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi