Author:
Abdallah Al-Ola,Lesokhin Alexander,Wrobel Tomasz,Jamroziak Krzysztof,Dytfeld Dominik,Touzeau Cyrille,Suvannasankha Attaya,Leleu Xavier,Silbermann Rebecca,Khan Abdullah M.,Kumar Shaji,Gertz Morie,Laubach Jacob P.,Jou Ying-Ming,Bar Merav,Das Prianka,Wang Yu,Demers Korey,Stong Nicholas,Perumal Deepak,La Motte-Mohs Ross,MacLachlan Kylee,Dimopoulos Meletios-Athanasios
Abstract
PurposeThe phase I/II trial CheckMate 039 (NCT01592370) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of nivolumab-daratumumab (ND) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).MethodsPatients with RRMM were randomized to receive ND with or without pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in cohort A and ND or D monotherapy in cohort B. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity status, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsCohort A (n = 11) was terminated early due to safety concerns observed with immunomodulatory agents and checkpoint inhibitor combinations in other clinical trials. In the small number of patients treated in cohort A, no new safety concerns were observed but patients who received NDPd had numerically more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs compared with ND. Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in ≥ 1 patient in the ND group was anemia (3/6 patients); in the NDPd group, these were neutropenia (3/5 patients), upper respiratory tract infection (2/6 patients), and pneumonia (2/6 patients). In cohort B (n = 63), AE rates were similar between ND and D (any-grade: 87.8% vs 95.5%; grade 3/4: 53.7% vs 45.5%). Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in ≥ 1 patient in the ND group were neutropenia (19.5%), anemia (9.8%), thrombocytopenia (9.8%), and bronchitis (7.3%); in the D group these were anemia and pneumonia (both 9.1%). Immune-mediated AEs for ND were consistent with the known safety profile of nivolumab. In cohort A, all patients (5/5) receiving NDPd and 4/6 receiving ND achieved a response. In cohort B, the ORR with ND was numerically higher than D (22/41 [53.7%] vs 9/22 [40.9%]) and both groups had a median PFS of 6.6 months. ND also showed promising MRD negativity results (next-generation sequencing 10-5, 24.0%; next-generation flow 10-5, 22.2%).ConclusionNDPd demonstrated no new safety signals and encouraging efficacy despite its early termination. ND was well tolerated with a manageable toxicity and few AEs leading to discontinuation, and demonstrated a numerically higher ORR but equivalent PFS compared with D. Any clinical benefits to OS require a longer follow-up.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT01592370.
Reference38 articles.
1. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up;Dimopoulos;Ann. Oncol.,2021
2. Cancer Network. Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Multiple Myeloma v.5.2022. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2021. All rights reserved. Accessed June 17, 2022. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.
3. Treatment of multiple myeloma: ASCO and CCO joint clinical practice guideline;Mikhael;J. Clin. Oncol.,2019
4. Long-term stabilisation of myeloma with curcumin;Zaidi;BMJ Case Rep.,2017
5. Opdivo2021