Advertisement


Xavier P. Leleu, MD, PhD, on Multiple Myeloma: Update on Isatuximab, Lenalidomide, Dexamethasone, and Bortezomib

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Xavier P. Leleu, MD, PhD, of France’s Université de Poitiers and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, discusses phase III findings showing that isatuximab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone deepened responses and increased the rate of measurable residual disease negativity vs isatuximab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (Abstract 7501).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The current standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, non-transplant eligible, but non-frail, usually patients from, let's say 65 to 79, 80 years old, is a triplet-based regimen called C38 Immunotherapy first in class [inaudible] plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone based on a study named MAIA that was for registration. And I guess most of the country in the world now use that triplet-based combination as standard of care. It has replaced a previous one called [inaudible]. We wanted to improve on the results, the main results, the most interesting results of MAIA, meaning the MRD negative rate, 10 to -5 threshold that was at 31% approximately, and we wanted to improve as well the survival that is at median at approximately five years, 62 months. So we created this phase three study, randomized one-to-one, two arms; one arm MAIA-like, but using Isatuximab, the second-in-class immunotherapy targeting CD38. isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone in the control arm, 135 patients versus isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone plus bortezomib, a protease inhibitor, first in class that we know for years and we know is extremely efficacious in myeloma in the study arm, a quadruplet-based regimen; again, 135 patients. The primary endpoint was the MRD-negativity rate at 10 to minus five at 18 months. And I'm not going to go through the secondary endpoint, the regular safety, survival types of response and other MRD endpoints. The results of the study are that we have met primary endpoint. The rate of MRD-negativity, 10 to minus five in the control arm, ISAL index was 26% similar to MAIA. It was more than 50%, 53% in the study arm, in the quadruplet-based regimen, which not only a positive study, because it was calculated initially at 30%, and it is more than 50, but it is even more than a positive study. It is a clinically meaningful improvement in MRD-negativity rate, because more than half of the patients actually reach MRD-negativity at 10 to minus five, which is unprecedented in myeloma in that population, in non-transplant eligible patients. The survival cannot be shared yet because it is immature. All of the patient have reached 18 months, but it is too early to talk about survival. Yet the safety profile was as expected; it was of course good, manageable. The bortezomib in that study was given weekly, so we have a lot improve the risk of side effects related to bortezomib. However, I have to disclose a slight increase in neurotoxicity. But overall, it was a quadruped regimen with a very interesting balance risk-benefit, given the incredible activity and given the slight increase in neurotoxicity in terms of safety profile. And so we believe that isatuximab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, quadruped based regimen is the new standard of care and probably should replace the triple-based regimen that we were using before.

Related Videos

Palliative Care

Joseph A. Greer, PhD, on Lung Cancer: Telehealth vs In-Person Palliative Care

Joseph A. Greer, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, discusses study findings showing the merits of delivering early palliative care via telehealth vs in person to patients with advanced lung cancer. Using telemedicine in this way may potentially improve access to and more broadly disseminate this evidence-based care model (LBA3).

Bladder Cancer

Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, and Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, on Urothelial Carcinoma: Expert Commentary on Two Key Abstracts

Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, of Barts Cancer Institute and the University of London, discuss phase III findings from two studies: the first, investigating enfortumab vedotin-ejfv and pembrolizumab vs platinum-based chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer; and the second, looking at nivolumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin vs gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with lymph node–only metastatic disease enrolled in the CheckMate 901 trial (Abstracts 4581 and 4565).

Skin Cancer

Axel Hauschild, MD, on Melanoma: Findings From the PIVOTAL Trial of Daromun vs Surgery

Axel Hauschild, MD, of Germany’s University of Kiel and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, discusses phase III study results on neoadjuvant intralesional daromun vs immediate surgery for patients with fully resectable, locally advanced melanoma (Abstract LBA9501).

Gastroesophageal Cancer

Jens Marquardt, MD, and Jens Hoeppner, MD, on Esophageal Cancer: Phase III Findings on Chemotherapy vs Chemoradiation

Jens Marquardt, MD, of the University of Lübeck, and Jens Hoeppner, MD, of the University of Bielefeld, discuss findings from the ESOPEC trial, which showed that perioperative chemotherapy (fluorouracii, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) and surgery improves survival in patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma when compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy plus carboplatin and paclitaxel) followed by surgery (LBA1).

Lymphoma

Peter Riedell, MD, on DLBCL: Expert Commentary on the DEB Study

Peter Riedell, MD, of The University of Chicago, discusses phase III results on the use of tucidinostat plus R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with double expression of MYC and BCL2. The regimen appeared to improve event-free survival and complete response rates vs R-CHOP in the front-line setting. As this is an interim analysis, longer-term follow-up will be needed to better understand its impact, says Dr. Riedell.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement