TRANSLATE

The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

ASCO 2019 | CASSIOPEIA part 1 trial results

By Emily Smith

Share:

Jun 5, 2019


On Sunday June 02, 2019, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, US, the Multiple Myeloma Hub Co-Chair, Philippe Moreau, presented part 1 of the CASSIOPEIA trial results. This study, conducted on behalf of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) and Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland (HOVON), was a phase III, randomized study in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). It compared daratumumab, an anti-CD38 antibody, in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (D-VTd) to bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTd) alone. The results were published on the same day in The Lancet with a median follow-up of 18.8 months.

Results given as D-VTd versus VTd unless otherwise stated

Study design (part 1)

  • Induction therapy of four 28-day cycles. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either:
    • D-VTd consisting of:
      • Intravenous (IV) daratumumab: 16mg/kg weekly for cycles 1-2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 and 4
      • Subcutaneous bortezomib: 1.3mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11
      • Oral thalidomide: 100 mg/day
      • Oral or IV dexamethasone: 20-40mg
    • VTd, as above, without daratumumab
  • Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)
  • Consolidation (two 28-day cycles):
    • D-VTd, as in induction with the following exceptions:
      • Daratumumab administered once per two weeks
      • Oral or IV dexamethasone: 20 mg
    • VTd alone, as per D-VTd consolidation, without daratumumab
  • Maintenance: in case of partial response (PR) or better, patients randomized to receive:,
    • Daratumumab monotherapy (maximum 2 years) followed by observation until progressive disease (PD)
    • Observation until PD

Patient characteristics

Table 1: Patient characteristics 

 

D-VTd (n = 543)

VTd (n = 542)

Median age (years)

59

58

ISS stage III disease

84 (16%)

81 (15%)

High-risk cytogenetics

82 (15%

86 (16%)

Completion of induction and consolidation

85%

81%

ASCT conducted

90%

89%

Discontinuations

75 (14%)

101 (19%)

Main reasons for discontinuation:

 Adverse event (AE) or serious AE

PD

 

49 (9%)

19 (4%)

 

55 (10%)

21 (4%)

Deaths

7

0

Efficacy

  • The primary endpoint of post-consolidation stringent complete response (sCR) was significantly better in the D-VTd group: 29% vs 20% (odds ratio: 1.60, 95% CI, 1.21-2.12, P = 0.001). Further details are shown in Table 2.
  • Adding daratumumab to the VTd regimen improved depth of response as measured by measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity (10-5): 64% vs 44% (P < 0.0001)
  • The benefit in sCR was seen in all subgroups, with the exception of patients with:
    • High-risk cytogenetics
    • ISS stage III disease
  • Progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months was significantly better in the D-VTd cohort compared to VTd: 93% vs 85% (HR 0.47 (0.33-0.67), P < 0.0001) providing a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death
    • This benefit was conferred mostly in the induction and consolidation phase
  • Median overall survival (OS): not reached in both arms with a trend in favor for D-VTd (24-month OS rate: 97% vs 93%)

Table 2: Responses over time to D-VTd and VTd

* Stable disease (SD), or not available (NE)

 

sCR

CR

VGPR

PR

SD/PD/NE*

D-VTd

 

 

 

 

 

Post-induction

7%

7%

51%

28%

7%

Post-ASCT

13%

9%

54%

16%

8%

Post-consolidation

29%

10%

45%

9%

7%

VTd

 

 

 

 

 

Post-induction

7%

2%

47%

34%

10%

Post-ASCT

9%

5%

53%

23%

10%

Post-consolidation

20%

6%

52%

12%

10%

Safety

Table 3: Safety data for D-VTd compared to VTd in relation to AEs, infusion related reactions (IRRs), secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) and data surrounding ASCT

 

D-VTd

VTd

Treatment-emergent (TE) hematologic AEs grade ≥3:

-          Neutropenia

-          Thrombocytopenia

-          Lymphopenia

                          

148 (28%

59 (11%)

91 (17%)

                      

79 (15%)

40 (7%)

52 (10%)

Treatment-emergent non-hematologic AEs grade ≥3:

-          Peripheral sensory neuropathy

-          Stomatitis

-          Nausea

-          Pyrexia

                          

47 (9%)

68 (13%)

21 (4%)

14 (3%)

                       

46 (9%)

88 (16%)

12 (2%)

12 (2%)

IRRs of any grade

190 (35%)

0 (0%)

Infections grade ≥3

118 (22%)

105 (20%)

Most common serious infection: pneumonia

19 (4%)

9 (2%)

SPMs

2%

2%

ASCT

-          Plerixafor usage

-          Median number CD34+ cells (106/kg)

-          Hematopoietic reconstitution

 

110 (22%)

6.3                  

100%

 

39 (8%)

8.9                

100%

Conclusion

Professor Moreau concluded that D-VTd provided a significant clinical benefit compared to VTd, in TE patients with NDMM. The patient responses deepened over time, and the D-VTd regimen gave a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The new quadruplet was well-tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that of the drugs already known (daratumumab as a single agent and VTd as a triplet combination). D-VTd can be considered a viable treatment option in this population.

References