All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Multiple Myeloma 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 Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub 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.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

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. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.

2019-06-25T13:03:02.000Z

EHA 2019 | Updated analysis of the HORIZON phase II trial: Melflufen + dexamethasone for RRMM

Bookmark this article

On Sunday 16 June at the 24th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA), Paul Richardson presented Abstract S1605, showcasing updated results of the phase II HORIZON (OP-106) trial (NCT02963493). This study investigated the efficacy and safety of melflufen and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).1

Melflufen is a peptide-conjugated alkylator that exerts its cytotoxic effects once cleaved by peptidases. It is a unique, first-in-class anticancer drug as it selectively kills myeloma cells, which tend to overexpress aminopeptidases.2 In the previous analysis, melflufen and low-dose dexamethasone led to an overall response rate (ORR) of 33% and had a manageable safety profile.3

The primary endpoint of this trial was investigator-assessed ORR according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Secondary endpoints, included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DoR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR).

Study design & baseline characteristics

  • N=121 treated patients as of 06/05/2019. Patients had RRMM with ≥2 prior lines (with immunomodulatory drugs [IMiD] or proteasome inhibitors [PI]) and were refractory to pomalidomide and/or daratumumab
  • Dosing (28-day cycles):
    • Melflufen: 40mg intravenously on Day 1 of each cycle
    • Dexamethasone: 40mg weekly on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22
    • Treatment continued until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity
  • Patient prior therapy status:
    • Double class refractory (IMiD+PI): 91%
    • Refractory to anti-CD38: 79%
    • Triple class refractory (IMiD+PI+anti-CD38): 74%
    • Refractory to alkylators: 59%
    • ≥1 prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT): 69%
    • ≥2 ASCTs: 11%
    • Relapsed ≤1 year after ASCT: 20%
  • Table 1. Key baseline characteristics:

ISS, International Staging System

Baseline characteristic

Patient cohort (N=121)

Median age (range)

64 (35–86)

Male patients

55%

Median time since diagnosis (range)

6.2 (0.7–25) years

Median number of prior lines (range)

5 (2–12)

ISS:

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Unknown

 

38%

30%

29%

4%

High-risk cytogenetics:

≥2 high-risk abnormalities

del(17p)

62%

19%

17%

Extramedullary disease

60%

Refractory to last line of therapy

98%

Patients used ≥3 regimens in last 12 months prior enrolment

36%

Key findings

  • Table 2. Response outcomes:
CBR, clinical benefit rate; ITT, intetion-to-treat; MR, metabolic response; PR, partial response; ORR, overall response rate; SD, stable disease; sCR, stringent complete response; VGPR, very good partial response

 

ITT population

(n=113)

Double class refractory (n=22)

Anti-CD3 refractory (n=89)

Triple class refractory (n=83)

ORR

28%

55%

22%

20%

CBR

40%

64%

33%

32%

sCR

1%

5%

-

-

VGPR

9%

14%

8%

8%

PR

19%

36%

15%

12%

MR

12%

9%

10%

11%

SD

46%

36%

49%

49%

  • Median PFS (ITT): 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.7–4.6)
  • Median PFS by response subgroup:
    • ≥PR: 6.4 months
    • MR: 4.9 months
    • SD: 3.6 months
    • PD: 1.1 months
  • Similar PFS was observed across the different refractory groups (double class, triple class, anti-CD3)
  • Median OS:
    • ITT population: 11.2 months (95% CI, 8.1–13.9)
    • Triple class refractory subgroup: 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.4–11.8)
  • Median DoR by response subgroups:
    • All responders (n=32): 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.6–8.3)
    • Triple class refractory (n=17): 3.6 months

Safety

  • Most common Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were:
    • Any AE: 24%
    • Thrombocytopenia: 21%
    • Neutropenia: 26%
    • Anemia: 26%
  • Most common Grade 4 AEs were:
    • Any AE: 49%
    • Thrombocytopenia: 36%
    • Neutropenia: 31%
    • Anemia: 1%
  • Six patients experienced treatment-related bleeding:
    • Grade 1: n=4 patients
    • Grade 3: n=2 patients
  • Overall the incidence rate of non-hematological malignancies was low
  • No treatment-related deaths were reported
  • The following dose modifications of melflufen occurred due to treatment-emergent AEs (46%):
    • Dose reduced: 22%
    • Dose delayed: 36%
    • Drug discontinued: 24%

Conclusions

Melflufen in combination with dexamethasone resulted in an ORR of 28% in the ITT population, 55% in the double class refractory subgroup (PI+IMiD), and 20% in the triple class refractory group (PI+IMiD+anti-CD3). The combination seemed to have promising activity in this very vulnerable RRMM population refractory to pomalidomide and/or daratumumab treatment, as well as to lenalidomide and PI-based therapies (majority of patients triple class refractory). The safety profile of the treatment was generally tolerable and manageable. Melflufen plus dexamethasone is being compared to pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in RRMM patients in the ongoing phase III trial OCEAN (NCT03151811).

Expert Opinion

  1. Richardson G.P. Horizon (OP-106): updated efficacy and safety of melflufen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) refractory to daratumumab (Dara) and/or pomalidomide (POM). Abstract S1605. 24th European Hematology Association Meeting, 2019, Amsterdam, NL
  2. Melflufen – Oncopeptides, https://www.oncopeptides.se/en/about-ygalo/ (Accessed 20.06.19)
  3. Richardson G.P. et al. 2018. OP-106 Horizon — Melflufen Therapy for RRMM Patients Refractory to Daratumumab and/or Pomalidomide; Updated Results and First Report on PFS. Blood 132, 600–600. DOI:10.1182/BLOOD-2018-99-113095

Your opinion matters

Which dosing schedule for belantamab mafodotin do you think is optimal for providing an efficacy benefit while managing toxicities?
2 votes - 42 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox