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.
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 moreThe 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.
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.
Bookmark this article
The phase III BELLINI trial (NCT02755597) was set up to investigate the efficacy of venetoclax, a Bcl-2 inhibitor, combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, it was put on hold by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2019, after a decrease in overall survival (OS) due to infections was recorded in the venetoclax + Vd group compared with the placebo arm. Subsequent analysis of the data found that a subgroup of patients, those with chromosomal translocation t(11;14), showed an improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS compared to the rest of the cohort. Shaji Kumar and colleagues have since published updated results analyzing the impact on different subsets, which have been published in The Lancet Oncology.1
The study design, baseline patient characteristics, and initial results in the intention-to-treat population and in a subset of patients harboring t(11;14) have been reported on by the Multiple Myeloma Hub previously, and can be found here.
The median PFS was not reached for patients treated with venetoclax bearing t(11;14), whereas the placebo group had a PFS of 9.5 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the venetoclax + Vd group compared with placebo + Vd across all subgroups, with the patients with t(11;14) reaching 90% (Table 1). Rates of measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity were also higher in all venetoclax + Vd treatment groups, with the t(11;14) subgroup showing the greatest improvement. Patients with high BCL2 expression also achieved superior outcomes than the intention-to-treat population.
Table 1. Response rates and MRD in different patient populations1
MR, minimal response; MRD, measurable residual disease; ORR, overall response rate; PD, disease progression; PR, partial response; sCR, stringent complete response; SD, stable disease; VGPR, very good partial response. †MRD was assessed by next-generation sequencing in patients with suspected CR or a sCR. |
|||||||
|
Intention-to-treat population |
t(11;14) subgroup |
High BCL2 subgroup |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Venetoclax + Vd, % |
Placebo + Vd, % |
p value |
Venetoclax + Vd, % |
Placebo + Vd, % |
Venetoclax + Vd, % |
Placebo + Vd, % |
Response criteria |
|||||||
sCR |
8 |
2 |
0.054 |
20 |
- |
8 |
- |
CR |
19 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
25 |
7 |
29 |
- |
VGPR |
32 |
31 |
0.800 |
25 |
20 |
35 |
28 |
PR |
23 |
32 |
0.112 |
20 |
20 |
14 |
47 |
MR |
2 |
10 |
< 0.001 |
- |
27 |
- |
13 |
SD |
7 |
10 |
0.381 |
- |
20 |
5 |
6 |
PD |
5 |
5 |
0.990 |
- |
- |
3 |
- |
ORR |
82 |
68 |
0.0081 |
90 |
47 |
85 |
75 |
≥ VGPR |
59 |
36 |
< 0.001 |
70 |
27 |
71 |
28 |
MRD negativity at given threshold† |
|||||||
10-4 |
19 |
3 |
< 0.001 |
40 |
- |
27 |
3 |
10-5 |
13 |
1 |
< 0.001 |
25 |
- |
18 |
- |
10-6 |
7 |
1 |
0.026 |
20 |
- |
9 |
- |
Median PFS in the high BCL2 group was:
OS was not reached in either group.
Overall, 114 patients had either high BCL2 expression or t(11;14), and 19 patients had both markers. In this subset, the median PFS was not reached vs 9.9 months, after 16 PFS events occurred in the venetoclax + Vd group vs 28 in the placebo group (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11–0.41; p < 0.0001).
The median PFS for the 164 patients with low BCL2 expression and no translocation t(11;14) did not significantly differ between the two treatment groups:
Irene Ghobrial added her insightful thoughts regarding the trial in a commentary piece, also published in The Lancet Oncology.2 In her opinion, this result heralds a new era of precision medicine for the management of MM. An age when specific genetic alterations such as t(11;14) can be targeted and produce improved clinical responses in this subset of patients. Ghobrial thinks this will be the start of many such advances within the field of myeloma treatment.
In addition, she points out that many questions remain. The BELLINI trial did not define the mechanism by which patients with t(11;14) benefitted from venetoclax. As the decrease in OS in the intention-to-treat venetoclax + Vd cohort was associated with an increased rate of infection, the immune microenvironment should be investigated as part of exploratory studies looking into the mechanism. It is also true that the BELLINI trial analysis only examined the effect on patients with high BCL2 expression or the presence of t(11;14). Patients with other mutations or cytogenetic aberrations may also benefit from venetoclax combinations. Several ongoing studies evaluate venetoclax treatment in this subset of patients with high BCL2 expression or the presence of t(11;14) to confirm the BELLINI trial results (Table 2).
Table 2. Ongoing trials in MM with venetoclax3
MM, multiple myeloma; R/R, relapsed/refractory. |
||
Trial name |
Description |
NCT number |
---|---|---|
M15-538 |
This phase II, open-label, dose-escalation study evaluates the safety and efficacy of venetoclax in combination with carfilzomib + dexamethasone in patients with R/R MM who have received 1–3 prior lines of therapy |
|
CANOVA |
A phase III study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of venetoclax plus dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with t(11;14) R/R MM |
|
M15-654 |
Phase II study of venetoclax, daratumumab, and dexamethasone with and without bortezomib in participants with R/R MM. Select parts of the trial include only patients with t(11;14) |
|
MyDRUG |
Precision medicine trial to treat patients with drugs targeted to affect specific genes that are mutated as part of the disease. Patients with a > 30% mutation in several genes including t(11;14) can be enrolled in the treatment arm evaluating venetoclax combined with ixazomib + pomalidomide + dexamethasone. |
As Irene Ghobrial comments, “Serendipity seems to play a role in the development of myeloma therapy.” The BELLINI trial did not set out to target a specific subset of patients but found that biomarker assessment prior to treatment can significantly impact the survival of patients with MM. Further investigation is required to identify if any other mutations or translocations confer a survival benefit for patients treated with the venetoclax + Vd combination. Despite the FDA hold, the BELLINI trial has made great strides forward in MM treatment.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox