Improved Pfs and Os with Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (ird) Vs Placebo-Rd in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (rrmm): Final Data from the Phase 3 China Continuation of Tourmaline-Mm1
Jian Hou,Jie Jin,Yan Xu,Depei Wu,Xiaoyan Ke,Zhou Daobin,Jin Lu,Xin Du,Xiequn Chen,Junmin Li,Jing Liu,Neeraj Gupta,Michael Hanley,Hongmei Li,Zhaowei Hua,Bingxia Wang,Xiaoquan Zhang,Hui Wang,Helgi van de Velde,Paul Richardson,Philippe Moreau
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2017.03.121
IF: 2.822
2017-01-01
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma & Leukemia
Abstract:The global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study (NCT01564537) demonstrated a 35% improvement in PFS (HR 0.74, p=0.012) with IRd vs placebo-Rd in MM pts with 1–3 prior therapies (Moreau et al NEJM 2016). The phase 3 continuation study reported here assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with RRMM in China as a separate regional expansion of the global study. Eligibility criteria and study design were as in TOURMALINE-MM1. The primary endpoint was PFS, assessed by the same independent review committee as in TOURMALINE-MM1. Pts were analyzed separately from the global study. Sample size was based on Chinese regulatory requirements. 115 pts were randomized (57 IRd, 58 placebo-Rd; stratification was as in the global study). Compared to the global study, pts had more advanced disease at diagnosis (63% ISS stage II/III vs 46% in the global study), were more heavily pretreated (60% vs 41% had 2/3 prior therapies), and more frequently had refractory MM (43% vs 11%). At the preplanned final analysis for PFS (median follow-up 7.4 vs 6.9 mos), there was a significant 67% improvement in PFS with IRd vs placebo-Rd: HR 0.598; p=0.035; median PFS 6.7 vs 4.0 mos. This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups. Median time to progression was 7.3 vs 4.1 mos with IRd vs placebo-Rd; HR=0.583, p=0.032. Overall response rates were 56% vs 31% with IRd vs placebo-Rd, including 25% vs 12% VGPR. At the final PFS analysis, OS data were not mature and the study continued blinded until a subsequent preplanned final analysis for OS. At the final OS analysis (median follow-up 20.2 vs 19.1 mos), there was a significant 139% improvement in OS with IRd vs placebo-Rd (HR 0.419, p=0.001), and a 10-month improvement in median OS (25.8 vs 15.8 mos). This OS benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups defined by age, disease status and prior therapy exposure. Results from sensitivity analyses of OS adjusting for potential confounding effects of subsequent therapies were consistent with a significant OS improvement in the IRd arm. Based on the OS findings, following unblinding of the study, pts in the placebo-Rd arm have the option to cross-over and receive IRd. At data cut-off for the final OS analysis, pts had received a median of 9.0 and 6.5 cycles of IRd and placebo-Rd; 67% vs 74% had grade ≥3 AEs (all-cause), 33% vs 31% had serious AEs, 9% vs 10% discontinued treatment due to AEs, and 7% vs 9% died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs with IRd vs placebo-Rd included thrombocytopenia (25% vs 19%), neutropenia (25% vs 21%), anemia (12% vs 28%), and pneumonia (19% vs 17%). 18% vs 21% of pts had rash (no grade ≥3 events); 7% vs 10% of pts had peripheral neuropathy (no grade ≥3 events). In Chinese pts with RRMM, the addition of ixazomib to Rd was associated with a significant improvement in both PFS and OS, with limited additional toxicity.