Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without elotuzumab in patients with untreated, high-risk multiple myeloma (SWOG-1211): primary analysis of a randomised, phase 2 trial.

in The Lancet. Haematology by Saad Z Usmani, Antje Hoering, Sikander Ailawadhi, Rachael Sexton, Brea Lipe, Sandi Fredette Hita, Jason Valent, Michael Rosenzweig, Jeffrey A Zonder, Madhav Dhodapkar, Natalie Callander, Todd Zimmerman, Peter M Voorhees, Brian Durie, S Vincent Rajkumar, Paul G Richardson, Robert Z Orlowski,

TLDR

  • The study found that adding elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance therapy did not improve patient outcomes for high-risk multiple myeloma patients.

Abstract

The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients with high-risk multiple myeloma have a poor long-term prognosis. We aimed to address optimal treatment for these patients. SWOG-1211 is a randomised phase 2 trial comparing eight cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-14 every 21 days), bortezomib (1·3 mg/msubcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 every 21 days; RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance (bortezomib 1 mg/msubcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 15 mg orally on days 1-21; dexamethasone 12 mg orally on days 1, 18, and 15 every 28 days) until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-8, and on days 1 and 15 during maintenance). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either RVd or RVd-elotuzumab. High-risk multiple myeloma was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high risk (GEP), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) or amp1q21, primary plasma cell leukaemia and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (two times the upper limit of normal or more). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668719. 100 (RVd n=52, RVd-elotuzumab n=48) patients were enrolled between Oct 27, 2013, and May 15, 2016, across 26 cooperative group institutions in the USA. Median age was 64 years (IQR 57-70, range 36-85). 74 (75%) of 99 had International Staging System stage II or stage III disease, 47 (47%) of 99 had amp1q21, 37 (37%) of 100 had del17p, 11 (11%) of 100 had t(14;16), eight (9%) of 90 were GEP, seven (7%) of 100 had primary plasma cell leukaemia, five (5%) of 100 had t(14;20), four (4%) of 100 had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase, and 17 (17%) had two or more features. With a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 46-59), no difference in median progression-free survival was observed (RVd 33·64 months [95% CI 19·55-not reached], RVd-elotuzumab 31·47 months [18·56-53·98]; hazard ratio 0·968 [80% CI 0·697-1·344]; one-sided p=0·45]. 37 (71%) of 52 patients in the RVd group and 37 (77%) of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. No significant differences in the safety profile were observed, although some notable results included grade 3-5 infections (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, eight [17%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), sensory neuropathy (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, six [13%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), and motor neuropathy (one [2%] of 52 in the RVd group, four [8%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group). There were no treatment-related deaths in the RVd group and one death in the RVd-elotuzumab group for which study treatment was listed as possibly contributing by the investigator. In the first randomised study of high-risk multiple myeloma reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, progression-free survival in both study groups exceeded the original statistical assumptions and supports the role for continuous proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drug combination maintenance therapy for this patient population. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

Overview

  • The study aims to address optimal treatment for high-risk multiple myeloma patients by comparing RVd induction and maintenance with and without elotuzumab.
  • The study enrolled 100 patients across 26 cooperative group institutions in the USA between October 2013 and May 2016.
  • The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response.

Comparative Analysis & Findings

  • No difference in median progression-free survival was observed between the RVd and RVd-elotuzumab groups (33.64 months vs 31.47 months, hazard ratio 0.968).
  • The addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes, with no significant differences in safety profiles.
  • Both study groups had progression-free survival exceeding the original statistical assumptions, supporting the role of continuous proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drug combination maintenance therapy for high-risk multiple myeloma patients.

Implications and Future Directions

  • The study suggests that RVd induction and maintenance therapy, with or without elotuzumab, can be effective for high-risk multiple myeloma patients.
  • Future studies should explore alternative or combination treatments for high-risk multiple myeloma patients, including novel agents and targeted therapies.
  • Further research is needed to improve outcomes for high-risk multiple myeloma patients, who remain at high risk for progression and mortality despite recent advances in treatment.