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.
Join our
Treating classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Spotlight on targeted therapies
with Gilles Salles, Paul Bröckelmann, and Ann S. LaCasce
Saturday, November 2, 2024
8:50-9:50 CET
This independent educational activity is sponsored by Takeda. All content is developed independently by the faculty. Funders are allowed no direct influence on the content of this activity.
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.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, 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.
Although new treatments have improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), the benefits are mainly restricted to the younger population.1 Elderly patients (> 65 years of age) often have lower median survival and more advanced disease.2 Yet, they are frequently considered ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplant.3 Maria-Victoria Mateos from the University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, ES, and her colleagues reported, in Haematologica, the results of a subgroup analysis of the CASTOR (NCT02136134) and POLLUX (NCT02076009) studies. The manuscript compared outcomes for different patient age groups in these phase III trials.4
Daratumumab (D) is a monoclonal antibody against CD38, which exhibits direct antitumor activity and an immunomodulatory mechanism of action. Both open-label studies were randomized and used D as a second-line treatment in combination with standard-of-care therapies in patients with MM. POLLUX5 looked at the benefits of adding D to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), while CASTOR6 focused on the efficacy of D in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd).
Table 1. Patient characteristics by age group - POLLUX and CASTOR studies.
Characteristics |
Age 65-74 years |
Age ≥ 75 years |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
POLLUX |
||||
Treatment arm |
D-Rd (n=124) |
Rd (n=108) |
D-Rd (n=124) |
Rd (n=108) |
Median age (range) |
69 (65–74) |
69 (65–74) |
77 (75–89) |
78 (75–87) |
Male patients, n (%) |
83 (66.9) |
62 (57.4) |
14 (48.3) |
21 (60.0) |
Race (%) White Asian Black or African American |
95 (76.6) 18 (14.5) 2 (1.6) |
72 (66.7) 19 (17.6) 3 (2.8) |
19 (65.5) 6 (20.7) 1 (3.4) |
21 (60.0) 4 (11.4) 2 (5.7) |
Baseline ECOG score, n (%) 0 1 2 |
60 (48.4) 60 (48.4) 4 (3.2) |
54 (50.0) 46 (42.6) 8 (7.4) |
10 (34.5) 15 (51.7) 4 (13.8) |
11 (31.4) 21 (60.0) 3 (8.6) |
ISS staging, n (%)* I II III |
51 (41.1) 42 (33.9) 31 (25.0) |
57 (52.8) 31 (28.7) 20 (18.5) |
10 (34.5) 13 (44.8) 6 (20.7) |
12 (34.3) 11 (31.4) 12 (34.3) |
Prior lines of therapy, n (%) 1 2 3 >3 |
62 (50) 36 (29) 19 (15.3) 7 (5.6) |
59 (54.6) 31 (28.7) 11 (10.2) 7 (6.5) |
17 (58.6) 7 (24.1) 3 (10.3) 2 (6.9) |
16 (45.7) 8 (22.9) 10 (28.6) 1 (2.9) |
Cytogenetic profile, n (%)ƚ Standard High |
56 (83.6) 11 (16.4) |
44 (77.2) 13 (22.8) |
10 (76.9) 3 (23.1) |
12 (75.0) 4 (25.0) |
CASTOR |
||||
Treatment arm |
D-Vd (n=96) |
Vd (n=87) |
D-Vd (n=23) |
Vd (n=35) |
Median age (range) |
69.0 (65-74) |
69.0 (65-74) |
78.0 (75-88) |
78.0 (75-85) |
Male patients, n (%) |
53 (55.2) |
53 (60.9) |
13 (56.5) |
20 (57.1) |
Race (%) White Asian Black or African American |
83 (86.5) 6 (6.3) 4 (4.2) |
81 (93.1) 1 (1.1) 2 (2.3) |
22 (95.7) 0 0 |
29 (82.9) 1 (2.9) 2 (5.7) |
Baseline ECOG score, n (%) 0 1 2 |
39 (40.6) 51 (53.1) 6 (6.3 |
38 (43.7) 39 (44.8) 10 (11.5) |
6 (26.1) 17 (73.9) 0 |
16 (45.7) 17 (48.6) 2 (5.7) |
ISS staging, n (%)* I II III |
34 (35.4) 37 (38.5) 25 (26.0) |
33 (37.9) 32 (36.8) 22 (25.3) |
6 (26.1) 7 (30.4) 10 (43.5) |
13 (37.1) 13 (37.1) 9 (25.7) |
Prior lines of therapy, n (%) 1 2 3 >3 |
47 (49.0) 29 (30.2) 15 (15.6) 5 (5.2) |
38 (43.7) 23 (26.4) 15 (17.2) 11 (12.6) |
8 (34.8) 8 (34.8) 3 (13.0) 4 (17.4) |
17 (48.6) 13 (37.1) 2 (5.7) 3 (8.6) |
Cytogenetic profile, n (%)ƚ Standard High |
60 (83.3) 12 (16.7) |
53 (74.6) 18 (25.4) |
9 (81.8) 2 (18.2) |
22 (78.6) 6 (21.4) |
*, ISS staging derived from the combination of serum β2-microglobulin and albumin; ƚ cytogenetic risk determined by next-generation sequencing; DRd, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; ECOG, eastern cooperative oncology group ;Vd, bortezomib and dexamathesone |
Table 2. Selected response rates and MRD observed in ITT population in POLLUX and CASTOR studies.
POLLUX median follow-up 25.4 (0-32.7) months |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=281) |
Rd (n=276) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
92.9 51.2 14.2 1.8 4.6 0 |
76.4 21.0 28.6 9.4 12.0 1.4 |
<0.0001 <0.0001 |
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
286 26.2 |
283 6.4 |
<0.000001 |
CASTOR median follow-up 19.4 (0-27.7) months |
|||
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=240) |
Vd (n=234) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
83.8 28.8 21.7 3.8 9.6 2.1 |
63.2 9.8 34.2 8.5 20.1 6.8 |
<0.0001 <0.0001
|
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
251 11.6 |
247 2.4 |
0.00003 |
*, 10-5 sensitivity threshold; D-Rd, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; CR, complete response; MR, minimal response; MRD, minimal residual disease; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone |
Table 3. Selected response rates and MRD observed in population aged 65-74 years in POLLUX and CASTOR studies.
D-Rd, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; CR, complete response; MR, minimal response; MRD, minimal residual disease; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone | |||
POLLUX median follow-up 25.4 (0-32.7) months |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=122) |
Rd (n=106) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
92.6 50.0 16.4 0.8 5.7 0 |
80.2 22.6 31.1 8.5 10.4 0.9 |
0.0057 <0.0001 |
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
124 23.4 |
108 8.3 |
0.001520 |
CASTOR median follow-up 19.4 (0-27.7) months |
|||
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=93) |
Vd (n=85) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
82.8 33.3 18.3 2.2 14.0 0 |
62.4 10.6 35.3 4.7 21.2 11.8 |
0.0022 0.0003 |
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
96 15.6 |
87 2.3 |
0.0009 |
Table 4. Selected response rates and MRD observed in population aged ≥75 years in POLLUX and CASTOR studies.
POLLUX median follow-up 25.4 (0-32.7) months |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=29) |
Rd (n=34) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
93.1 55.2 17.2 0 6.9 0 |
76.5 8.8 35.3 14.7 8.8 0 |
0.0740 <0.0001 |
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
29 27.6 |
35 5.7 |
0.014464 |
CASTOR median follow-up 19.4 (0-27.7) months |
|||
Response rate, n (%) |
D-Rd (n=20) |
Vd (n=33) |
p value |
ORR % CR PR MR SD PD |
95 25 25 0 5 0 |
78.8 3.0 60.6 12.1 9.1 0 |
0.1134 0.0154 |
MRD* patients evaluated, n MRDneg (%) |
23 4.3 |
35 0 |
0.1707 |
D-Rd, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; CR, complete response; MR, minimal response; MRD, minimal residual disease; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone |
The POLLUX and CASTOR trials showed a greater benefit of adding daratumumab to Rd or Vd for the treatment of patients with R/R MM, aged over 65 years. Differences in efficacy were demonstrated between treatment arms even despite a relatively low number of patients in the group aged 75 years. The safety analysis revealed a similar rate of grade ¾ TEAEs between age groups and the overall study populations. As authors of the manuscript point out, the study could be strengthened by adding the fragility score. Overall, the study provides supporting evidence for the addition of D to the standard-of-care therapies for patients with RRMM aged below and above 75 years.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox