Randomized phase II trial of bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamthasone with/without elotuzumab for newly diagnosed, high risk multiple myeloma (SWOG-1211).
Authors: Usmani Saad Zafar , Hoering Antje , Ailawadhi Sikander , Sexton Rachael , Lipe Brea , Valent Jason Neil , Rosenzweig Michael Alan , Zonder Jeffrey A. , Dhodapkar Madhav V. , Callander Natalie Scott , Zimmerman Todd M. , Voorhees Peter M. , Durie Brian G. , Rajkumar S. Vincent , Richardson Paul G. , Orlowski Robert Z. 
Published: June 2022

8054

Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but those with high risk MM (HRMM) have a poor long-term prognosis. Herein we provide survival outcomes on the first randomized trial in newly diagnosed HRMM, S1211, to follow-up on the previously reported progression-free survival (PFS) (NCT01668719, Usmani SZ et al, Lancet Haem 2021). Methods: S1211 is a randomized phase II trial comparing 8 cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (RVd-Elo). Stem cell collection was allowed, but ASCT was deferred until progression. HRMM was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high-risk (GEPhi), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p), amplification 1q21, primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL), or elevated serum LDH (> 2X ULN). Median PFS was the primary endpoint, using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.1. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) and OS. Response was assessed using the IMWG 2009 criteria. Results: S1211 enrolled 103 evaluable patients, RVd n=54, RVd-Elo n=49. 74% had ISS II/III, 48% amp1q21, 38% del(17p), 11% t(14;16), 9% GEPhi, 7% pPCL, 5% t(14;20) and 4% elevated LDH (17% >1 feature). With median follow-up of 72 months (mos.), no difference in median PFS was observed [RVd-Elo=29 mos., RVd= 34 mos., HR = 1.11 (80% CI=0.82, 1.49, p=0.66]. No difference in OS was observed [RVd-Elo = median not reached (NR), RVd= 68 mos., HR = 0.85 (80% CI: 0.59, 1.23), p-value = 0.58]. 76% pts had >Grade 3 AEs, no differences in the safety profile were observed. Amongst patients with gain/amp 1q21, median PFS was [RVd-Elo=31 mos., RVd= 37 mos., HR = 1.48 (80% CI= 0.95, 2.31), p=0.25], median OS was [RVd-Elo = 61 mos., RVd= 68 mos., HR = 1.23 (80% CI: 0.72, 2.10), p-value = 0.63]. In patients with del(17p), median PFS was RVd-Elo=41 mos., RVd= 30 mos.[HR = 0.98 (80% CI= 0.60, 1.58), p=0.95], median OS RVd-Elo = NR, RVd= 72 mos., [HR = 0.77 (80% CI: 0.40, 1.48), p-value = 0.61]. Conclusions: In the first randomized HRMM study reported to date, the addition of Elo to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve PFS and OS with a median follow-up of 6 years. Although the median PFS for Del17p subgroup on RVd-Elo arm is higher than RVd, it did not achieve statistical significance. The PFS and OS observed for gain/amp 1q21 and del17p in the RVd control arm may serve as important benchmarks for future enrichment design HRMM clinical trials. The PFS and OS in both arms of the study exceeded the original statistical assumptions and support the role for PI/IMiD combination induction/maintenance therapy for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT01668719.