Mezigdomide, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (MeziKd) vs carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Results from the phase 3 SUCCESSOR-2 trial.
Abstract
LBA7506 Background: A growing number of patients (pts) entering second-line treatment (tx) are anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb)- and lenalidomide (LEN)-exposed, limiting tx options. Mezigdomide (Mezi), a potent oral CELMoD, induces maximal, rapid Ikaros/Aiolos degradation leading to enhanced MM cell death and immune stimulation vs IMiDs. We report initial results from SUCCESSOR-2 (NCT05552976), the first randomized phase 3 study of Mezi in RRMM, evaluating MeziKd vs Kd. Methods: In this phase 3, 2-stage, inferentially seamless trial, eligible adult pts had ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) including an anti-CD38 mAb and LEN. Pts were randomized 3:3:3:2 (Mezi 0.3, 0.6, 1.0 mg + Kd, or Kd) to identify the optimal Mezi dose in stage 1, and 3:2 to compare efficacy and safety of MeziKd vs Kd in stage 2. MeziKd was given in 28-day (D) cycles of Mezi (D1–21), 56 mg/m 2 carfilzomib (CFZ) weekly (QW), and 40 mg dexamethasone (DEX) QW. The Kd arm received CFZ 56 mg/m 2 twice weekly or 70 mg/m 2 QW + DEX. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, selected Mezi dose (stage 1), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: The Mezi dose selected for stage 2 was 1.0 mg. In total, 479 pts (288 MeziKd at 1.0 mg Mezi; 191 Kd) were included in the analysis. Median (range) age was 68 (30–85) y with 25.1% of pts ≥75 y; median (range) number of prior LOTs was 2 (1–9); 92.1% of pts were triple-class-exposed, with 85.8% refractory to an anti-CD38 mAb and 75.8% to LEN; 37.2% were exposed to pomalidomide and 7.3% to anti-BCMA tx. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 10.6 mo with 52.4% (MeziKd) and 31.4% (Kd) of pts still on tx. Median tx duration was 8.9 (up to 32.1) mo for MeziKd vs 6.2 (up to 25.0) for Kd. MeziKd significantly improved PFS vs Kd (median [95% CI], 18.0 [14.5–22.1] vs 8.3 [5.6–10.7] mo; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36–0.63]; P <0.0001), which was consistent across subgroups, including pts with >2 prior LOTs, prior tx exposure/refractoriness, high-risk cytogenetics, extramedullary disease, and age ≥75 y. Higher ORR (80.2% vs 53.4%) and complete response or better (26.7% vs 8.9%) were seen with MeziKd. Deaths were reported in 21.5% (MeziKd) vs 26.7% (Kd) of pts, mostly due to progressive disease. Grade (Gr) 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in 83.7% vs 56.5% of pts, neutropenia in 61.1% vs 9.1%, and infections in 34.0% vs 15.6% with MeziKd and Kd, respectively; Gr 5 infections in this high-risk population were few (2.4 vs 1.1%). Conclusions: MeziKd showed a clinically meaningful PFS benefit as early as first relapse in predominantly triple-class-exposed, anti-CD38 mAb- and LEN-refractory pts, a population with significant unmet need. These data support Mezi, a potent oral tx with a predictable and manageable safety profile, as a readily accessible, potential new standard of care for RRMM across multiple settings. Clinical trial information: NCT05552976 .
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Paul G. Richardson
Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston
Fredrik Schjesvold
Chengcheng Fu
Monique A. Hartley-Brown
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Cesar Gomez
5Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, United Kingdom
Donna Ellen Reece
The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Gabor Mikala
18South Pest Central Hospital, National Institute for Hematology and Infectious Diseases, Budapest, Hungary
Omar Alkharabsheh
4University of South Alabama, Hematology and Oncology, Mobile, United States
Christopher Parrish
11Leeds Cancer Research UK CTU, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
Darrell White
10Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Canada
Hang Quach
University of Melbourne, St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Claudio Cerchione
Vania Hungria
Clinica São Germano, São Paulo
Amitabha Mazumder
9The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation, Glendale, United States
Marc S. Raab
Albert Oriol Rocafiguera
10Hematology Department, Institut Català d’Oncologia and Institut Josep Carreras, Hospital Germans Trias I Pujol, Badalona, Spain
Zehua Zhou
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Alberto Rocci
Celgene International Sàrl, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Boudry, Switzerland
Brian Yu
Meletios A. Dimopoulos