Single-agent belantamab mafodotin for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: analysis of the lyophilised presentation cohort from the pivotal DREAMM-2 study.

DREAMM-2 (NCT03525678) is an ongoing global, open-label, phase 2 study of single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; GSK2857916), a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in a frozen-liquid presentation in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Alongside the main study, following identical inclusion/exclusion criteria, a separate patient cohort was enrolled to receive belamaf in a lyophilised presentation (3.4 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary outcome was independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Twenty-five patients were enrolled; 24 received ≥1 dose of belamaf. As of 31 January 2020, ORR was 52% (95% CI: 31.3-72.2); 24% of patients achieved very good partial response. Median duration of response was 9.0 months (2.8-not reached [NR]); median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (2.2-9.7); median overall survival was not reached (8.7 months-NR). Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were keratopathy (microcyst-like corneal epithelial changes, a pathological finding seen on eye examination [75%]), thrombocytopenia (21%), anaemia (17%), hypercalcaemia and hypophosphatemia (both 13%), neutropenia and blurred vision (both 8%). Pharmacokinetics supported comparability of frozen-liquid and lyophilised presentations. Single-agent belamaf in a lyophilised presentation (intended for future use) showed a deep and durable clinical response and acceptable safety profile in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM.

Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC) trials may be confounded by the difficulty of radiologic evaluation of disease progression and the potential for discrepancy between investigator and blinded independent central assessments. PFS as assessed by local investigator (INV) was the primary endpoint of AGO-OVAR16, a randomized, double-blind trial of pazopanib maintenance therapy in AEOC. To confirm the robustness of the primary analysis, PFS was also evaluated by blinded independent central review (BICR). METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC (N = 940) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/day or placebo for up to 24 months. Tumor response in the intent-to-treat population was evaluated by CT/MRI every 6 months and analyzed per RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: Pazopanib prolonged PFS versus placebo by INV (median 17.9 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.643-0.911; P = 0.0021). Results for PFS by BICR were similar (median 15.4 vs 11.8 months; HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.678-0.949; P = 0.0084). Progression events were recorded later by INV in 23% of pazopanib-treated patients and 17% of placebo-treated patients. The overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments was 84% and 86% in the pazopanib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By INV and BICR assessments, maintenance therapy with pazopanib in AEOC provided a significantly longer PFS than placebo. The good overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments, as well as HR and P value consistency, supports the reliability of investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint in AGO-OVAR16.