Gain/amplification of 1q21 (≥3 copies), a chromosomal abnormality frequently observed in multiple myeloma, can negatively affect prognosis, due to its involvement in resistance to anti-myeloma therapy and disease progression. In this updated subgroup analysis of the randomized, Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), we evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) and depth of response with the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (Isa-Kd) versus Kd, in 1q21+ patients and related subgroups, at long-term follow-up (44.2 months). Our analysis included patients with 1q21+ (≥3 copies, with/without high-risk chromosomal abnormality [HRCA]), isolated 1q21+ (≥3 copies, without HRCA), gain(1q21) (3 copies, with/without HRCA), and amp(1q21) (≥4 copies, with/without HRCA). PFS benefit was achieved with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+ (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92), with isolated 1q21+ (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.92), with gain(1q21), or amp(1q21), consistent with the overall population and prior interim 1q21+ subgroup analyses. Median PFS with Isa-Kd versus Kd was 25.8 versus 16.2 months in 1q21+ patients and 38.2 versus 16.2 months in patients with isolated 1q21+. Clinically meaningful, higher rates of very good partial response or better, complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and MRD negativity and ≥CR were reached with Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients with 1q21+, isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), or amp(1q21). In Isa-Kd and Kd, the MRD negativity and ≥CR rate was 29.3% versus 15.4% in 1q21+ patients, 36.2% versus 12.9% in patients with isolated 1q21+, 27.9% versus 13.5% in patients with gain(1q21), and 31.3% versus 20.0% in patients with amp(1q21), respectively. In conclusion, addition of Isa to Kd in triplet combination therapy has shown PFS benefit and deeper responses, compared with Kd, in 1q21+ patients at higher risk of progression, including patients with isolated 1q21+, gain(1q21), and amp(1q21), thus supporting Isa-Kd an effective treatment option for patients with RRMM.

Department of Haematology University College Hospital London UK

Department of Hematology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General Hospital Prague Czech Republic

Department of Hematology Lille University Hospital Lille France

Department of Hematology University Hospital Hôtel Dieu Nantes France

Myeloma Amyloidosis Center Japanese Red Cross Medical Center Tokyo Japan

Sanofi Global Medical Affairs Cambridge Massachusetts USA

Sanofi Global Oncology Cambridge Massachusetts USA

Sanofi Research and Development Chilly Mazarin France

Sanofi Research and Development Vitry Sur Seine France

Translational Genomics Research Institute City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix Arizona USA

University of California San Francisco Medical Center San Francisco California USA

See more in PubMed

Sonneveld P. Management of multiple myeloma in the relapsed/refractory patient. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017(1):508-517. https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.508

Jullien M, Touzeau C, Moreau P. Monoclonal antibodies as an addition to current myeloma therapy strategies. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2021;21(1):33-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2021.1837627

Podar K, Leleu X. Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in 2020/2021 and beyond. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(20):5154. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205154

Hanamura I, Stewart JP, Huang Y, et al. Frequent gain of chromosome band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stem-cell transplantation. Blood. 2006;108(5):1724-1732. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-03-009910

Schmidt TM, Fonseca R, Usmani SZ. Chromosome 1q21 abnormalities in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(4):83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00474-8

Bisht K, Walker B, Kumar SK, et al. Chromosomal 1q21 abnormalities in multiple myeloma: a review of translational, clinical research, and therapeutic strategies. Expert Rev Hematol. 2021;14(12):1099-1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474086.2021.1983427

Grzasko N, Hus M, Pluta A, et al. Additional genetic abnormalities significantly worsen poor prognosis associated with 1q21 amplification in multiple myeloma patients. Hematol Oncol. 2013;31(1):41-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.2018

Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(8):1086-1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26590

Weinhold N, Salwender HJ, Cairns DA, et al. Chromosome 1q21 abnormalities refine outcome prediction in patients with multiple myeloma - a meta-analysis of 2,596 trial patients. Haematologica. 2021;106(10):2754-2758. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2021.278888

Biran N, Malhotra J, Bagiella E, Cho HJ, Jagannath S, Chari A. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and chromosome 1 amplification have poor outcomes despite the use of novel triplet regimens. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(6):616-620. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.23705

Nahi H, Vatsveen TK, Lund J, et al. Proteasome inhibitors and IMiDs can overcome some high-risk cytogenetics in multiple myeloma but not gain 1q21. Eur J Haematol. 2016;96(1):46-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.12546

Schmidt TM, Barwick BG, Joseph N, et al. Gain of chromosome 1q is associated with early progression in multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(12):94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-019-0254-0

Giri S, Huntington SF, Wang R, et al. Chromosome 1 abnormalities and survival of patients with multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents. Blood Adv. 2020;4(10):2245-2253. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001425

Hu X, Wu C.-H, Cowan JM, Comenzo RL, Varga C. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma harboring chromosome 1q gain/amplification in the era of modern therapy. Ann Hematol. 2022;101(2):369-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-021-04704-8

Attal M, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV, et al. Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2096-2107. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32556-5

Moreau P, Dimopoulos MA, Mikhael J, et al. Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10292):2361-2371. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00592-4

Martin T, Dimopoulos MA, Mikhael J, et al. Isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: updated results from IKEMA, a randomized Phase 3 study. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-023-00797-8

Martin T, Richardson PG, Facon T, et al. Primary outcomes by 1q21+ status for isatuximab-treated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: subgroup analyses from ICARIA-MM and IKEMA. Haematologica. 2022;107(10):2485-2491. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2022.280660

Leleu X, Martin T, Weisel K, et al. Anti-CD38 antibody therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: differential mechanisms of action and recent clinical trial outcomes. Ann Hematol. 2022;101(10):2123-2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-022-04917-5

Sarclisa. Prescribing Information. Sanofi; 2022. Accessed 17 October 2023. https://products.sanofi.us/Sarclisa/sarclisa.pdf

European Medicines Agency. Sarclisa, INN-Isatuximab. Summary of product characteristics; 2021. Accessed 17 October 2023. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/sarclisa-epar-product-information_en.pdf

Usmani SZ, Quach H, Mateos MV, et al. Final analysis of carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in the CANDOR Study. Blood Adv. 2023;7(14):3739-3748. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010026

Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328-e346. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30206-6

Finn F, Macé S, Chu R, et al. Development of a Hydrashift 2/4 isatuximab assay to mitigate interference with monoclonal protein detection on immunofixation electrophoresis in vitro diagnostic tests in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2020;136(suppl 1):15. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-136613

Ching T, Duncan ME, Newman-Eerkes T, et al. Analytical evaluation of the clonoSEQ assay for establishing measurable (minimal) residual disease in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):612. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07077-9

Moreau M, Perrot A, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Isatuximab in relapsed multiple myeloma patients with ultra-high-risk cytogenetics: ICARIA-MM and IKEMA subgroup analysis. HemaSphere. 2023;7(suppl l):e27700c7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hs9.0000970628.27700.c7

Mohan M, Weinhold N, Schinke C, et al. Daratumumab in high-risk relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: adverse effect of chromosome 1q21 gain/amplification and GEP70 status on outcome. Br J Haematol. 2020;189(1):67-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16292

Barbieri E, Maccaferri M, Leonardi G, et al. Adverse outcome associated with daratumumab-based treatments in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with amplification of chromosome arm 1q21: a single-center retrospective experience. Ann Hematol. 2022;101(12):2777-2779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-022-04978-6

Nijhof IS, Casneuf T, van Velzen J, et al. CD38 expression and complement inhibitors affect response and resistance to daratumumab therapy in myeloma. Blood. 2016;128(7):959-970. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-03-703439