Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition is an effective treatment approach for patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). The phase 3 ASPEN study compared the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor, with zanubrutinib, a novel, highly selective BTK inhibitor, in patients with WM. Patients with MYD88L265P disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with either ibrutinib or zanubrutinib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete or very good partial response (CR or VGPR) by independent review. Key secondary endpoints included major response rate (MRR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease burden, and safety. A total of 201 patients were randomized, and 199 received ≥1 dose of study treatment. No patient achieved a CR. Twenty-nine (28%) zanubrutinib and 19 (19%) ibrutinib patients achieved a VGPR, a non-statistically significant difference (P = .09). MRRs were 77% and 78% , respectively. Median DOR and PFS were not reached; 84% and 85% of ibrutinib and zanubrutinib patients were progression-free at 18 months. Incidence of atrial fibrillation, contusion, diarrhea, peripheral edema, hemorrhage, muscle spasms, and pneumonia, as well as adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, were all lower among zanubrutinib recipients. Incidence of neutropenia was higher with zanubrutinib, although grade ≥3 infection rates were similar in both arms (1.2 and 1.1 events/100 person-months). These results demonstrate that zanubrutinib and ibrutinib are highly effective in the treatment of WM, but zanubrutinib treatment was associated with a trend toward better response quality and less toxicity, particularly cardiovascular toxicity.

PurposeSorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIB trial assessed sorafenib with capecitabine for locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –negative breast cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to first- or second-line capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2orally twice a day for days 1 to 14 of every 21-day cycle with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsIn total, 229 patients were enrolled. The addition of sorafenib to capecitabine resulted in a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo (median, 6.4 v 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P = .001) with sorafenib favored across subgroups, including first-line (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82) and second-line (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.04) treatment. There was no significant improvement for overall survival (median, 22.2 v 20.9 months; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.23; P = .42) and overall response (38% v 31%; P = .25). Toxicities (sorafenib v placebo) of any grade included rash (22% v 8%), diarrhea (58% v 30%), mucosal inflammation (33% v 21%), neutropenia (13% v 4%), hypertension (18% v 12%), and hand-foot skin reaction/hand- foot syndrome (HFSR/HFS; 90% v 66%); grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between treatment arms except HFSR/HFS (44% v 14%). Reasons for discontinuation in the sorafenib and placebo arms included disease progression (63% v 82%, respectively), adverse events (20% v 9%, respectively), and death (0% v 1%, respectively).ConclusionAddition of sorafenib to capecitabine improved PFS in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The dose of sorafenib used in this trial resulted in unacceptable toxicity for many patients. A phase III confirmatory trial has been initiated with a reduced sorafenib dose.

Background-Therapeutic advances have greatly extended survival times in patients with multiple myeloma, necessitating increasingly lengthy trials when using survival outcomes primary endpoints. A surrogate endpoint that can more rapidly predict survival could accelerate drug development. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate minimal residual disease (MRD) status as a valid PFS surrogate in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM).Materials and Methods-We searched abstracts in PubMed, The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the European Hematology Association (EHA) for "myeloma", "minimal residual disease", and "clinical trial". Because of the need to evaluate the treatment effect on MRD response, only randomized studies for subjects with NDMM were included. Details on the MRDtested populations were required. Meta-analysis was performed by principles outlined at the 2013 FDA workshop on MRD in AML. 1 For samples that were not measured for MRD and within the subset specified for MRD assessment, their MRD status was imputed from the samples that had known MRD status. Patients that were excluded from planned MRD assessment were considered MRD positive.

No abstract