TY - JOUR
T1 - Venetoclax-Dexamethasone Versus Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone in t(11;14)-Positive Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
T2 - Primary Results of the Randomized, Phase III CANOVA Study
AU - Popat, Rakesh
AU - Beksac, Meral
AU - Dimopoulos, Meletios A.
AU - Gatt, Moshe E.
AU - Gay, Francesca
AU - Jo, Jae Cheol
AU - Kapoor, Prashant
AU - Katodritou, Eirini
AU - Kortüm, K. Martin
AU - Ling, Silvia
AU - Nagarajan, Chandramouli
AU - Suzuki, Kenshi
AU - Qiu, Lugui
AU - Onishi, Maika
AU - Ku, Grace
AU - Dail, Monique
AU - Mukherjee, Nabanita
AU - Ross, Jeremy A.
AU - Badawi, Mohamed Ali
AU - Fusco, Mary Jean
AU - Dobkowska, Edyta
AU - Arriola, Emma
AU - Bueno, Orlando F.
AU - Bahlis, Nizar J.
AU - Iida, Shinsuke
AU - Moreau, Philippe
AU - Valent, Jason
AU - Mateos, María Victoria
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - PURPOSE – Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency.METHODS – The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α =.05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10–5), and safety.RESULTS – Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P =.24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone.CONCLUSION – The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.
AB - PURPOSE – Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency.METHODS – The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α =.05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10–5), and safety.RESULTS – Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P =.24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone.CONCLUSION – The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105027423699&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO-25-00924
DO - 10.1200/JCO-25-00924
M3 - Article
C2 - 41370738
AN - SCOPUS:105027423699
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 327
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
ER -