Andrew Cakana

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression. RESULTS The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan-prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%). CONCLUSIONS Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone was superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.)

Bortezomib Plus Melphalan and Prednisone Compared With Melphalan and Prednisone in Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma: Updated Follow-Up and Impact of Subsequent Therapy in the Phase III VISTA Trial

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to confirm overall survival (OS) and other clinical benefits with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan and prednisone (MP) in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma) trial after prolonged follow-up, and evaluate the impact of subsequent therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated symptomatic patients with myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (n = 344) or MP (n = 338). RESULTS With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio, 0.653; P < .001); median OS was not reached with VMP versus 43 months with MP; 3-year OS rates were 68.5% versus 54.0%. Response rates to subsequent thalidomide- (41% v 53%) and lenalidomide-based therapies (59% v 52%) appeared similar after VMP or MP; response rates to subsequent bortezomib-based therapy were 47% versus 59%. Among patients treated with VMP (n = 178) and MP (n = 233), median survival from start of subsequent therapy was 30.2 and 21.9 months, respectively, and there was no difference in survival from salvage among patients who received subsequent bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide. Rates of adverse events were higher with VMP versus MP during cycles 1 to 4, but similar during cycles 5 to 9. With VMP, 79% of peripheral neuropathy events improved within a median of 1.9 months; 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months. CONCLUSION VMP significantly prolongs OS versus MP after lengthy follow-up and extensive subsequent antimyeloma therapy. First-line bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapse. VMP used upfront appears more beneficial than first treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel agent-based treatment until relapse.

Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma

There are a number of reports in literature data on the long-term outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/SCT). While in general these data support the association between maximal tumor response and overall survival or progression-free survival after HDT/SCT, some trials have failed to find such correlation and there is no recent comprehensive literature analysis of this issue. We, therefore, performed a comprehensive literature review to identify prospective and retrospective studies on HDT/SCT in frontline multiple myeloma in which long-term outcomes were reported according to best tumor response observed. Following a prospectively defined search strategy we identified 21 studies (10 prospective and 11 retrospective studies) in which outcomes of 4,990 HDT/SCT patients according to their best tumor response were reported. The majority of these studies indicated a correlation between maximal response during or after HDT/SCT and long-term outcomes (overall survival and event-free/progression-free survival). The conclusions in individual studis report on the association between maximal response following induction therapy and long-term outcomes were more heterogeneous, possibly due to the low rate of complete response after standard induction therapy in each individual study. We, therefore, performed two types of meta-analyses, one based on the p-values reported for these associations in the individual studies, and one based on the primary response and outcome data provided in the individual studies. Both meta-analyses indicated highly significant associations between maximal response (complete response/near complete response/very good partial response) during or after HDT/SCT and long-term outcomes (overall survival and event-free/progression-free survival). Both meta-analyses also provided evidence of highly significant associations between maximal response following induction therapy and long-term outcomes (overall survival and event-free/progression-free survival).

Superiority of the Triple Combination of Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Over the Dual Combination of Thalidomide-Dexamethasone in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Progressing or Relapsing After Autologous Transplantation: The MMVAR/IFM 2005-04 Randomized Phase III Trial From the Chronic Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

PURPOSE This prospective multicenter phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of a triple combination (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone [VTD]) versus a dual combination (thalidomide-dexamethasone [TD]) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) progressing or relapsing after autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 269 patients were randomly assigned to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus) or no bortezomib for 1 year, in combination with thalidomide (200 mg per day orally) and dexamethasone (40 mg orally once a day on 4 days once every 3 weeks). Bortezomib was administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 with a 10-day rest period (day 12 to day 21) for eight cycles (6 months), and then on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with a 20-day rest period (day 23 to day 42) for four cycles (6 months). RESULTS Median time to progression (primary end point) was significantly longer with VTD than TD (19.5 v13.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80; P = .001), the complete response plus near-complete response rate was higher (45% v 21%; P 0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (17.9 v 13.4 months; P.04) [corrected].The 24-month survival rate was in favor of VTD (71% v 65%; P = .093). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was more frequent with VTD (29% v 12%; P = .001) as were the rates of grades 3 and 4 infection and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION VTD was more effective than TD in the treatment of patients with MM with progressive or relapsing disease post-ASCT but was associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 neurotoxicity.

Bortezomib-Based Versus Nonbortezomib-Based Induction Treatment Before Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in Patients With Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized, Controlled Trials

PURPOSE To characterize efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction regimens through an integrated analysis of data from phase III studies in transplantation-eligible patients with previously untreated myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patient-level data from the IFM 2005-01 (bortezomib-dexamethasone v vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone [VAD] induction), HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone v VAD), and PETHEMA GEM05MENOS65 (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone v thalidomide-dexamethasone) studies were pooled in an integrated analysis of efficacy and safety. Study-level data from the GIMEMA MM-BO2005 study (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone v thalidomide-dexamethasone) supplemented the integrated patient-level analysis. Key efficacy end points were post-transplantation complete plus near-complete response (CR+nCR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Patient-level data for 1,572 patients (bortezomib-based induction, n = 787; nonbortezomib-based induction, n = 785) were included. Post-transplantation CR+nCR rate was significantly higher following bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction (38% v 24%; odds ratio, 2.05; P < .001); the benefit remained similar (pooled odds ratio, 1.96) when GIMEMA MM-BO2005 data were included. Median PFS was 35.9 months versus 28.6 months with bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.75; P < .001); 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 79.7% and 74.7%, respectively (hazard ratio for OS, 0.81; P = .0402). Median duration of induction treatment was 11 weeks in both treatment groups. Rates of peripheral neuropathy during induction were 34% versus 17% (grade ≥ 3, 6% v 1%). Overall, 3% and 4% of patients died during bortezomib-based and nonbortezomib-based induction, respectively. CONCLUSION Bortezomib-based induction results in significant improvements in response and PFS/OS compared with nonbortezomib-based induction and is generally well tolerated, with a higher rate of peripheral neuropathy but no apparent increase in risk of death during induction.

Weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1 dose-escalation study

New treatment options are required for primary systemic AL amyloidosis (AL). This phase 1 dose-escalation component of a phase 1/2 study in relapsed AL aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of bortezomib once weekly (0.7-1.6 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 35-day cycles) and twice weekly (0.7-1.3 mg/m(2); days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 21-day cycles) and assess preliminary hematologic responses. Thirty-one patients with relapsed AL were enrolled across 7 cohorts. Dose-limiting toxicity included grade 3 congestive heart failure in 2 patients (1 at once weekly, 1.6 mg/m(2), and 1 at twice weekly, 1.0 mg/m(2)). MTD was not defined for either schedule; the maximum doses of 1.6 mg/m(2) (once weekly) and 1.3 mg/m(2) (twice weekly) are being used in phase 2 evaluation. Most commonly reported toxicities on both schedules included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, and nervous system disorders. Discontinuations and dose reductions for toxicity were reported in 12 and 4 patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Hematologic responses occurred in 15 (50%) of 30 evaluable patients, including 6 (20%) complete responses. Median time to first response was 1.2 months. Once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib appear generally well tolerated in relapsed AL, with promising hematologic responses. This study is registered with http://ClinicalTrials.Gov under identifier NCT00298766.

VMP (Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone) Is Active and Well Tolerated in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Multiple Myeloma With Moderately Impaired Renal Function, and Results in Reversal of Renal Impairment: Cohort Analysis of the Phase III VISTA Study

PURPOSE To assess bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and melphalan and prednisone (MP) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) with renal impairment enrolled on the phase III VISTA study, and to evaluate renal impairment reversibility. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received nine 6-week cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), melphalan 9 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)) or MP. Patients with serum creatinine higher than 2 mg/dL were excluded. Results In the VMP/MP arms, 6%/4%, 27%/30%, and 67%/66% of patients had baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of < or = 30, 31 to 50, and higher than 50 mL/min, respectively. Response rates were higher and time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) longer with VMP versus MP across renal cohorts. Response rates with VMP and TTP in both arms did not appear significantly different between patients with GFR < or = 50 or higher than 50 mL/min; OS appeared somewhat longer in patients with normal renal function in both arms. Renal impairment reversal (baseline GFR < 50 improving to > 60 mL/min) was seen in 49 (44%) of 111 patients receiving VMP versus 40 (34%) of 116 patients receiving MP. By multivariate analysis, younger age (< 75 years; P = .006) and less severe impairment (GFR > or = 30 mL/min; P = .027) were associated with higher reversal rates. In addition, treatment with VMP approached significance (P = .07). In both arms, rates of grade 4 and 5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs appeared higher in patients with renal impairment; with VMP, rates of discontinuations/bortezomib dose reductions due to AEs did not appear affected. CONCLUSION VMP is a feasible, active, and well-tolerated treatment option for previously untreated patients with MM with moderate renal impairment, resulting in 44% renal impairment reversal.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with relapsed systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1/2 study

This first prospective phase 2 study of single-agent bortezomib in relapsed primary systemic AL amyloidosis evaluated the recommended (maximum planned) doses identified in phase 1 testing (1.6 mg/m² once weekly [days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 35-day cycles]; 1.3 mg/m² twice weekly [days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 21-day cycles]). Among all 70 patients enrolled in the study, 44% had ≥ 3 organs involved, including 73% and 56% with renal and cardiac involvement. In the 1.6 mg/m² once-weekly and 1.3 mg/m² twice-weekly groups, the hematologic response rate was 68.8% and 66.7% (37.5% and 24.2% complete responses, respectively); median time to first/best response was 2.1/3.2 and 0.7/1.2 months, and 78.8% and 75.5% had response durations of ≥ 1 year, respectively. One-year hematologic progression-free rates were 72.2% and 74.6%, and 1-year survival rates were 93.8% and 84.0%, respectively. Outcomes appeared similar in patients with cardiac involvement. Among all 70 patients, organ responses included 29% renal and 13% cardiac responses. Rates of grade ≥ 3 toxicities (79% vs 50%) and discontinuations/dose reductions (38%/53% vs 28%/22%) resulting from toxicities appeared higher with 1.3 mg/m² twice-weekly versus 1.6 mg/m² once-weekly dosing. Both bortezomib dose schedules represent active, well-tolerated regimens in relapsed AL amyloidosis. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00298766.

Updated survival analysis of a randomized phase III study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

The phase III MMY-3021 study compared safety and efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with relapsed myeloma. The initial report demonstrated non-inferior efficacy with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib for the primary end point: overall response rate after four cycles of single-agent bortezomib. We report updated outcome analyses after prolonged follow up. Best response rate (after up to ten cycles of bortezomib ± dexamethasone) remained 52% in each arm, including 23% and 22% complete or near-complete responses with subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib, respectively. Time to progression (median 9.7 vs. 9.6 months; hazard ratio 0.872, P=0.462), progression-free survival (median 9.3 vs. 8.4 months; hazard ratio 0.846, P=0.319), and overall survival (1-year: 76.4% vs. 78.0%, P=0.788) were comparable with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Peripheral neuropathy rates remained significantly lower with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, with increased rates of improvement/resolution at the time of this analysis.

Risk factors for, and reversibility of, peripheral neuropathy associated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma: subanalysis of the phase 3 VISTA study

Objectives:  This subanalysis of the phase 3 VISTA trial aimed to assess the frequency, characteristics and reversibility of, and prognostic factors for, bortezomib‐associated peripheral neuropathy (PN) in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for high‐dose therapy who received bortezomib plus melphalan–prednisone.