Ivan Spicka

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.)

Randomized Phase III Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Plus Bortezomib Compared With Bortezomib Alone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Combination Therapy Improves Time to Progression

PURPOSE This phase III international study compared the efficacy and safety of a combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus bortezomib with bortezomib monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Six hundred forty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of an every 21-days cycle, or the same bortezomib regimen with PLD 30 mg/m(2) on day 4. RESULTS Median time to progression was increased from 6.5 months for bortezomib to 9.3 months with the PLD + bortezomib combination (P = .000004; hazard ratio, 1.82 [monotherapy v combination therapy]; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.35). The 15-month survival rate for PLD + bortezomib was 76% compared with 65% for bortezomib alone (P = .03). The complete plus partial response rate was 41% for bortezomib and 44% for PLD + bortezomib, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median duration of response was increased from 7.0 to 10.2 months (P = .0008) with PLD + bortezomib. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in the combination group (80% v 64%), with safety profiles consistent with the known toxicities of the two agents. An increased incidence in the combination group was seen of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, fatigue, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION PLD with bortezomib is superior to bortezomib monotherapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The combination therapy is associated with a higher incidence of grade 3/4 myelosuppression, constitutional symptoms, and GI and dermatologic toxicities.

Continuous Lenalidomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide has tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity against multiple myeloma. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized study compared melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or melphalan-prednisone (MP) followed by placebo in patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-week cycles of MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until a relapse or disease progression occurred [152 patients]) or to receive MPR (153 patients) or MP (154 patients) without maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with MPR-R (31 months) than with MPR (14 months; hazard ratio, 0.49; P<0.001) or MP (13 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Response rates were superior with MPR-R and MPR (77% and 68%, respectively, vs. 50% with MP; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively, for the comparison with MP). The progression-free survival benefit associated with MPR-R was noted in patients 65 to 75 years of age but not in those older than 75 years of age (P=0.001 for treatment-by-age interaction). After induction therapy, a landmark analysis showed a 66% reduction in the rate of progression with MPR-R (hazard ratio for the comparison with MPR, 0.34; P<0.001) that was age-independent. During induction therapy, the most frequent adverse events were hematologic; grade 4 neutropenia was reported in 35%, 32%, and 8% of the patients in the MPR-R, MPR, and MP groups, respectively. The 3-year rate of second primary tumors was 7% with MPR-R, 7% with MPR, and 3% with MP. CONCLUSIONS MPR-R significantly prolonged progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefit observed in patients 65 to 75 years of age. (Funded by Celgene; MM-015 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405756.).

Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown efficacy in a phase 1 and 2 study in relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS We randomly assigned 792 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma to carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS Progression-free survival was significantly improved with carfilzomib (median, 26.3 months, vs. 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P=0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis. The Kaplan-Meier 24-month overall survival rates were 73.3% and 65.0% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 87.1% and 66.7% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (P<0.001; 31.8% and 9.3% of patients in the respective groups had a complete response or better; 14.1% and 4.3% had a stringent complete response). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 83.7% and 80.7% of patients in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively; 15.3% and 17.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. Patients in the carfilzomib group reported superior health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS In patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival at the interim analysis and had a favorable risk-benefit profile. (Funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01080391.).

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).

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.

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).

Thalidomide-dexamethasone compared with melphalan-prednisolone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma

We compared thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) with melphalan-prednisolone (MP) in 289 elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received either thalidomide 200 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1 to 4 and 15 to 18 on even cycles and days 1 to 4 on odd cycles, during a 28-day cycle or to melphalan 0.25 mg/kg and prednisolone 2 mg/kg orally on days 1 to 4 during a 28- to 42-day cycle. Patients achieving stable disease or better were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with either thalidomide 100 mg daily and 3 MU interferon alpha-2b thrice weekly or to 3 MU interferon alpha-2b thrice weekly only. TD resulted in a higher proportion of complete and very good remissions (26% vs 13%; P= .006) and overall responses (68% vs 50%; P= .002) compared with MP. Time to progression (21.2 vs 29.1 months; P= .2), and progression-free survival was similar (16.7 vs 20.7 months; P= .1), but overall survival was significantly shorter in the TD group (41.5 vs 49.4 months; P= .024). Toxicity was higher with TD, particularly in patients older than 75 years with poor performance status. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00205751.

Once-weekly epoetin beta is highly effective in treating anaemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancy and defective endogenous erythropoietin production.

Summary. Epoetin beta, three‐times weekly (t.i.w.), is effective in reversing anaemia in lymphoproliferative disorders. The current study investigated whether an epoetin beta dose of 30 000 IU given subcutaneously once weekly (q.w.) was at least as effective as 10 000 t.i.w. administration in anaemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancy and defective endogenous erythropoietin (Epo) production. Overall, 241 anaemic patients with multiple myeloma, low‐grade non‐Hodgkins lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, all with serum Epo values ≤ 100 mU/ml, were randomized to receive the q.w. (n = 119) or t.i.w. (n = 122) regimen for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy criterion, i.e. the time‐adjusted area under the haemoglobin–time curve from weeks 5–16, was comparable between the q.w. and t.i.w. groups [difference = − 0·20 g/dl (90% confidence interval − 0·52–0·11)]. Moreover, response rates were high and similar in both arms (72%vs 75%, q.w. and t.i.w. groups respectively). Baseline serum Epo was predictive of response: the lower serum Epo, the higher the likelihood of response (P = 0·002). Thus, epoetin beta administered q.w. is an effective and convenient treatment for anaemia in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders. Tailoring this treatment modality to subjects with defective endogenous Epo production represents a rational use of epoetin from both a medical and a community perspective.

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.