Martin Kropff

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.)

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

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.).

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.

Bortezomib in combination with intermediate-dose dexamethasone and continuous low-dose oral cyclophosphamide for relapsed multiple myeloma

A phase 2 trial was performed to study the combination of bortezomib (VELCADE®) with intermediate‐dose dexamethasone (DEX), and continuous low‐dose oral cyclophosphamide (CY) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Fifty‐four patients with advanced MM were enroled to receive eight 3‐week treatment cycles with bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, followed by three 5‐week cycles with bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Within all cycles, DEX 20 mg/d was given orally on the day of bortezomib injection and the day thereafter. In addition, patients received CY continuous oral treatment at a dose of 50 mg/d p.o. once daily. Fifty patients completing at least one treatment cycle were evaluable for response. Complete, partial, and minor responses occurred in 16%, 66% and 8% of patients, respectively; overall response rate 90% (efficacy analysis). Median event‐free survival was 12 months, with a median overall survival of 22 months. Adverse events (AE) of grades 3 or 4 occurring in at least 10% of patients comprised leucopenia, infection, herpes zoster, thrombocytopenia, neuropathy and fatigue. Bortezomib combined with DEX and CY is a highly effective treatment for relapsed MM at an acceptable rate of grade 3/4 AE. Antiviral prophylaxis appears to be mandatory.

Treatment-related peripheral neuropathy in multiple myeloma: the challenge continues

Introduction of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide has substantially improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. As a result, these drugs have become cornerstones of current antimyeloma treatment regimens. However, after several years of clinical experience it has become apparent that peripheral neuropathy is the most common and potentially disabling non-haematological side-effect associated with thalidomide and bortezomib. Maximising treatment benefit while preserving quality of life therefore requires a careful balance between achieving optimum activity and minimising toxicity, including neuropathy, to further enhance efficacy. In this review, we discuss all aspects of drug-induced peripheral neuropathy in myeloma, with a particular focus on thalidomide and bortezomib.

Hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide in combination with pulsed dexamethasone and thalidomide (HyperCDT) in primary refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma

Summary. Sixty patients with advanced multiple myeloma received 2–6 monthly treatment courses combining hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 i.v. over 3 h q 12 h × 6, d 1–3) with pulsed dexamethasone (20 mg/m2/d p.o., d 1–4, 9–12, 17–20) and once daily thalidomide at individually escalating doses (100–400 mg/d) depending on tolerability (HyperCDT). Responding patients were maintained on daily thalidomide and monthly dexamethasone pulses. Complete, partial and minor response rates were 4%, 68% and 12% respectively; overall response rate was 84% (efficacy analysis). Median event‐free and overall survival was 11 and 19 months respectively. During at least one treatment cycle, 67% of patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia resulting in 17% grade 3 and 9% grade 4 infections. Side‐effects, presumably related to thalidomide, included neuropathy (40% grade 2, 16% grade 3), constipation (17%), oedema (5%), bradycardia (5%), skin reactions (3%), cerebrovascular events (5%) and deep vein thromboses (8%). Thromboses were not related to known thrombophilic risk factors. Four patients with prior myeloma therapy > 50 months developed myelodysplastic syndrome or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia 2–4 months after study entry. HyperCDT is a highly active and reasonably well‐tolerated salvage regimen in advanced or refractory multiple myeloma.

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.

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.

Current Multiple Myeloma Treatment Strategies with Novel Agents: A European Perspective

This review presents an overview of the most recent data using the novel agents thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide in the treatment of multiple myeloma and summarizes European treatment practices incorporating these novel agents.