Search

Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MT) post autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) but has not been compared to other agents in clinical trials. We retrospectively compared bortezomib (BTZ; n = 138) or LEN (n = 183) MT from two subsequent GMMG phase III trials. All patients received three cycles of BTZ-based triplet induction and post-ASCT MT. BTZ MT (1.3 mg/m 2 i.v.) was administered every 2 weeks for 2 years. LEN MT included two consolidation cycles (25 mg p.o., days 1-21 of 28 day cycles) followed by 10-15 mg/day for 2 years. The BTZ cohort more frequently received tandem ASCT (91% vs. 33%) due to different tandem ASCT strategies. In the LEN and BTZ cohort, 43% and 46% of patients completed 2 years of MT as intended (p = 0.57). Progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.83, p = 0.18) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.70, p = 0.15) did not differ significantly with LEN vs. BTZ MT. Patients with

Objective: A post hoc analysis of two phase III trials was carried out to explore the influence of age and treatment factors on the effect of bortezomib consolidation on progression-free survival (PFS) post autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were assigned to one of two trials (ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT00416273, NCT00416208), which were conducted in parallel, based on age (18-60 or 61-75 years, respectively). Following induction and ASCT, patients were randomized 1:1 to four 35-day cycles of bortezomib consolidation (1.6 mg/m 2 IV on days 1, 8, 15, 22) or observation only., Results: Median PFS with bortezomib consolidation vs observation was 33.6 vs 29.0 months (P = 0.3599) in patients aged 18-60 years (n = 202), and 33.4 vs 26.4 months (P = 0.0073) in patients aged 61-75 years (n = 155), respectively. Bortezomib consolidation post-ASCT appeared to equalize outcomes between older and younger patients who received prior treatment of differing intensity. This suggests that the effect of consolidation may be relative and may depend on the composition and intensity of induction and high-dose therapy., Conclusion: Older patients receiving less intensive prior treatment could experience a larger PFS benefit from bortezomib consolidation., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We investigated the impact of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in the MM5 trial of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group which compared bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Based on data from relapsed myeloma, the route of administration for bortezomib was changed from intravenous to subcutaneous after 314 of 604 patients had been enrolled. We analyzed 598 patients who received at least one dose of trial medication. Adverse events were reported more frequently in patients treated with intravenous bortezomib (intravenous=65%; subcutaneous=56%, P=0.02). Rates of grade 2 or more peripheral neuropathy were higher in patients treated with intravenous bortezomib during the third cycle (intravenous=8%; subcutaneous=2%, P=0.001). Overall response rates were similar in patients treated intravenously or subcutaneously. The presence of International Staging System stage III disease, renal impairment or adverse cytogenetic abnormalities did not have a negative impact on overall response rates in either group. To our knowledge this is the largest study to present data comparing subcutaneous with intravenous bortezomib in newly diagnosed myeloma. We show better tolerance and similar overall response rates for subcutaneous compared to intravenous bortezomib. The clinical trial is registered at eudract.ema.europa.eu as n. 2010-019173-16., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Renal impairment is frequent in patients with multiple myeloma and is correlated with an inferior prognosis. This analysis evaluates the prognostic role of renal impairment in patients with myeloma treated with bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation within a prospective randomized phase III trial. Eight hundred and twenty-seven newly diagnosed myeloma patients in the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial were randomized to receive three cycles of vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone (VAD) or bortezomib, adriamycin, dexamethasone (PAD) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation and maintenance with thalidomide 50 mg daily (VAD-arm) or bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks (PAD-arm). Baseline serum creatinine was less than 2 mg/dL (Durie-Salmon-stage A) in 746 patients and 2 mg/dL or higher (stage B) in 81. In myeloma patients with a baseline creatinine ≥ 2 mg/dL the renal response rate was 63% in the VAD-arm and 81% in the PAD-arm (P=0.31). The overall myeloma response rate was 64% in the VAD-arm versus 89% in the PAD-arm with 13% complete responses in the VAD-arm versus 36% in the PAD-arm (P=0.01). Overall survival at 3 years for patients with a baseline creatinine ≥ 2 mg/dL was 34% in the VAD-arm versus 74% in the PAD-arm (P<0.001) with a progression-free survival rate at 3 years of 16% in the VAD-arm versus 48% in the PAD-arm (P=0.004). Overall and progression-free survival rates in the PAD-arm were similar in patients with a baseline creatinine ≥ 2 mg/dL or <2 mg/dL. We conclude that a bortezomib-containing treatment before and after autologous stem cell transplantation overcomes the negative prognostic impact of renal impairment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR213 and at www.controlled-trials.com as ISRCTN 64455289.

In patients with multiple myeloma (MM), risk stratification by chromosomal abnormalities may enable a more rational selection of therapeutic approaches. In the present study, we analyzed the prognostic value of 12 chromosomal abnormalities in a series of 354 MM patients treated within the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. Because of the 2-arm design of the study, we were able to analyze the effect of a bortezomib-based treatment before and after autologous stem cell transplantation (arm B) compared with standard treatment without bortezomib (arm A). For allanalyzed chromosomal aberrations, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were at least equal or superior in the bortezomib arm compared with the standard arm. Strikingly, patients with del(17p13) benefited the most from the bortezomib-containing treatment: the median PFS in arm A was 12.0 months and in arm B it was 26.2 months (P = .024); the 3 year-OS for arm A was 17% and for arm B it was 69% (P = .028). After multivariate analysis, del(17p13) was an independent predictor for PFS (P < .0001) and OS (P < .0001) in arm A, whereas no statistically significant effect on PFS (P = .28) or OS (P = .12) was seen in arm B. In conclusion, the adverse impact of del(17p13) on PFS and OS could be significantly reduced by bortezomib-based treatment, suggesting that long-term administration of bortezomib should be recommended for patients carrying del(17p13).

The individual risk of infection and requirements for medical treatment after high-dose chemotherapy have been unpredictable. In this prospective, multicenter, open-label study we investigated the potential of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) responsiveness as a predictor. A total of 168 patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma received a single dose of subcutaneous G-CSF (lenograstim, 263 μg) after high-dose chemotherapy. Highly variable leukocyte peaks were measured and grouped as low (quartile 1; leukocytes 100-10 100/μL), medium (quartile 2; leukocytes > 10 100-18 300/μL), and high (quartiles 3/4; leukocytes > 18 300-44 800/μL). G-CSF responsiveness (low vs medium vs high) was inversely correlated with febrile neutropenia (77% vs 60% vs 48%; P = .0037); the rate of infection, including fever of unknown origin (91% vs 67% vs 54%; P < .0001); days with intravenous antibiotics (9 vs 6 vs 5; P < .0001); and antifungal therapy (P = .042). In multivariate analysis, G-CSF responsiveness remained the only factor significantly associated with infection (P = .016). In addition, G-CSF responsiveness was inversely correlated with grade 3/4 oral mucositis (67% vs 33% vs 23%; P < .0001). G-CSF responsiveness appears as a signature of the myeloid marrow reserve predicting defense against neutropenic infection after intensive chemotherapy. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01085058.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venetoclax is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, which induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown encouraging clinical efficacy with acceptable safety and tolerability in a phase 1 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received one to three previous therapies were enrolled from 90 hospitals in 16 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) centrally using an interactive response technology system and a block size of three to receive venetoclax (800 mg per day orally) or placebo with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). Treatment was given in 21-day cycles for the first eight cycles and 35-day cycles from the ninth cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to a proteasome inhibitor and the number of previous therapies. Sponsors, investigators, study site personnel, and patients were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02755597.Findings: Between July 19, 2016, and Oct 31, 2017, 291 patients were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax (n=194) or placebo (n=97). With a median follow-up of 18·7 months (IQR 16·6-21·0), median progression-free survival according to independent review committee was 22·4 months (95% CI 15·3-not estimable) with venetoclax versus 11·5 months (9·6-15·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·44-0·90]; p=0·010). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients in the venetoclax group vs seven [7%] of 96 patients in the placebo group), pneumonia (30 [16%] vs nine [9%]), thrombocytopenia (28 [15%] vs 29 [30%]), anaemia (28 [15%] vs 14 [15%]), and diarrhoea (28 [15%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 93 (48%) patients in the venetoclax group and 48 (50%) patients in the placebo group, with eight (4%) treatment-emergent fatal infections reported in the venetoclax group and none reported in the placebo group. Three deaths in the venetoclax group (two from pneumonia and one from septic shock) were considered treatment-related; no deaths in the placebo group were treatment-related.Interpretation: The primary endpoint was met with a significant improvement in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with venetoclax versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. However, increased mortality was seen in the venetoclax group, mostly because of an increased rate of infections, highlighting the importance of appropriate selection of patients for this treatment option.Funding: AbbVie and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]