Search

This descriptive, cross-sectional analysis evaluated the impact of baseline characteristics on health-related quality of life ( HR-QoL) at different stages of multiple myeloma ( MM). The bortezomib clinical-trial programme evaluated HR-QoL early and consistently, producing a large multi-study dataset. Baseline data, captured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer ( EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire ( QLQ-C30), were pooled from six bortezomib randomized trials conducted in different disease-stage categories: 'New' (previously untreated; n = 753), 'Early' (1-3 prior therapies; n = 1569) and 'Late' (≥4 prior therapies; n = 239) disease. Mean EORTC global health scores were similar across the three stages. Unexpectedly, emotional, physical and role functioning were higher in the later stages, indicating better perceived health. Symptom scores, including pain, were largely similar or lower in the later versus earlier stages, signifying a lower symptom burden/better symptom control with more advanced disease. Notable variation in HR-QoL was observed by age and clinical parameters within and across stages. Multivariate modelling indicated that opioid use and performance status were key factors driving overall HR-QoL across stages. Using an age-restricted analysis, transplant eligibility had little impact on HR-QoL in New disease patients. Thus, changes in HR-QoL over the treatment course of MM are complex and impacted by baseline factors. A prospective observational international inception cohort study that captures key clinical, HR-QoL and demographic characteristics, along with safety and supportive care information, is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In the TOURMALINE‐MM1 phase 3 trial in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) showed different magnitudes of progression‐free survival (PFS) benefit vs placebo‐Rd according to number and type of prior therapies, with greater benefit seen in patients with >1 prior line of therapy or 1 prior line of therapy without stem cell transplantation (SCT). Methods: RNA sequencing data were used to investigate the basis of these differences. Results: The PFS benefit of IRd vs placebo‐Rd was greater in patients with tumors expressing high c‐MYC levels (median not reached vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.66; P <.001) compared with in those expressing low c‐MYC levels (median 20.6 vs 16.6 months; HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42, 1.2). Expression of c‐MYC in tumors varied based on the number and type of prior therapy received, with the lowest levels observed in tumors of patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy including SCT. These tumors also had higher expression levels of CD19 and CD81. Conclusions: PFS analyses suggest that lenalidomide and ixazomib target tumors with different levels of c‐MYC, CD19, and CD81 expression, thus providing a potential rationale for the differential benefits observed in the TOURMALINE‐MM1 study. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as: NCT01564537 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on master protocols and its concept in oncology. It mentions the demand for the innovative clinical trial design in response to the availability of advanced genomic sequencing which leads to the creation of precision oncology. An overview of the Harvard Business School (HBS) Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator is also presented.

Abstract: At clinically relevant ixazomib concentrations, in vitro studies demonstrated that no specific cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme predominantly contributes to ixazomib metabolism. However, at higher than clinical concentrations, ixazomib was metabolized by multiple CYP isoforms, with the estimated relative contribution being highest for CYP3A at 42%. This multiarm phase 1 study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01454076) investigated the effect of the strong CYP3A inhibitors ketoconazole and clarithromycin and the strong CYP3A inducer rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of ixazomib. Eighty‐eight patients were enrolled across the 3 drug‐drug interaction studies; the ixazomib toxicity profile was consistent with previous studies. Ketoconazole and clarithromycin had no clinically meaningful effects on the pharmacokinetics of ixazomib. The geometric least‐squares mean area under the plasma concentration‐time curve from 0 to 264 hours postdose ratio (90%CI) with vs without ketoconazole coadministration was 1.09 (0.91‐1.31) and was 1.11 (0.86‐1.43) with vs without clarithromycin coadministration. Reduced plasma exposures of ixazomib were observed following coadministration with rifampin. Ixazomib area under the plasma concentration‐time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration was reduced by 74% (geometric least‐squares mean ratio of 0.26 [90%CI 0.18‐0.37]), and maximum observed plasma concentration was reduced by 54% (geometric least‐squares mean ratio of 0.46 [90%CI 0.29‐0.73]) in the presence of rifampin. The clinical drug‐drug interaction study results were reconciled well by a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model that incorporated a minor contribution of CYP3A to overall ixazomib clearance and quantitatively considered the strength of induction of CYP3A and intestinal P‐glycoprotein by rifampin. On the basis of these study results, the ixazomib prescribing information recommends that patients should avoid concomitant administration of strong CYP3A inducers with ixazomib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certain cytogenetic abnormalities are known to adversely impact outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) compared with placebo-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (placebo-Rd). This preplanned analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd according to cytogenetic risk, as assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16); additionally, patients were assessed for 1q21 amplification. Of 722 randomized patients, 552 had cytogenetic results; 137 (25%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and 172 (32%) had 1q21 amplification alone. PFS was improved with IRd vs placebo-Rd in both high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.321-0.918; P = .021), with median PFS of 21.4 vs 9.7 months; in standard-risk patients, HR was 0.640 (95%CI, 0.462- 0.888; P = .007), with median PFS of 20.6 vs 15.6 months. This PFS benefit was consistent across subgroups with individual high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, including patients with del(17p) (HR, 0.596; 95% CI, 0.286-1.243). PFS was also longer with IRd vs placebo-Rd in patients with 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.492-1.240), and in the "expanded high-risk" group, defined as those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or 1q21 amplification (HR, 0.664; 95% CI, 0.474-0.928). IRd demonstrated substantial benefit compared with placebo-Rd in relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics, and improves the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This population analysis described the pharmacokinetics of bortezomib after twice-weekly, repeat-dose, intravenous administration in pediatric patients participating in 2 clinical trials: the phase 2 AALL07P1 (NCT00873093) trial in relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia and the phase 3 AAML1031 (NCT01371981) trial in de novo acute myelogenous leukemia. The sources of variability in the pharmacokinetic parameters were characterized and quantified to support dosing recommendations. Patients received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly, on days 1, 4, and 8 during specific blocks or cycles of both trials and on day 11 of block 1 of study AALL07P1, in combination with multiagent chemotherapy. Blood samples were obtained and the plasma was harvested on day 8 over 0-72 hours postdose to measure bortezomib concentrations by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Concentration-time data were analyzed by nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Covariates were examined using forward addition ( P < .01)/backward elimination ( P < .001). Data were included from 104 patients (49%/51% acute lymphoblastic leukemia/acute myelogenous leukemia; 60%/40% aged 2-11 years/12-16 years). Bortezomib pharmacokinetics were described by a 3-compartment model with linear elimination. Body surface area adequately accounted for variability in clearance (exponent 0.97), supporting body surface area-based dosing. Stratified visual predictive check simulations verified that neither age group nor patient population represented sources of meaningful pharmacokinetic heterogeneity not accounted for by the final population pharmacokinetic model. Following administration of 1.3 mg/m2 intravenous bortezomib doses, body surface area-normalized clearance in pediatric patients was similar to that observed in adult patients, thereby indicating that this dose achieves similar systemic exposures in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is approved in the United States, European Union and other countries, in combination with oral lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on the global, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III TOURMALINE- MM1 study of ixazomib-Rd ( IRd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. IRd resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-Rd (median: 20·6 vs. 14·7 months; hazard ratio 0·74). Common toxicities observed more commonly with IRd versus placebo-Rd were thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, rash, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral oedema and back pain; these were generally grade 1/2 in severity except for thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 9% grade 3/4), which appeared manageable and reversible, with no differences between arms in significant bleeding or dose discontinuations. No cumulative toxicities were observed, indicating the potential feasibility of long-term IRd treatment. Safety data from TOURMALINE- MM1 are reviewed and guidance for managing clinically relevant adverse events associated with IRd is provided. Most toxicities were manageable with supportive care and dose delays or reductions as needed. Clinicians should be aware of and understand these potential side effects to optimise and prolong patient benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective analysis aimed to establish the overall cardiac safety profile of bortezomib using patient-level data from one phase 2 and seven phase 3 studies in previously untreated and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma ( MM). Seven clinically relevant primary [congestive heart failure ( CHF), arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease ( IHD), cardiac death] and secondary (hypertension, dyspnoea, oedema) cardiac endpoints were defined based on Med DRA v16.0 preferred terms. 2509 bortezomib-treated patients and 1445 patients in non-bortezomib-based control arms were included. The incidence of grade ≥3 CHF was 1·3-4·0% in studies in relapsed/refractory MM and 1·2-4·7% in previously untreated MM (2·0-7·6% all grades), with no significant differences between bortezomib- and non-bortezomib-based arms in comparative studies. Incidences of arrhythmias (1·3-5·9% grade ≥2; 0·6-4·1% grade ≥3), IHD (1·2-2·9% all grades; 0·4-2·7% grade ≥3) and cardiac death (0-1·4%) were low, with no differences between bortezomib-based and non-bortezomib-based arms. Higher rates of oedema (mostly grade 1/2) were seen in bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based arms in one study and a pooled transplant study analysis. Logistic regression analyses of comparative studies showed no impact on cardiac risk with bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based treatment. Bortezomib-based treatment was associated with low incidences of cardiac events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) is a standard-of-care for previously untreated, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (MM). Here, we compared outcomes between VMP regimens in the VISTA trial (9-cycle VMP schedule, including 4 cycles of twice weekly bortezomib) and the PETHEMA/GEM05 trial (less intensive 6-cycle VMP schedule with 1 cycle of twice weekly and 5 cycles of weekly bortezomib, then bortezomib-based maintenance). A total of 113 patient pairs matched by propensity score (estimated using logistic regression and incorporating eight exposure/outcome-related parameters) were included in this retrospective analysis. Median cumulative bortezomib dose was higher in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (49.6 vs 37.0 mg/m2); median dose intensity was lower (2.0 vs 5.1 mg/m2/month). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP) were significantly longer in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (PFS, 30.5 vs 20.0 months, p = 0.0265; TTP, 33.8 vs 24.2 months, p = 0.0049) after a median follow-up of 77.2 and 26.0 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was similar (61.3 vs 61.0 months, p = 0.6528; median follow-up, 77.6 vs 60.1 months). Post-induction complete response rate was lower in PETHEMA/GEM05 than VISTA (19 vs 31 %; p = 0.03318); on-study (including maintenance) rate was similar (30 vs 31 %; p = 0.89437). This analysis suggests that the less-intensive PETHEMA/GEM05 VMP regimen plus maintenance may improve PFS and TTP, but not OS, compared with the VISTA VMP regimen.Trial Registrations: NCT00111319, NCT00443235. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Proteasome inhibitors have revolutionized outcomes in multiple myeloma, but they are used empirically, and primary and secondary resistance are emerging problems. We have identified TJP1 as a determinant of plasma cell proteasome inhibitor susceptibility. TJP1 suppressed expression of the catalytically active immunoproteasome subunits LMP7 and LMP2, decreased proteasome activity, and enhanced proteasome inhibitor sensitivity in vitro and in vivo. This occurred through TJP1-mediated suppression of EGFR/JAK1/STAT3 signaling, which modulated LMP7 and LMP2 levels. In the clinic, high TJP1 expression in patient myeloma cells was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of responding to bortezomib and a longer response duration, supporting the use of TJP1 as a biomarker to identify patients most likely to benefit from proteasome inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This population pharmacokinetic analysis of the investigational oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib assessed the feasibility of switching from body surface area ( BSA)-based to fixed dosing, and the impact of baseline covariates on ixazomib pharmacokinetics. Methods Data were pooled from 226 adult patients with multiple myeloma, lymphoma or solid tumours in four phase 1 studies, in which ixazomib dosing (oral/intravenous, once/twice weekly) was based on BSA. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was undertaken using nonmem version 7.2. Results Ixazomib pharmacokinetics were well described by a three compartment model with first order absorption and linear elimination. Ixazomib was absorbed rapidly ( Ka 0.5 h−1), with dose- and time-independent pharmacokinetics. Estimated absolute bioavailability and clearance were 60% and 2 l h−1, respectively. Although a small effect of BSA (range 1.3-2.6 m2) was observed on the peripheral volume of distribution ( V4), reducing the corresponding inter-individual variability by 12.9%, there was no relationship between BSA and ixazomib clearance (the parameter that dictates total systemic exposure following fixed dosing). Consistently, based on simulations ( n = 1000), median AUCs (including interquartile range) were similar after BSA-based (2.23 mg m−2) and fixed (4 mg) oral dosing with no trend in simulated AUC vs. BSA for fixed dosing ( P = 0.42). No other covariates, including creatinine clearance (22-213.7 ml min−1) and age (23-86 years), influenced ixazomib pharmacokinetics. Conclusions This analysis supports a switch from BSA-based to fixed dosing, without dose modification for mild/moderate renal impairment or age, in future adult studies of ixazomib, simplifying dosing guidance and clinical development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CAN2007 was a phase 1/2 study of once- and twice-weekly single-agent bortezomib in relapsed primary systemic amyloid light chain amyloidosis (AL) amyloidosis. Seventy patients were treated, including 18 and 34 patients at the maximum planned doses on the once- and twice-weekly schedules. This prespecified final analysis provides mature response and long-term outcomes data after 3-year additional follow-up since the last report. In the once-weekly 1.6 mg/m(2) and twice-weekly 1.3 mg/m(2) bortezomib groups, final hematologic response rates were 68.8% and 66.7%; 80% of patients in each group sustained their response for ⩾1 year. One-year progression-free rates were 72.2% and 76.8%. Median overall survival (OS) was 62.1 months and not reached; 4-year OS rates were 75.0% and 63.0%. Low baseline difference in κ/λ free light-chain level was associated with higher hematologic complete response rates and longer OS. At data cutoff, 40 (57%) patients had received subsequent therapy, including 19 (27%) retreated with bortezomib, 11 (58%) of whom achieved complete or partial hematologic responses. Four patients received prolonged bortezomib for between 3.5 and 5.6 years, with no new safety concerns, highlighting the feasibility of long-term therapy. Single-agent bortezomib produced durable hematologic responses and promising long-term OS in relapsed AL amyloidosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This non-comparative phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00715208) evaluated bortezomib in place of vincristine in established rituximab-chemotherapy regimens in relapsed/refractory follicular (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Patients were allocated (physician/patient preference) to receive six 21-d cycles of: bortezomib 1·6 mg/m2 (days 1, 8), rituximab 375 mg/m2 (day 1), cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 (day 1) and prednisone 100 mg (days 1–5; VR-CP; 47 FL, 1 MZL patients); or bortezomib, rituximab, prednisone per VR-CP, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 (day 1; VR-CAP; 4 FL, 2 MZL, 1 chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients). With VR-CP, the response rate was 77%, with a 27% complete response rate. After a median follow-up of 10·9 months, 40% of patients had relapsed/progressed or died. Median duration of response and progression-free survival was 21·9 and 14·9 months, respectively. Common drug-related grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (6%) and lymphopenia (6%). Thirteen (27%) patients reported peripheral neuropathy (one grade 3). With VR-CAP, one FL patient achieved complete response and three FL and two MZL patients achieved partial responses. Three patients reported drug-related grade 1/2 peripheral neuropathy. Weekly bortezomib and rituximab represents an active, feasible treatment platform in FL. VR-CP was active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory FL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This non‐comparative phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00715208) evaluated bortezomib in place of vincristine in established rituximab‐chemotherapy regimens in relapsed/refractory follicular (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Patients were allocated (physician/patient preference) to receive six 21‐d cycles of: bortezomib 1·6 mg/m2 (days 1, 8), rituximab 375 mg/m2 (day 1), cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 (day 1) and prednisone 100 mg (days 1–5; VR‐CP; 47 FL, 1 MZL patients); or bortezomib, rituximab, prednisone per VR‐CP, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 (day 1; VR‐CAP; 4 FL, 2 MZL, 1 chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients). With VR‐CP, the response rate was 77%, with a 27% complete response rate. After a median follow‐up of 10·9 months, 40% of patients had relapsed/progressed or died. Median duration of response and progression‐free survival was 21·9 and 14·9 months, respectively. Common drug‐related grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (6%) and lymphopenia (6%). Thirteen (27%) patients reported peripheral neuropathy (one grade 3). With VR‐CAP, one FL patient achieved complete response and three FL and two MZL patients achieved partial responses. Three patients reported drug‐related grade 1/2 peripheral neuropathy. Weekly bortezomib and rituximab represents an active, feasible treatment platform in FL. VR‐CP was active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory FL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving bortezomib-based therapy has not been well studied. We reviewed data from two phase II trials in which bortezomib was administered to 236 patients, median age 65 years, with relapsed/refractory mantle cell or indolent NHL. HZ occurred in 24 patients (10.2%) overall, with a comparable incidence in NHL histologic subgroups. Median time to HZ was 39 (range, 11-206) days. In total, 71% of patients who developed HZ were aged ≥ 65 years, compared to 48% without HZ ( p = 0.03). Patients with HZ were more likely to have had received ≥ 2 lines of therapy (63% vs. 47%, p = 0.16). Six (25%) of the patients who developed HZ had received purine analogs, compared with 34 (16%) patients without HZ ( p = 0.27). As the occurrence of HZ may complicate the course of indolent or mantle cell NHL in patients receiving bortezomib-based therapies, these patients, especially the elderly, should be strongly considered for antiviral prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients and Methods Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN- 1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥ 18 (MMY- 3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021 ) or ≥ 1 (CAN- 1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. Results Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUClast): 155 vs. 151 ng⋅h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0,992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUClast: 195 vs. 241 ng⋅h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (Cmax) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to Cmax (tmax) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (Emax) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %⋅h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %⋅h in CAN-1004. Time to Emax was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. Conclusion Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variations within proteasome β (PSMB) genes, which encode the β subunits of the 20S proteasome, may affect proteasome function, assembly, and/or binding of proteasome inhibitors. To investigate the potential association between PSMB gene variants and treatment-emergent resistance to bortezomib and/or long-term outcomes, in the present study, PSMB gene sequence variation was characterized in tumor DNA samples from patients who participated in the phase 3 Assess ment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) study of bortezomib versus high-dose dexamethasone for treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. Twelve new PSMB variants were identified. No associations were found between PSMB single nucleotide polymorphism genotype frequency and clinical response to bortezomib or dexamethasone treatment or between PSMB single nucleotide polymorphism allelic frequency and pooled overall survival or time to progression. Although specific PSMB5 variants have been identified previously in preclinical models of bortezomib resistance, these variants were not detected in patient tumor samples collected after clinical relapse from bortezomib, which suggests that alternative mechanisms underlie bortezomib insensi-tivity [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The phase 3 VISTA study ( NCT00111319) in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients demonstrated superior efficacy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone ( VMP; nine 6-wk cycles) vs. melphalan-prednisone ( MP) but also increased toxicity. Health-related quality of life ( HRQoL; exploratory endpoint) was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer ( EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire ( QLQ-C30). The phase 3 VISTA study ( NCT00111319) in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients demonstrated superior efficacy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone ( VMP; nine 6-wk cycles) vs. melphalan-prednisone ( MP) but also increased toxicity. Health-related quality of life ( HRQoL; exploratory endpoint) was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer ( EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire ( QLQ-C30). Methods EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at screening, on day 1 of each cycle, at the end-of-treatment visit, and every 8 wk until progression. EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were evaluated among patients with a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline HRQoL assessment. Results At baseline, domain scores were similar between arms. By cycle 4, mean differences were clinically meaningful for most domains, indicating poorer health status with VMP. From cycle 5 onwards, improvements relative to baseline/ MP were observed for all domains with VMP. Mean scores were generally improved by the end-of-treatment assessment vs. baseline in both arms. Among responding patients, mean scores generally improved from time of response to end-of-treatment assessment, substantially driven by patients achieving complete response ( CR). Multivariate analysis showed a significant impact of duration of response/ CR on improving global health status, pain, and appetite loss scores. Analyses by bortezomib dose intensity indicated better HRQoL in patients receiving lower dose intensity. Conclusions These findings demonstrate clinically meaningful, transitory HRQoL decrements with VMP and relatively lower HRQoL vs. MP during early treatment cycles, associated with the expected additional toxicities. However, HRQoL is not compromised in the long term, recovering by the end-of-treatment visit to be comparable vs. MP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥ 3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria). Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2.5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. Results: 103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%). Conclusions: High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Bortezomib and rituximab have shown additive activity in preclinical models of lymphoma, and have been shown to be active and generally well tolerated in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of rituximab alone or combined with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 3 setting. Methods: In this multicentre phase 3 trial, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive five 35-day cycles consisting of intravenous infusions of rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of cycles 2–5, either alone or with bortezomib 1·6 mg/m2, administered by intravenous injection on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of all cycles. Randomisation was stratified by FLIPI score, previous use of rituximab, time since last therapy, and region. Treatment assignment was based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed by intention to treat. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312845. Findings: Between April 10, 2006, and Aug 12, 2008, 676 patients were randomised to receive rituximab (n=340) or bortezomib plus rituximab (n=336). After a median follow-up of 33·9 months (IQR 26·4–39·7), median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·1–12·0) in the rituximab group and 12·8 months (11·5–15·0) in the bortezomib plus rituximab group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·68–0·99; p=0·039). The magnitude of clinical benefit was not as large as the anticipated prespecified improvement of 33% in progression-free survival. Patients in both groups received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1–5); 245 of 339 (72%) and 237 of 334 (71%) patients in the rituximab and bortezomib plus rituximab groups, respectively, completed five cycles. Of patients who did not complete five cycles, most discontinued early because of disease progression (77 [23%] patients in the rituximab group, and 56 [17%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group). Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (70 [21%] of 339 rituximab-treated patients vs 152 [46%] of 334 bortezomib plus rituximab treated patients), and serious adverse events (37 [11%] patients vs 59 [18%] patients) were lower in the rituximab group than in the combination group. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (15 [4%] patients in the rituximab group and 37 [11%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group), infection (15 [4%] patients and 36 [11%] patients, respectively), diarrhoea (no patients and 25 [7%] patients, respectively), herpes zoster (one [<1%] patient and 12 [4%] patients, respectively), nausea or vomiting (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively). No individual serious adverse event was reported by more than three patients in the rituximab group; in the bortezomib plus rituximab group, only pneumonia (seven patients [2%]) and pyrexia (six patients [2%]) were reported in more than five patients. In the bortezomib plus rituximab group 57 (17%) of 334 patients had peripheral neuropathy (including sensory, motor, and sensorimotor neuropathy), including nine (3%) with grade 3 or higher, compared with three (1%) of 339 patients in the rituximab group (no events of grade ≥3). No patients in the rituximab group but three (1%) patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group died of adverse events considered at least possibly related to treatment. Interpretation: Although a regimen of bortezomib plus rituximab is feasible, the improvement in progression-free survival provided by this regimen versus rituximab alone was not as great as expected. The regimen might represent a useful addition to the armamentarium, particularly for some subgroups of patients. Funding: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This phase 1/2 trial evaluated combination lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (RVDD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients received RVDD at 4 dose levels, including the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Patients with a very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) after cycle 4 proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation or continued treatment. The primary objectives were MTD evaluation and response to RVDD after 4 and 8 cycles. Seventy-two patients received a median of 4.5 cycles. The MTDs were lenalidomide 25 mg, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m², pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m², and dexamethasone 20/10 mg, as established with 3-week cycles. The most common adverse events were fatigue, constipation, sensory neuropathy, and infection; there was no treatment-related mortality. Response rates after 4 and 8 cycles were 96% and 95% partial response or better, 57% and 65% ≥ VGPR, and 29% and 35% complete or near-complete response, respectively. After a median follow-up of 15.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The estimated 18-month PFS and OS were 80.8% and 98.6%, respectively. RVDD was generally well tolerated and highly active, warranting further study in newly diagnosed MM patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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/m2 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/m2, 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Bone disease is a key presenting feature of myeloma. This post hoc analysis of the phase III VISTA trial of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs. MP in previously untreated myeloma patients assessed clinical bone disease events and changes in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), a marker for osteoblast activation, and serum Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), an inhibitor of osteoblast differentiation, during treatment. Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m, days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9 mg/m and prednisone 60 mg/m, days 1-4, cycles 1-9; N = 344) or MP alone ( N = 338). Rates of bisphosphonates use during treatment (73% vs. 82%), progression because of worsening bone disease (3% vs. 11%), and requirement for subsequent radiotherapy (3% vs. 8%) were lower with VMP vs. MP. Median maximum ALP increase was significantly higher with VMP vs. MP overall (49.7% vs. 30.3%, P = 0.029), and higher by response group (complete response [CR]: 68.7% vs. 43.9%; partial response [PR]: 41.5% vs. 31.2%). Greater maximum ALP increase was strongly associated with achievement of CR ( P ≤ 0.0001) and CR/PR ( P ≤ 0.01). Median DKK-1 decreased with VMP by 694.4 pg/mL and increased with MP by 1273.3 pg/mL from baseline to day 4 ( P = 0.0069). Available radiologic data revealed evidence of bone healing in 6/11 VMP-treated patients, who achieved best responses of three CR, one PR, and two stable disease. These results suggest a positive effect of bortezomib on bone metabolism and potentially bone healing in myeloma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although haematological toxicities, such as anaemia, are common in multiple myeloma (MM), no clear consensus exists on the use and impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) on outcomes in MM. This analysis characterizes haematological toxicities and associated interventions in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone) study of bortezomib plus melphalan/prednisone (VMP, n = 344) versus MP ( n = 338) in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for high-dose therapy, and evaluates the impact of ESA use or red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusions on outcomes and thromboembolic risk. Incidence of haematological toxicities was similar with VMP and MP; similar rates of interventions and associated complications (e.g. bleeding, febrile neutropenia) were observed. Two hundred thirty three patients received ESA; 204 had RBC transfusions. Frequency of thromboembolic events was low and not affected by ESA use. Median time-to progression (TTP) was similar between ESA/non-ESA [hazard ratio: 1·03 (95% confidence interval 0·76-1·39); P = 0·8478] in both arms (VMP: 19·9/not reached; MP: 15·0/17·5 months). Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were similar between ESA/non-ESA in each arm. Patients receiving RBC transfusions had significantly shorter OS ( P < 0·0001) versus non-RBC-transfusion patients. In conclusion, bortezomib did not add to melphalan haematological toxicity. Concomitant ESA use with VMP/MP in previously untreated MM patients did not adversely affect TTP or OS, or increase thromboembolic risk. However, RBC transfusion was associated with significantly shorter survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m, days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, and days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9; melphalan 9 mg/m, days 1-4, cycles 1-9; and prednisone 60 mg/m, days 1-4, cycles 1-9). Overall, 47% of patients receiving VMP developed PN, including 19% grade 2 and 13% grade ≥3 (<1% grade 4). The PN incidence was dose-related and reached a plateau at a cumulative bortezomib dose of approximately 45 mg/m. Median time to PN onset was 2.3 months. Bortezomib-associated PN was reversible; 79% of events improved by at least one NCI CTCAE grade within a median of 1.9 months and 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months, with reversibility similar in responding and non-responding patients. By multivariate analysis, baseline neuropathy was the only consistent risk factor for any PN [hazard ratio (HR) 1.785, P = 0.0065], grade ≥2 PN (HR 2.205, P = 0.0032), and grade ≥3 PN (HR 2.438, P = 0.023); age, pre-existing diabetes, International Staging System stage, obesity, and creatinine clearance did not affect the overall rate of PN. Rates of bortezomib-induced PN in the frontline setting were similar to those in relapsed patients and resolved in most cases. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00111319). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The frequency, characteristics and reversibility of bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy were evaluated in the phase III APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions) trial in patients with relapsed myeloma, and the impact of a dose-modification guideline on peripheral neuropathy severity and reversibility was assessed. Patients received bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4, 8, 11, eight 21-d cycles, then days 1, 8, 15, 22, three 35-d cycles); bortezomib was held, dose-reduced or discontinued depending on peripheral neuropathy severity, according to a protocol-specified dose-modification guideline. Overall, 124/331 patients (37%) had treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy, including 30 (9%) with grade ≥3; incidence and severity were not affected by age, number/type of prior therapies, baseline glycosylated haemoglobin level, or diabetes history. Grade ≥3 incidence appeared lower versus phase II trials (13%) that did not specifically provide dose-modification guidelines. Of patients with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy, 58/91 (64%) experienced improvement or resolution to baseline at a median of 110 d, including 49/72 (68%) who had dose modification versus 9/19 (47%) who did not. Efficacy did not appear adversely affected by dose modification for grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy. Bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy is manageable and reversible in most patients with relapsed myeloma. Dose modification using a specific guideline improves peripheral neuropathy management without adversely affecting outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Clinical Response and Efficacy Study of Bortezomib in the Treatment of Relapsing Multiple Myeloma (CREST) demonstrated substantial activity with two dose levels of bortezomib (1·0 and 1·3 mg/m2), alone or with dexamethasone, in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We present updated survival analyses after prolonged follow-up (median >5 years). One- and 5-year survival rates were 82% and 32%, respectively, in the 1·0 mg/m2 group ( n = 28), and 81% and 45%, respectively, in the 1·3 mg/m2 group ( n = 26). Notable survival, response, and time-to-progression data suggest that a bortezomib starting dose of 1·3 mg/m2 is preferred. If bortezomib dose reduction is required, the 1·0 mg/m2 dose still offers patients a substantial survival benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Haematological toxicities and thromboembolic (TE) events are common complications of myeloma therapy. TE risk may be elevated with combination regimens, notably thalidomide/lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone; concomitant erythropoietin appears to further increase the risk with lenalidomide–dexamethasone. We characterised thrombocytopenia and neutropenia in the phase 3 APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions) study of bortezomib versus high-dose dexamethasone in relapsed myeloma, and calculated the incidences of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE) with: bortezomib or dexamethasone ± erythropoietin in APEX; bortezomib ± dexamethasone ± erythropoietin in two phase 2 studies of relapsed/refractory myeloma. Bortezomib-associated thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were transient, predictable and manageable; mean platelet and neutrophil counts followed a cyclical pattern, and improved over the treatment course. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia incidence was higher with bortezomib versus dexamethasone (26%/4% vs. 5%/1%), but significant bleeding events were comparable (4% vs. 5%). DVT/PE incidence was low (≤3·1%) in all analyses; addition of dexamethasone/erythropoietin did not affect TE risk. In APEX, TE risk appeared lower with bortezomib versus dexamethasone. Bortezomib caused transient and cyclical thrombocytopenia and was not associated with elevated TE risk, alone or with dexamethasone ± erythropoietin. Preliminary data suggest bortezomib may reduce the thrombogenic potential of combination regimens via inhibition of platelet function or other mechanism-specific effects on coagulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality of response is associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. This cohort study within the phase 3 Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) trial of bortezomib versus dexamethasone in relapsed myeloma assessed the relationship between quality of response to bortezomib ( n = 315) and clinical benefit. Treatment-free interval (TFI), time to alternative therapy (TTAT), time to progression (TTP) and OS were assessed in response-evaluable patients in the bortezomib arm in cohorts defined by achievement of complete response (CR; n = 27), very good partial response (VGPR; n = 31), partial response (PR; n = 77), minimal response (MR; n = 21) or non-response (NR, including stable and progressive disease; n = 159). CR was associated with significantly longer median TFI (24·1 vs. 6·9/6·4 months) and TTAT (27·1 vs. 13·6/14 months) versus VGPR/PR. Median TTP was similar in CR, VGPR and PR cohorts; median OS was not reached. Patients achieving MR appeared to have prolonged median TFI (3·8 vs. 2·3 months), TTAT (8·7 vs. 6·2 months), TTP (4·9 vs. 2·8 months) and OS (24·9 vs. 18·7 months) versus NR. In conclusion, bortezomib had substantial activity in relapsed myeloma patients; CR may be a surrogate marker for significant clinical benefit with bortezomib. MR appeared to be valid as a separate response category in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAD) was evaluated as induction before stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, using bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 (PAD1, N = 21) or 1·0 mg/m2 (PAD2, N = 20). Complete/very good partial response rates with PAD1/PAD2 were 62%/42% postinduction and 81%/53% post-transplant. Progression-free survival (29 vs. 24 months), time to re-treatment (36 vs. 29 months) and overall survival (1 year: 100% vs. 95%; 2 years: 95% vs. 73%) were statistically similar but favoured PAD1 versus PAD2. Toxicity was lower in PAD2; bortezomib dose reduction may help manage toxicities while retaining efficacy. PAD is highly active as front-line induction in MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bortezomib (formerly PS-341) has significant activity in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), its efficacy is increased with the addition of dexamethasone and it demonstrates synergy with doxorubicin, thus providing the rationale for combination therapy with bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAD). Patients with untreated MM received four 21-d cycles of PAD, comprising bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, along with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, 8–11 and 15–18 during cycle 1 and days 1–4 during cycles 2–4. During days 1–4, patients also received 0, 4·5 or 9 mg/m2 of doxorubicin at dose levels 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Following peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection, patients received high-dose melphalan (MEL200) with PBSC transplantation (PBSCT). After PAD induction alone, 20 of 21 patients (95%) achieved at least a partial response (PR), including complete response (CR) in five patients (24%). Twenty of 21 had PBSC mobilized, and 18 of 20 received MEL200/PBSCT. In an intention-to-treat analysis, response rates were: CR 43%, near CR 14%, very good PR 24%, PR 14% and stable disease 5%. PAD was effective, did not prejudice subsequent PBSC collection, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bortezomib, a boronic acid dipeptide, is a novel proteasome inhibitor that has been shown in preclinical and phase 1 studies to have antimyeloma activity. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, phase 2 trial, we enrolled 202 patients with relapsed myeloma that was refractory to the therapy they had received most recently. Patients received 1.3 mg of bortezomib per square meter of body-surface area twice weekly for 2 weeks, followed by 1 week without treatment, for up to eight cycles (24 weeks). In patients with a suboptimal response, oral dexamethasone (20 mg daily, on the day of and the day after bortezomib administration) was added to the regimen. The response was evaluated according to the criteria of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and confirmed by an independent review committee. Results: Of 193 patients who could be evaluated, 92 percent had been treated with three or more of the major classes of agents for myeloma, and in 91 percent, the myeloma was refractory to the therapy received most recently. The rate of response to bortezomib was 35 percent, and those with a response included 7 patients in whom myeloma protein became undetectable and 12 in whom myeloma protein was detectable only by immunofixation. The median overall survival was 16 months, with a median duration of response of 12 months. Grade 3 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (in 28 percent of patients), fatigue (in 12 percent), peripheral neuropathy (in 12 percent), and neutropenia (in 11 percent). Grade 4 events occurred in 14 percent of patients. Conclusions: Bortezomib, a member of a new class of anticancer drugs, is active in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma that is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2609-17. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]