Search

Background As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged >= 18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of beta(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1,4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15,2017,559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15.9 months (IQR 9.9-21.7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11.20 months [95% CI 9.66-13-73] vs 7.10 months [5.88-8-48]; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0-77; p

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

BACKGROUND. Although high-dose therapy is considered the standard therapy for younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM), the advantages of performing a second transplant remain debated. The current study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and the feasibility of a front-line double transplant program in young MM patients. METHODS. A total of 153 MM patients aged ≤65 years, the majority of whom had stage III disease (65%), were enrolled in a multicenter, nonrandomized, high-dose program including 2 transplants. RESULTS. The percentage of good quality responses (complete and very good partial responses) increased from an initial 33% after induction to 91% (complete response rate of 29%) after 2 transplants. However, this increase in response did not produce an advantage in either event-free survival or overall survival, even when the analysis was performed grouping patients by response. The protocol was well tolerated and no difference in transplant-related mortality was observed between the first and second transplants. A first transplant was performed in 122 of 153 patients (80%), and 65 (42% of the enrolled patients) completed the double transplant program. Reasons for not undergoing the second autologous transplant were death (n = 2 patients), insufficient peripheral blood stem cells (n = 8 patients), severe transplant-related toxicity (n = 10 patients), allotransplants (n = 9 patients), early progression after first transplant (n = 6 patients), lost to follow-up (n = 3 patients), and patient refusal (n = 19 patients). CONCLUSIONS. Considering the limited advantage of double transplants, the complexity of the program, the high percentage of dropouts, and the additional costs of a second transplant, the current study favors single transplant programs for the treatment of younger MM patients. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

Skeletal involvement is typical of multiple myeloma (MM) and its occurrence increases with the progression of the disease. We performed a study to evaluate the clinical importance of osteocalcin (bone gla-protein, BGP) and bone alkaline phosphatase (b-AP) as indices of osteoblastic activity, and deoxypyridoline (DPD) as a marker of bone resorption.Fifty-two MM patients, 39 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), and 30 normal controls entered the study. Of the 52 MM patients, 10 showed lytic lesions at standard X-rays and 42 did not; 21 were untreated and 31 had been treated with chemotherapy (combined with bisphophonates in 15). Of these last, 12 had progressive disease and 19 were in plateau phase.DPD levels were higher in MM patients than in patients with MGUS or healthy controls (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0008, respectively). No statistical differences were seen between patients with MGUS and healthy controls. BGP serum levels were significantly lower in MM patients than in MGUS patients (p = 0.001) or healthy controls (p = 0.001). b-AP was significantly higher in MGUS patients than in MM patients (p = 0.04). Biochemical parameters were analyzed in a continuous fashion and after dichotomization into low and high values with respect to normal ones. Abnormal high values of DPD showed statistically significant correlations with presence of osteolysis (p = 0.008), advanced stage (p = 0.03) and abnormal beta2-microglobulin (beta2M) values (p = 0.03), while DPD as a continuous variable correlated significantly only with the presence of osteolysis (p = 0.02). In contrast, neither BGP nor b-AP showed statistical correlations with the presence of lytic lesions, or with other clinical or laboratory parameters. In 15 patients followed with serial controls, modifications of DPD levels reflected bone disease status well. Of the 42 patients without radiologic evidence of skeletal lesions, 15 had abnormal DPD values. Spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed initial lytic lesions in 10 of them.Biochemical markers of bone metabolism are useful in evaluating and monitoring skeletal involvement in MM patients. They may help clinicians to identify: 1) from among patients without radiologic evidence of lytic lesions, those who deserve more accurate radiologic examinations (namely MRI); 2) from among asymptomatic patients, and in association with spinal MRI, those patients at higher risk of progression who might benefit from early treatment.

Background and Objectives. Standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma is debulking chemotherapy with non-alkylating agents followed by a regimen to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) and the transplantation of the mobilized, autologous PBSC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new regimen and compare it with that of a previous regimen. Design and Methods. In a large cohort of 106 patients (group I) we administered a new pre-transplant program which includes 2 courses of pulsed-VAD (vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone) followed by 2 courses of DCEP (dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cis-platinum). We compared the efficacy of this new VAD-DCEP sequence, in terms of mobilizing capacity, toxicity and anti-myeloma activity in comparison with that of the previous VAD-high-dose cyclophosphamide program (group II, 40 patients). Results. In group I 81/106 (76.4%) patients yielded ≥ 4×106/kg CD34+ cells, as did 30/40 (75%) in group II but with a significantly higher toxicity in this latter group. In detail, 9 patients in group I (8.5%) had WHO grade III neutropenia versus 35 in group II (87.5%), 5 patients of group I (4.7%) had grade III thrombocytopenia versus 12 patients in group II (30%), and 8 patients in group I (7.5%) experienced an infections fever versus 9 patients in group II (22.5%). Therefore, nearly all patients in group II had to be admitted to hospital (39/40, 97.5%). There was a higher percentage of responses (CR+VGPR+PR) in group I than in group II: 73% versus 50% (p=0.02). Interpretation and Conclusions. the VAD-DCEP sequence has an adequate mobilizing capacity, without significant toxicity, and a good anti-myeloma activity, and therefore represents a safe and effective therapeutic approach for multiple myeloma patients at the onset of their disease.