Proteomic markers with prognostic impact on outcome of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients under chemo-immunotherapy: results from the HOVON 109 study.

Despite recent identification of several prognostic markers, there is still a need for new prognostic parameters able to predict clinical outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Here, we aimed to validate the prognostic ability of known (proteomic) markers measured pretreatment and to search for new proteomic markers that might be related to treatment response in CLL. To this end, baseline serum samples of 51 CLL patients treated with chemo-immunotherapy were analyzed for 360 proteomic markers, using Olink technology. Median event-free survival (EFS) was 23 months (range: 1.25-60.9). Patients with high levels of sCD23 (>11.27, p = 0.026), sCD27 (>11.03, p = 0.04), SPINT1 (>1.6, p = 0.001), and LY9 (>8.22, p = 0.0003) had a shorter EFS than those with marker levels below the median. The effect of sCD23 on EFS differed between immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene-mutated and unmutated patients, with the shortest EFS for unmutated CLL patients with sCD23 levels above the median. Taken together, our results validate the prognostic impact of sCD23 and highlight SPINT1 and LY9 as possible promising markers for treatment response in CLL patients.

Feasibility and efficacy of addition of individualized-dose lenalidomide to chlorambucil and rituximab as first-line treatment in elderly and FCR-unfit patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Lenalidomide has been proven to be effective but with a distinct and difficult to manage toxicity profile in the context of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, potentially hampering combination treatment with this drug. We conducted a phase 1-2 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of six cycles of chlorambucil (7 mg/m2 daily), rituximab (375 mg/m2 cycle 1 and 500 mg/m2 cycles 2-6) and individually-dosed lenalidomide (escalated from 2.5 mg to 10 mg) (induction-I) in first-line treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia unfit for treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab. This was followed by 6 months of 10 mg lenalidomide monotherapy (induction-II). Of 53 evaluable patients in phase 2 of the study, 47 (89%) completed induction-I and 36 (68%) completed induction-II. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 83%. The median progression-free survival was 49 months, after a median follow-up time of 27 months. The 2- and 3-year progression-free survival rates were 58% and 54%, respectively. The corresponding rates for overall survival were 98% and 95%. No tumor lysis syndrome was observed, while tumor flair reaction occurred in five patients (9%, 1 grade 3). The most common hematologic toxicity was grade 3-4 neutropenia, which occurred in 73% of the patients. In conclusion, addition of lenalidomide to a chemotherapy backbone followed by a fixed duration of lenalidomide monotherapy resulted in high remission rates and progression-free survival rates, which seem comparable to those observed with novel drug combinations including novel CD20 monoclonal antibodies or kinase inhibitors. Although lenalidomide-specific toxicity remains a concern, an individualized dose-escalation schedule is feasible and results in an acceptable toxicity profile. EuraCT number: 2010-022294-34.

Treatment of secondary central nervous system lymphoma with intrathecal rituximab, high-dose methotrexate, and R-DHAP followed by autologous stem cell transplantation: results of the HOVON 80 phase 2 study.

The prognosis of central nervous system (CNS) relapse of systemic non-Hodgkin lymphoma is poor with 1-year survival historically at 0% to 20%. Aiming to improve these results, we performed a multicenter phase 2 study in patients with a CNS relapse, with or without concurrent systemic relapse. Treatment consisted of 2 cycles of R-DHAP alternating with high-dose methotrexate (MTX) and was combined with intrathecal rituximab. Responding patients received a third R-DHAP-MTX cycle followed by busulfan and cyclophosphamide myeloablative therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. In patients with persistent cerebrospinal fluid lymphoma after cycle 1, the intrathecal rituximab was replaced by intrathecal triple therapy, with MTX, cytarabine, and dexamethasone. Thirty-six patients were included. Eighteen had evidence of cerebrospinal fluid lymphoma, 24 had brain parenchymal disease, and 20 (56%) had concurrent systemic disease. The overall response rate after 2 R-DHAP-MTX was 53% (19/36), with 22% (8/36) complete remission. Fifteen patients (42%) underwent a transplant. One-year progression-free survival was 19% (95% confidence interval, 9-34): 25% in patients without and 15% in patients with systemic disease. One-year overall survival was 25% (95% confidence interval, 12-40). This treatment regimen did not result in a major improvement of outcome of secondary CNS lymphoma, especially when concurrent systemic disease was present. Registered in the Dutch trial register www.trialregister.nl, NTR1757; EudraCT number 2006-002141-37.

Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether bortezomib during induction and maintenance improves survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 827 eligible patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) or bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD) followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stem-cell transplantation. Maintenance consisted of thalidomide 50 mg (VAD) once per day or bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) (PAD) once every 2 weeks for 2 years. The primary analysis was progression-free survival (PFS) adjusted for International Staging System (ISS) stage. RESULTS: Complete response (CR), including near CR, was superior after PAD induction (15% v 31%; P < .001) and bortezomib maintenance (34% v 49%; P < .001). After a median follow-up of 41 months, PFS was superior in the PAD arm (median of 28 months v 35 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.90; P = .002). In multivariate analysis, overall survival (OS) was better in the PAD arm (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.00; P = .049). In high-risk patients presenting with increased creatinine more than 2 mg/dL, bortezomib significantly improved PFS from a median of 13 months to 30 months (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.78; P = .004) and OS from a median of 21 months to 54 months (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.65; P < .001). A benefit was also observed in patients with deletion 17p13 (median PFS, 12 v 22 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.86; P = .01; median OS, 24 months v not reached at 54 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.74; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Bortezomib during induction and maintenance improves CR and achieves superior PFS and OS.

Cytarabine dose for acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Cytarabine (ara-C) is an important drug in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). High-dose cytarabine (2000 to 3000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) is toxic but results in higher rates of relapse-free survival than does the conventional dose of 100 to 400 mg per square meter. Intermediate dose levels have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: We compared two induction regimens in patients 18 to 60 years of age (median, 49) who had newly diagnosed AML. The intermediate-dose group, totaling 431 patients, received cytarabine at a dose of 200 mg per square meter given by continuous intravenous infusion for 24 hours during cycle 1 of induction therapy and 1000 mg per square meter by infusion for 3 hours twice daily during cycle 2 of induction therapy. The high-dose group, totaling 429 patients, received a dose-escalated regimen of 1000 mg of cytarabine per square meter every 12 hours in cycle 1 and 2000 mg per square meter twice daily in cycle 2. Patients with a complete response did not receive additional cytarabine but received consolidation therapy in a third cycle of chemotherapy (mitoxantrone-etoposide) or underwent autologous or allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Complete remission rates, survival rates, and toxic effects were assessed for each treatment group. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 5 years, no significant differences were noted between the intermediate-dose group and the high-dose group with respect to complete remission rates (80% and 82%, respectively), probability of relapse, event-free survival at 5 years (34% and 35%), or overall survival (40% and 42%). High-dose cytarabine provided no clear advantage in any prognostic subgroup. The high-dose treatment resulted in higher incidences of grade 3 and grade 4 toxic effects (in cycle 1), prolonged hospitalization, and delayed neutrophil recovery (in cycle 2) and platelet recovery (in cycles 2 and 3). CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with cytarabine at the lower dose already produced maximal antileukemic effects for all response end points, suggesting a plateau in the dose-response relationship above this dose level. High-dose cytarabine results in excessive toxic effects without therapeutic benefit. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR230.).

Analysis of efficacy and prognostic factors of lenalidomide treatment as part of a Dutch compassionate use program.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: To obtain efficacy and safety data on lenalidomide treatment outside of clinical trials, we analyzed the clinical data of 114 patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide on a compassionate use basis. The recommended treatment consisted of lenalidomide 25 mg given on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle, in combination with dexamethasone. A median of 3 previous lines of therapy were given, including thalidomide in 91%. Most patients were treated until progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: The median number of cycles was 7 (range, 1-21+ cycles) with a maximum response after a median of 3 cycles (range, 1-10 cycles). The overall response rate was 69%, including complete response in 6%, very good partial response in 19%, and partial response in 44%. The response rate was not influenced by previous thalidomide and/or bortezomib treatment. The median time to progression (TTP) was 9 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 22 months. A significantly longer TTP was observed in patients who previously underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (12.5 months vs. 8 months; P = .036). Overall survival was significantly affected by performance status (P < .0001). Lenalidomide toxicity was predominantly hematologic (37%; Common Toxicity Criteria > or = 3) and the incidence of venous thrombotic events was low (5%) using the recommended prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms that, outside clinical prospective trials, treatment with lenalidomide is highly effective and feasible in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma.

Myeloablative allogeneic versus autologous stem cell transplantation in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission: a prospective sibling donor versus no-donor comparison.

While commonly accepted in poor-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) is still disputed in adult patients with standard-risk ALL. We evaluated outcome of patients with ALL in first complete remission (CR1), according to a sibling donor versus no-donor comparison. Eligible patients (433) were entered in 2 consecutive, prospective studies, of whom 288 (67%) were younger than 55 years, in CR1, and eligible to receive consolidation by either an autologous SCT or an allo-SCT. Allo-SCT was performed in 91 of 96 patients with a compatible sibling donor. Cumulative incidences of relapse at 5 years were, respectively, 24 and 55% for patients with a donor versus those without a donor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 0.23-0.60; P < .001). Nonrelapse mortality estimated 16% (+/- 4) at 5 years after allo-SCT. As a result, disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years was significantly better in the donor group: 60 versus 42% in the no-donor group (HR: 0.60; 0.41-0.89; P = .01). After risk-group analysis, improved outcome was more pronounced in standard-risk patients with a donor, who experienced an overall survival of 69% at 5 years (P = .05). In conclusion, standard-risk ALL patients with a sibling donor may show favorable survival following SCT, due to both a strong reduction of relapse and a modest nonrelapse mortality. This trial is registered with http://www.trialregister.nl under trial ID NTR228.

Intermediate-dose melphalan compared with myeloablative treatment in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the Dutch Cooperative Group HOVON 24 trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Dutch-Belgian HOVON group performed a randomized phase 3 trial to compare single non-myeloablative intensive treatment with double, intensive treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM). DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred and three patients with stage II/III MM were randomized after VAD induction chemotherapy to receive two cycles of non-myeloablative intermediate-dose melphalan (70 mg/m2) (single treatment) or the same regimen followed by cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg iv plus total body irradiation (TBI) 9 Gy and autologous stem cell transplantation (double, intensive treatment). In both treatment arms interferon .IIa was given as maintenance until relapse/progression. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a complete remission (CR) on protocol treatment with double, intensive therapy (32 % vs 13 %, p<0.001). Double treatment produced better outcome in terms of event-free survival (median 22 vs 21 months, 28% vs 14% at 4 years and 15% vs 7% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.013; univariate HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.94), progression-free survival (median 27 vs 24 months, 33% vs 16% at 4 years, and 17% vs 9% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.006; HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.91), but not overall survival (median 50 vs 55 months, 52% vs 56% at 4 years and 39% vs 36% at 6 years after randomization; logrank p=0.51; HR=1.10, 95% CI 0.83-1.46). The achievement of a CR had a favorable prognostic impact on event-free survival (HR=0.60 , 95% CI=0.44 -0.82 , p=0.001) and progression-free survival (HR=0.62 , 95% CI=0.45 -0.84, p=0.002). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Double, intensive treatment resulted in a better CR rate, event-free survival and progression-free survival but not overall survival compared to single non-myeloablative treatment in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma.

Overall and event-free survival are not improved by the use of myeloablative therapy following intensified chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective randomized phase 3 study.

We compared the efficacy of intensified chemotherapy followed by myeloablative therapy and autologous stem cell rescue with intensified chemotherapy alone in patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma. There were 261 eligible patients younger than 66 years with stage II/III multiple myeloma who were randomized after remission induction therapy with vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone (VAD) to receive intensified chemotherapy, that is, melphalan 140 mg/m(2) administered intravenously in 2 doses of 70 mg/m(2) (intermediate-dose melphalan [IDM]) without stem cell rescue (n = 129) or the same regimen followed by myeloablative therapy consisting of cyclophosphamide, total body irradiation, and autologous stem cell reinfusion (n = 132). Interferon-alpha-2a was given as maintenance. Of the eligible patients, 79% received both cycles of IDM and 79% of allocated patients actually received myeloablative treatment. The response rate (complete remission [CR] plus partial remission [PR]) was 88% in the intensified chemotherapy group versus 95% in the myeloablative treatment group. CR was significantly higher after myeloablative therapy (13% versus 29%; P =.002). With a median follow-up of 33 months (range, 8-65 months), the event-free survival (EFS) was not different between the treatments (median 21 months versus 22 months; P =.28). Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer after myeloablative treatment (25 months versus 31 months; P =.04). The overall survival (OS) was not different (50 months versus 47 months; P =.41). Intensified chemotherapy followed by myeloablative therapy as first-line treatment for multiple myeloma resulted in a higher CR and a longer TTP when compared with intensified chemotherapy alone. However, it did not result in a better EFS and OS.