c-MYC expression and maturity phenotypes are associated with outcome benefit from addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide-dexamethasone in myeloma.

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.

Ixazomib significantly prolongs progression-free survival in high-risk relapsed/refractory myeloma patients.

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.

Management of adverse events associated with ixazomib plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

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.

A retrospective analysis of 3954 patients in phase 2/3 trials of bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma: towards providing a benchmark for the cardiac safety profile of proteasome inhibition in multiple myeloma.

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 MedDRA 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.

The influence of baseline characteristics and disease stage on health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma: findings from six randomized controlled trials.

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.

Long-term follow-up from a phase 1/2 study of single-agent bortezomib in relapsed systemic AL amyloidosis.

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. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00298766.

Mutation of NRAS but not KRAS significantly reduces myeloma sensitivity to single-agent bortezomib therapy.

Various translocations and mutations have been identified in myeloma, and certain aberrations, such as t(4;14) and del17, are linked with disease prognosis. To investigate mutational prevalence in myeloma and associations between mutations and patient outcomes, we tested a panel of 41 known oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in tumor samples from 133 relapsed myeloma patients participating in phase 2 or 3 clinical trials of bortezomib. DNA mutations were identified in 14 genes. BRAF as well as RAS genes were mutated in a large proportion of cases (45.9%) and these mutations were mutually exclusive. New recurrent mutations were also identified, including in the PDGFRA and JAK3 genes. NRAS mutations were associated with a significantly lower response rate to single-agent bortezomib (7% vs 53% in patients with mutant vs wild-type NRAS, P = .00116, Bonferroni-corrected P = .016), as well as shorter time to progression in bortezomib-treated patients (P = .0058, Bonferroni-corrected P = .012). However, NRAS mutation did not impact outcome in patients treated with high-dose dexamethasone. KRAS mutation did not reduce sensitivity to bortezomib or dexamethasone. These findings identify a significant clinical impact of NRAS mutation in myeloma and demonstrate a clear example of functional differences between the KRAS and NRAS oncogenes.

A phase 2 trial of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory myeloma.

In this prospective, multicenter, phase 2 study, 64 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) received up to 8 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide 15 mg/day (days 1-14), and dexamethasone 40/20 mg/day (cycles 1-4) and 20/10 mg/day (cycles 5-8) (days of/after bortezomib dosing). Responding patients could receive maintenance therapy. Median age was 65 years; 66% were male, 58% had relapsed and 42% had relapsed and refractory MM, and 53%, 75%, and 6% had received prior bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide, respectively. Forty-eight of 64 patients (75%; 90% confidence interval, 65-84) were alive without progressive disease at 6 months (primary end point). The rate of partial response or better was 64%; median duration of response was 8.7 months. Median progression-free and overall survivals were 9.5 and 30 months, respectively (median follow-up: 44 months). Common treatment-related toxicities included sensory neuropathy (53%), fatigue (50%), and neutropenia (42%); common grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included neutropenia (30%), thrombocytopenia (22%), and lymphopenia (11%). Grade 3 motor neuropathy was reported in 2 patients. Lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone appears effective and tolerable in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM, demonstrating substantial activity among patients with diverse prior therapies and adverse prognostic characteristics. This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00378209.

Outcomes with two different schedules of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for previously untreated multiple myeloma: matched pair analysis using long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 VISTA and PETHEMA/GEM05 trials.

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.

Switching from body surface area-based to fixed dosing for the investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib: a population pharmacokinetic analysis.

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 2l h(-1), respectively. Although a small effect of BSA (range 1.3-2.6 m(2)) 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.

Phase II study of bortezomib in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide and prednisone with or without doxorubicin followed by rituximab maintenance in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

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/m(2) (days 1, 8), rituximab 375 mg/m(2) (day 1), cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m(2) (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/m(2) and doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) (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.

Sequence analysis of ß-subunit genes of the 20S proteasome in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with bortezomib or dexamethasone.

Variations within proteasome ß (PSMB) genes, which encode the ß 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 Assessment 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 insensitivity.

Bortezomib cumulative dose, efficacy, and tolerability with three different bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone regimens in previously untreated myeloma patients ineligible for high-dose therapy.

Substantial efficacy has been demonstrated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in phase III studies in transplant-ineligible myeloma patients using various twice-weekly and once-weekly bortezomib dosing schedules. In VISTA, the regimen comprised four 6-week twice-weekly cycles, plus five 6-week once-weekly cycles. In the GIMEMA MM-03-05 study, the bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone regimen was either per VISTA ('GIMEMA twice-weekly'), or comprised nine 5-week once-weekly cycles ('GIMEMA once-weekly'). In the GEM2005MAS65 study, the regimen comprised one 6-week twice-weekly cycle, plus five 5-week once-weekly cycles. We evaluated the cumulative bortezomib dose administered during bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, as well as efficacy and tolerability, using patient-level study data. Over all bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone cycles (nine in VISTA/GIMEMA; six in GEM2005MAS65), the median cumulative bortezomib dose administered was 38.5, 42.1, 40.3, and 32.9 mg/m(2) in VISTA, GIMEMA twice-weekly, GIMEMA once-weekly, and GEM2005MAS65, respectively, and the respective proportions of planned bortezomib dose actually delivered were 57.0%, 62.3%, 86.1%, and 90.4%. Response rates following bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone were 74-87% and appeared generally similar between studies. Three-year survival rates were 67.9-75.7% across studies. Grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy rates were 13% in VISTA and 14% in GIMEMA twice-weekly, but were lower at 2% in GIMEMA once-weekly and 7% in GEM2005MAS65. Discontinuations and bortezomib dose reductions due to peripheral neuropathy were reduced in GIMEMA once-weekly versus VISTA and GIMEMA twice-weekly. Exclusive or predominant use of once-weekly bortezomib dosing in GIMEMA once-weekly and GEM2005MAS65 resulted in high efficacy, comparable with that demonstrated in VISTA, and similar cumulative bortezomib dose with reduced toxicity. Trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: VISTA (Identifier:00111319), GIMEMA MM-03-05 (Identifier:01063179), and GEM2005MAS65 (Identifier:00443235).

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib in patients with relapsed systemic AL amyloidosis: results of a phase 1/2 study.

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.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase 1/2 Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium trial.

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/m(2), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2), 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. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00724568.

Superior outcomes associated with complete response in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with nonintensive therapy: analysis of the phase 3 VISTA study of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone.

The phase 3 Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone study in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients ineligible for high-dose therapy demonstrated that bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) was superior to melphalan-prednisone across all efficacy end points. We assessed the prognostic impact of response on time-to-event parameters in the intent-to-treat population. Patients received nine 6-week cycles of treatment. Time to progression, time to next therapy, and treatment-free interval were associated with quality of response. When European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria were used, complete response (CR) was associated with significantly longer time to progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, P = .004), time to next therapy (HR = 0.46, P = .0004), and treatment-free interval (HR = 0.38, P < .0001) versus partial response, but there was no significant difference in overall survival (HR = 0.87, P = .54); similar differences were seen with CR versus very good partial response by uniform criteria. Quality of response improved with prolonged VMP treatment, with 28% of CRs achieved during cycles 5-9. CR duration appeared similar among patients with "early" (cycles 1-4) and "late" CRs (cycles 5-9) and among patients receiving 9 versus < 9 cycles of bortezomib within VMP. These results highlight that CR is an important treatment goal and support prolonged VMP therapy to achieve maximal response. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00111319.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

This phase 1/2 study is the first prospective evaluation of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone in front-line myeloma. Patients (N = 66) received 3-week cycles (n = 8) of bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, 11), lenalidomide 15 to 25 mg (days 1-14), and dexamethasone 40 or 20 mg (days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Responding patients proceeded to maintenance or transplantation. Phase 2 dosing was determined to be bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), lenalidomide 25 mg, and dexamethasone 20 mg. Most common toxicities included sensory neuropathy (80%) and fatigue (64%), with only 27%/2% and 32%/3% grade 2/3, respectively. In addition, 32% reported neuropathic pain (11%/3%, grade 2/3). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included lymphopenia (14%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (6%). Thrombosis was rare (6% overall), and no treatment-related mortality was observed. Rate of partial response was 100% in both the phase 2 population and overall, with 74% and 67% each achieving very good partial response or better. Twenty-eight patients (42%) proceeded to undergo transplantation. With median follow-up of 21 months, estimated 18-month progression-free and overall survival for the combination treatment with/without transplantation were 75% and 97%, respectively. Lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone demonstrates favorable tolerability and is highly effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00378105.

Health-related quality of life in elderly, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with VMP vs. MP: results from the VISTA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 3 VISTA study (ClinicalTrials.gov 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 (ClinicalTrials.gov 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.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, follicular lymphoma: a randomised phase 3 trial.

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/m(2) 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/m(2), 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.

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

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