Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) is significantly better than melphalan plus prednisone alone for elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma; however, toxic effects are high. We investigated a novel and less intensive bortezomib-based regimen to maintain efficacy and to reduce toxic effects. METHODS: Between March, 2006, and October, 2008, 260 patients with untreated multiple myeloma, 65 years and older, from 63 Spanish centres, were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of VMP (n=130) or bortezomib plus thalidomide and prednisone (VTP; n=130) as induction therapy, consisting of one cycle of bortezomib twice per week for 6 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), plus either melphalan (9 mg/m² on days 1-4) or daily thalidomide (100 mg), and prednisone (60 mg/m² on days 1-4). The first cycle was followed by five cycles of bortezomib once per week for 5 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) plus the same doses of melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide plus prednisone. 178 patients completed the six induction cycles and were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bortezomib plus prednisone (n=87) or bortezomib plus thalidomide (n=91), consisting of one conventional cycle of bortezomib for 3 weeks (1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone (50 mg every other day) or thalidomide (50 mg per day), for up to 3 years. Treatment codes were generated with a computerised random number generator, and neither participants nor study personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was response rate in induction and maintenance phases. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00443235. FINDINGS: In the induction phase, 105 (81%) patients in the VTP group and 104 (80%) in the VMP group achieved partial responses or better (p=0·9), including 36 (28%) and 26 (20%) complete remissions, respectively (p=0·2). Treatment with VTP resulted in more serious adverse events (40 [31%] vs 20 [15%], p=0·01) and discontinuations (22 [17%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·03) than did treatment with VMP. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or worse) were infections (one [1%] in the VTP group vs nine [7%] in the VMP group), cardiac events (11 [8%] vs 0), and peripheral neuropathy (nine [7%] vs 12 [9%]). After maintenance therapy, the complete remission rate was 42% (40 [44%] patients in complete remission in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group, 34 [39%] in the bortezomib plus prednisone group). No grade 3 or worse haematological toxicities were recorded during maintenance therapy; two (2%) patients in the bortezomib plus prednisone group and six (7%) in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group developed peripheral neuropathy. INTERPRETATION: Reduced-intensity induction with a bortezomib-based regimen, followed by maintenance, is a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases).

Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of immunophenotypic response (IR) versus complete response (CR) and CR plus normal serum free light chain (sFLC) ratio (stringent CR) in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with novel agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a total of 260 elderly patients newly diagnosed with MM included in the GEM05>65y trial, 102 patients achieving at least a partial response with ≥ 70% reduction in M-component after the six planned induction cycles were simultaneously analyzed by immunofixation, sFLC, and multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) immunophenotyping; this population is the focus of this study. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of patients achieved CR, 30% achieved stringent CR, and 30% achieved IR. Patients in stringent CR showed no significant survival advantage compared with those in CR, whereas patients in IR showed significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) compared with those in stringent CR or CR; this was confirmed by multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 4.1; P = .01 for PFS). Discrepancies between the three techniques were relatively common. Notably, in all seven patients achieving IR but remaining immunofixation positive, the M-component disappeared in follow-up analysis. In contrast, MFC-positive patients who were immunofixation negative (n = 20) showed a tendency toward early reappearance of the M-component (median, 3 months). Similarly, in five of 11 stringent CR but MFC-positive patients, symptomatic disease progression was recorded at a median of 13 months after induction. CONCLUSION: Achieving an IR translates into superior PFS and TTP compared with conventional CR or stringent CR. These techniques provide complementary information and thus, an effort should be made to refine response criteria in MM.

Recommendations for the treatment of invasive fungal infection caused by filamentous fungi in the hematological patient.

Antifungal treatment in the hematological patient has reached a high complexity with the advent of new antifungals and diagnostic tests, which have resulted in different therapeutic strategies. The use of the most appropriate treatment in each case is essential in infections with such a high mortality. The availability of recommendations as those here reported based on the best evidence and developed by a large panel of 48 specialists aimed to answer when is indicated to treat and which agents should be used, considering different aspects of the patient (risk of fungal infection, clinical manifestations, galactomanann test, chest CT scan and previous prophylaxis) may help clinicians to improve the results.