Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
N Engl J Med ; 387(2): 132-147, 2022 07 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35660812

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.).


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Quimioterapia de Manutenção , Mieloma Múltiplo , Transplante de Células-Tronco , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/administração & dosagem , Bortezomib/efeitos adversos , Dexametasona/administração & dosagem , Dexametasona/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Humanos , Lenalidomida/administração & dosagem , Lenalidomida/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia de Manutenção/métodos , Melfalan/administração & dosagem , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiplo/cirurgia , Transplante Autólogo
3.
Lancet Oncol ; 21(10): 1317-1330, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32866432

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5-23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8-37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1-not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death). INTERPRETATION: The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Bortezomib/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Oligopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteassoma/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Lenalidomida/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/patologia , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
Cancer ; 125(4): 524-532, 2019 02 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30427533

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate suppresses adrenal androgens and glucocorticoids through the inhibition of CYP17; however, given the risk of mineralocorticoid excess, it is administered with glucocorticoids. Herein, the authors performed a phase 2, single-arm study that was designed to assess the safety of abiraterone acetate without steroids in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients had castration-resistant prostate cancer with controlled blood pressure and normal potassium. Patients initially received abiraterone acetate at a dose of 1000 mg daily alone. Those with persistent or severe mineralocorticoid toxicity received treatment with prednisone initiated at a dose of 5 mg twice daily. Therapy was continued until radiographic progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary objective of the current study was to determine the percentage of men requiring prednisone to manage mineralocorticoid toxicity. Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients received at least 1 dose of abiraterone acetate; the majority had metastases (53 patients; 91.4%). Sixteen patients (27.6%) received prior chemotherapy, 6 patients (10.3%) received prior enzalutamide, and 4 patients (7%) received prior ketoconazole. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events of interest included hypertension (9 patients; 15.5%) and hypokalemia (4 patients; 7%). There was no grade ≥3 edema. Seven patients (12%) initiated prednisone therapy for mineralocorticoid toxicity, 3 patients for hypertension (5%), and 4 patients for hypokalemia (7%). Two patients initiated prednisone therapy for fatigue (3%). Forty patients (68%) experienced a decline in prostate-specific antigen of ≥50% with the use of abiraterone acetate alone. Patients with lower baseline levels of androstenedione (P = .04), androsterone (P = .01), dehydroepiandrosterone (P = .03), and 17-hydroxyprogesterone (P = .03) were found to be more likely to develop mineralocorticoid toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with abiraterone acetate without steroids is feasible, although clinically significant adverse events can occur in a minority of patients. The use of abiraterone acetate without prednisone should be balanced with the potential for toxicity and requires close monitoring.


Assuntos
Acetato de Abiraterona/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Seguimentos , Glucocorticoides/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia
5.
Br J Haematol ; 155(3): 340-8, 2011 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21902684

RESUMO

Lenalidomide with dexamethasone is a standard induction treatment regimen for newly diagnosed myeloma (although a Federal Drug Administration indication is still absent). In the context of the Phase 3 clinical trial E4A03 (lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in low or high doses), we queried whether a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based genetic classification into high risk (HR) and standard risk (SR) multiple myeloma (MM) would remain clinically significant. Of 445 E4A03 patients, 126 had FISH analysis; 21 were classified HR with t(4;14), t(14;16), or 17p13 deletions. Median survival follow-up approached 3 years. Patients with FISH data tended to be younger and healthier compared to the rest of the study population and, consequently, had superior overall survival (OS) results. Within the FISH cohort, shorter OS in the HR versus SR group (P = 0·004) corresponded to a hazard ratio of 3·48 [95% confidence interval: (1·42-8·53)], an effect also observed in multivariate analysis. Two-year OS rates were 91% for SR MM and 76% for HR MM. There was also evidence of interaction between risk status and treatment (P = 0·026). HR patients were less likely to attain good partial response (SR 46% and HR 30%, Odds Ratio = 2·0 [0·7-5·6]), but overall response rates were not different. FISH-based risk classification retained prognostic significance in patients receiving lenalidomide-based induction.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Mieloma Múltiplo/classificação , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Dexametasona/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Humanos , Hibridização in Situ Fluorescente/métodos , Lenalidomida , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/genética , Prognóstico , Análise de Sobrevida , Talidomida/administração & dosagem , Talidomida/análogos & derivados
6.
Blood ; 118(16): 4359-62, 2011 Oct 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21860025

RESUMO

Detection of specific chromosomal abnormalities by FISH and metaphase cytogenetics allows risk stratification in multiple myeloma; however, gene expression profiling (GEP) based signatures may enable more specific risk categorization. We examined the utility of 2 GEP-based risk stratification systems among patients undergoing initial therapy with lenalidomide in the context of a phase 3 trial. Among 45 patients studied at baseline, 7 (16%) and 10 (22%), respectively, were high-risk using the GEP70 and GEP15 signatures. The median overall survival for the GEP70 high-risk group was 19 months versus not reached for the rest (hazard ratio = 14.1). Although the medians were not reached, the GEP15 also predicted a poor outcome among the high-risk patients. The C-statistic for the GEP70, GEP15, and FISH based risk stratification systems was 0.74, 0.7, and 0.7, respectively. Here we demonstrate the prognostic value for GEP risk stratification in a group of patients primarily treated with novel agents. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00098475.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Perfilação da Expressão Gênica , Mieloma Múltiplo/tratamento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiplo/genética , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Idoso , Aberrações Cromossômicas , Feminino , Humanos , Lenalidomida , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Análise de Sobrevida , Talidomida/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA