Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 103 cells per mm3 or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1-21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00644228. FINDINGS: Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·712, 96% CI 0·56-0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524-0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 82% (176/216) in the VRd group and 72% (153/214) in the Rd group, and 16% (34/216) and 8% (18/214) of patients who were assessable for response in these respective groups had a complete response or better. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 198 (82%) of 241 patients in the VRd group and 169 (75%) of 226 patients in the Rd group; 55 (23%) and 22 (10%) patients discontinued induction treatment because of adverse events, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Rd group, and two in the VRd group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free and overall survival and had an acceptable risk-benefit profile. FUNDING: NIH, NCI, NCTN, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Oncology Company, and Celgene Corporation.

Pilot trial of paclitaxel-trastuzumab adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (E2198).

BACKGROUND: Blockade of human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) has dramatically improved outcome for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Trastuzumab, an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, has previously demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic and early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. However, trastuzumab can cause congestive heart failure (CHF) with an increased frequency for patients who have also received an anthracycline. The current trial was designed to evaluate the impact of the duration of trastuzumab on CHF. METHODS: E2198 included 227 eligible women with histologically confirmed stage II or IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer. The patients were randomised to receive 12 weeks of paclitaxel and trastuzumab followed by four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (abbreviated Arm) or the aforementioned treatment with additional 1 year of trastuzumab (conventional Arm). The primary end point was to evaluate the safety of this variable duration of trastuzumab therapy, particularly cardiac toxicity defined as CHF or left ventricular ejection fraction decrease >10%. Secondary end points included disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. RESULTS: Compared with 12-week treatment with trastuzumab, 1 year of trastuzumab-based therapy did not increase the frequency or severity of cardiac toxicity: three patients on the abbreviated Arm and four on the conventional Arm experienced CHF. The 5-year DFS was 76% and 73% for the abbreviated and conventional Arms, respectively, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8-2.1; P=0.3). There was also no statistically significance difference in OS (HR, 1.4; P=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 12 weeks of treatment, 1 year of treatment with trastuzumab did not significantly increase the risk of cardiac toxicity. Although not powered for efficacy comparisons, the longer duration of trastuzumab therapy did not demonstrate a signal for marked superiority.

Longer term follow-up of the randomized phase III trial SWOG S0777: bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients (Pts) with previously untreated multiple myeloma without an intent for immediate autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 to VRd. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients. Median follow up is 84 months. Median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003. Median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114. Both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Median duration of Rd maintenance was 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS. VRd continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age.

Phase III, randomized study of the effects of parenteral iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation on the erythropoietic response to darbepoetin alfa for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia.

PURPOSE: Functional iron deficiency may impair response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in iron-replete patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia (CAA). This study evaluated whether coadministration of parenteral iron improves ESA efficacy in patients with CAA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized trial enrolled 502 patients with hemoglobin (Hb) less than 11 g/dL who were undergoing chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies. All patients received darbepoetin alfa once every 3 weeks and were randomly assigned to receive either ferric gluconate 187.5 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks, oral daily ferrous sulfate 325 mg, or oral placebo for 16 weeks. RESULTS: There was no difference in the erythropoietic response rate (ie, proportion of patients achieving Hb ≥ 12 g/dL or Hb increase ≥ 2 g/dL from baseline): 69.5% (95% CI, 61.9% to 76.5%) of IV iron-treated patients achieved an erythropoietic response compared with 66.9% (95% CI, 59.1% to 74.0%) who received oral iron and 65.0% (95% CI, 57.2% to 72.3%) who received oral placebo (P = .75). There were also no differences in the proportion of patients requiring red cell transfusions, changes in quality of life, or the dose of darbepoetin administered. Adverse events (AEs) tended to be more common in the IV iron arm: grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 54% (95% CI, 46% to 61%) of patients receiving IV iron compared with 44% (95% CI, 36% to 52%) who received oral iron and 46% (95% CI, 38% to 54%) who received oral placebo (P = .16). CONCLUSION: In patients with CAA, addition of IV ferric gluconate to darbepoetin failed to provide additional benefit compared with oral iron or oral placebo.

Tetracycline to prevent epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced skin rashes: results of a placebo-controlled trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N03CB).

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are effective cancer therapies, but they are reported to cause a rash in >50% of patients. In the current study, the authors examined the use of tetracycline for rash prevention. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial enrolled patients who were starting cancer treatment with an EGFR inhibitor. Patients could not have had a rash at the time of enrollment. All patients were randomly assigned to receive either tetracycline at a dose of 500 mg orally twice a day for 28 days versus a placebo. Patients were monitored for rash (through monthly physician assessment and weekly patient-reported questionnaires), quality of life (using the SKINDEX-16, a skin-specific quality of life index), and adverse events. Monitoring occurred during the 4-week intervention and then for an additional 4 weeks. The primary objective of the current study was to compare the incidence of rash between the study arms, and the enrollment of 30 patients per arm provided a 90% probability of detecting a 40% difference in incidence with a P value of .05 (2-sided). RESULTS: A total of 61 evaluable patients were enrolled. The 2 treatment arms were well balanced with regard to baseline characteristics, dropout rates, and rates of discontinuation of the EGFR inhibitor. The incidence of rash was found to be comparable across treatment arms. Physicians reported that 16 patients treated with tetracycline (70%) and 22 patients treated with placebo (76%) developed a rash (P = .61). Tetracycline appears to have lessened the rash severity, although the high dropout rates invite caution when interpreting these findings. By Week 4, physician-reported grade 2 rash (using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) occurred in 17% of tetracycline-treated patients (n = 4 patients) and in 55% of placebo-exposed patients (n = 16 patients) (P = .04). Patients treated with tetracycline reported better scores, as per the SKINDEX-16, on certain quality-of-life parameters such as skin burning or stinging, skin irritation, and being bothered by the persistence/recurrence of a skin condition. Adverse events were found to be comparable across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, tetracycline was not found to prevent EGFR inhibitor-induced rashes and therefore cannot be clinically recommended for this purpose. However, preliminary observations of diminished rash severity and improved quality of life suggest this antibiotic merits further study.

Donepezil and vitamin E for preventing cognitive dysfunction in small cell lung cancer patients: preliminary results and suggestions for future study designs.

BACKGROUND: Up to 90% of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients suffer cognitive dysfunction. Since donepezil and vitamin E have been somewhat successful in treating other dementias, this study tested the hypothesis that these agents can prevent cognitive decline in SCLC patients. Because accrual was poor, this trial also offered opportunities for suggesting other study designs for future clinical trials on cognitive dysfunction in this group of patients. METHODS: This double blind, placebo controlled trial tested oral donepezil 5 mg/day (with dose escalation to 10 mg after 1 month) and oral vitamin E 1,000 IU/day in SCLC patients after completion of all cancer therapy, including prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Cognition, adverse events, and quality of life were assessed throughout the study period. RESULTS: Only nine of 104 patients enrolled over 15 months (four donepezil and vitamin E-treated versus five placebo-exposed), and thus no definitive conclusions could be drawn. Nonetheless, the only patient who manifested a precipitous decline in cognition was taking donepezil and vitamin E. There was also a slight trend of increased gastrointestinal side effects among donepezil and vitamin E-treated patients. There were no notable differences in cognitive stability, adverse events, or quality of life between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings do not provide enthusiasm for testing donepezil and vitamin E in the manner undertaken here for preventing cognitive dysfunction in SCLC patients. Eligibility criteria and timing of trial intervention are discussed as potential impediments to successful trial completion.