How to determine bortezomib-based regimen for elderly patients with multiple myeloma: PAD versus CBd, an observational study.

BACKGROUND: This was an open-label, observational, prospective assessment. We conducted an analysis of the impact of bortezomib-based therapy (PAD: bortezomib, doxorubicin, high-dose dexamethasone vs. CBd: cyclophosphamide bortezomib, low-dose dexamethasone) on the survival rates and adverse events in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: Out of 303 patients, 128 received the PAD regimen and the other 175 patients received the CBd induction therapy (age 65-89 years). Baseline patient characteristics between the two cohorts were balanced in age (P = 0.69), international staging system (ISS) prognostic stages (P = 0.90), serum calcium (P = 0.70), and serum creatinine (P = 0.52). RESULTS: Overall response (OS) after the induction chemotherapy was achieved in 214 of 303 patients (70.6 %), with no significant differences observed between the two treatment groups (71.9 vs. 69.7 %, P = 0.68). Patients with ISS stage 2 reached the same 5-year OS advantages compared to patients with ISS stage 1, because they received bortezomib-based PAD or CBd treatments. Patients receiving CBd protocol gained similar satisfactory progression-free survival (PFS) results when compared to the PAD regimen group: PFS at 5 years reached 58.2 versus 58.9 % (P = 0.85). Five-year OS in the CBd arm had significant advantages compared to the PAD group, 79.9 versus 49.9 % (P < 0.05). The overall safety profiles showed that 26 of 128 (20.3 %) patients died in the PAD arm, while 13 of 175 patients died (7.4 %) in the CBd group (P < 0.01). Similarly, the PAD arm had a higher serious infection rate than that of the CBd arm (39.2 vs. 13.1 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib benefits elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM; they achieve satisfactory treatment responses and survival advantages. Further, patients treated with CBd have superior treatment advantages, with a predictable safety profile, when compared to the PAD regimen.

The early addition of arsenic trioxide versus high-dose arabinoside is more effective and safe as consolidation chemotherapy for risk-tailored patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia: multicenter experience.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and safety for early addition of arsenic trioxide (As(2)O(3)) as frontline consolidation therapy compared to high-dose arabinoside (HiDAC) in adult patients with de novo acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). 271 patients (aged 17-65 years) received consolidation therapy containing As(2)O(3) (two 21-day courses) or HiDAC regimen. EFS at 5 years was 75% versus 54% (P < 0.001), and OS at 5 years was 83% versus 71% (P = 0.002) in As(2)O(3) and HiDAC treatment arms. 139 patients treated with As(2)O(3), EFS at 5 years reached 79% versus 56% (P = 0.014), but OS at 5 years was 77% versus 84% (P = 0.32) in low-risk (WBC ≤ 10 × 10(9)/L) and high-risk (WBC > 10 × 10(9)/L) cohorts. Further, patients treated with As(2)O(3) rarely incurred agranulocytosis (1.4%, P < 0.001), or severe infection (0.7%, P < 0.001). It is still very well tolerated compared to HiDAC. We confirmed that As(2)O(3) as a first-line consolidation regimen provided significant benefits of OS to patients with APL. The As(2)O(3) regimen made low-risk patients gain more EFS benefits than high-risk group. The high-risk cohort receiving As(2)O(3) overcame the negative impact, yielding OS similar to that for with the low-risk patients treated with As(2)O(3).