Excessive neutrophil recruitment promotes typical T-helper 17 responses in Coronavirus disease 2019 patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a recently identified virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease is a pandemic. Although the hallmarks of severe COVID-19 have been established, the underlying mechanisms that promote severe pathology have not been thoroughly studied. A better understanding of the immune response in severe COVID-19 patients may help guide the development of therapeutic strategies and predict immuno-pathogenicity. This study was set to determine the lymphocyte and cytokine profiles associated with COVID-19 severity. A total of 43 hospitalised COVID-19 patients were recruited for the study and whole blood samples were drawn from each patient. Complete blood counts, lymphocyte subset profiles and C-reactive protein statuses of patients were determined. Cytometric bead array was performed to analyse the cytokine profiles of each patient. The demographic characteristics showed that the median age of the patients was 48.72 years, with an interquartile range from 40 to 60 years, and 69.77% of the patients were male. COVID-19 patients exhibited significantly low CD4+ lymphocyte expansion and leucocytosis augmented by elevated neutrophil and immature granulocytes. Stratification analysis revealed that reduced monocytes and elevated basophils and immature granulocytes are implicated in severe pathology. Additionally, cytokine results were noted to have significant incidences of interleukin 17A (IL-17A) expression associated with severe disease. Results from this study suggest that a systemic neutrophilic environment may preferentially skew CD4+ lymphocytes towards T-helper 17 and IL-17A promotion, thus, aggravating inflammation. Consequently, results from this study suggest broad activity immunomodulation and targeting neutrophils and blocking IL-17 production as therapeutic strategies against severe COVID-19.

Sepsis in cancer patients residing in Zimbabwe: spectrum of bacterial and fungal aetiologies and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and sepsis comorbidity is a major public health problem in most parts of the world including Zimbabwe. The microbial aetiologies of sepsis and their antibiograms vary with time and locations. Knowledge on local microbial aetiologies of sepsis and their susceptibility patterns is critical in guiding empirical antimicrobial treatment choices. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study which determined the microbial aetiologies of sepsis from blood cultures of paediatric and adult cancer patients obtained between July 2016 and June 2017. The TDR-X120 blood culture system and TDR 300B auto identification machine were used for incubation of blood culture bottles and identification plus antimicrobial susceptibility testing, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 142 participants were enrolled; 50 (35.2%) had positive blood cultures, with 56.0% Gram positive, 42.0% Gram-negative bacteria and 2.0% yeast isolated. Common species isolated included coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. (CoNS) (22.0%), E. coli (16.0%), K. pneumoniae (14.0%), E. faecalis (14.0%) and S. aureus (8.0%). Gram-negative isolates exhibited high resistance to gentamicin (61.9%) and ceftriaxone (71.4%) which are the empiric antimicrobial agents used in our setting. Amikacin and meropenem showed 85.7 and 95.2% activity respectively against all Gram-negative isolates, whilst vancomycin and linezolid were effective against 96.2 and 100.0% of all Gram-positive isolates respectively. We isolated 10 (66.7%) extended spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) amongst the E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates. Ten (66.7%) of the Staphylococcus spp. were methicillin resistant. CONCLUSIONS: CoNS, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, E. faecalis and S. aureus were the major microbial drivers of sepsis amongst cancer patients in Zimbabwe. Most isolates were found to be resistant to commonly used empirical antibiotics, with isolates exhibiting high levels of ESBL and methicillin resistance carriage. A nationwide survey on microbial aetiologies of sepsis and their susceptibility patterns would assist in the guidance of effective sepsis empiric antimicrobial treatment among patients with cancer.

Loss of RASSF4 Expression in Multiple Myeloma Promotes RAS-Driven Malignant Progression.

RAS mutations occur frequently in multiple myeloma (MM), but apart from driving progression, they can also stimulate antitumor effects by activating tumor-suppressive RASSF proteins. Although this family of death effector molecules are often silenced in cancers, functional data about RASSF proteins in MM are lacking. Here, we report that RASSF4 is downregulated during MM progression and correlates with a poor prognosis. Promoter methylation analysis in human cell lines revealed an inverse correlation between RASSF4 mRNA levels and methylation status. Epigenetic modulating agents restored RASSF4 expression. Enforced expression of RASSF4 induced G2-phase cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis in human cell lines, reduced primary MM cell viability, and blocked MM growth in vivo Mechanistic investigations showed that RASSF4 linked RAS to several pro-death pathways, including those regulated by the kinases MST1, JNK, and p38. By activating MST1 and the JNK/c-Jun pathway, RASSF4 sensitized MM cells to bortezomib. Genetic or pharmacological elevation of RASSF4 levels increased the anti-MM effects of the clinical relevant MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib. Kinome analysis revealed that this effect was mediated by concomitant activation of the JNK/c-Jun pathway along with inactivation of the MEK/ERK and PI3K/mTOR/Akt pathways. Overall, our findings establish RASSF4 as a tumor-suppressive hub in MM and provide a mechanistic rationale for combining trametinib with HDAC inhibitors or bortezomib to treat patients with tumors exhibiting low RASSF4 expression.Significance: These findings provide a mechanistic rationale for combining trametinib with HDAC inhibitors or bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma whose tumors exhibit low RASSF4 expression. Cancer Res; 78(5); 1155-68. ©2017 AACR.

Association between quality of response and outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma receiving VR-CAP versus R-CHOP in the phase 3 LYM-3002 study.

In the phase 3 LYM-3002 study comparing intravenous VR-CAP with R-CHOP in patients with newly-diagnosed, measurable stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, not considered or ineligible for transplant, the median progression-free survival was significantly improved with VR-CAP (24.7 versus 14.4 months with R-CHOP; P<0.001). This post-hoc analysis evaluated the association between the improved outcomes and quality of responses achieved with VR-CAP versus R-CHOP in LYM-3002. Patients were randomized to six to eight 21-day cycles of VR-CAP or R-CHOP. Outcomes included progression-free survival, duration of response (both assessed by an independent review committee), and time to next anti-lymphoma treatment, evaluated by response (complete response/unconfirmed complete response and partial response), MIPI risk status, and maximum reduction of lymph-node measurements expressed as the sum of the product of the diameters. Within each response category, the median progression-free survival was longer for patients given VR-CAP than for those given R-CHOP (complete response/unconfirmed complete response: 40.9 versus 19.8 months; partial response: 17.1 versus 11.7 months, respectively); similarly, the median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was longer among the patients given VR-CAP than among those treated with R-CHOP (complete response/unconfirmed complete response: not evaluable versus 26.6 months; partial response: 35.3 versus 24.3 months). Within the complete/unconfirmed complete and partial response categories, improvements in progression-free survival, duration of response and time to next anti-lymphoma treatment were more pronounced in patients with low-and intermediate-risk MIPI treated with VR-CAP than with R-CHOP. In each response category, more VR-CAP than R-CHOP patients had a sum of the product of the diameters nadir of 0 during serial radiological assessments. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest a greater duration and quality of response in patients treated with VR-CAP in comparison with those treated with R-CHOP, with the improvements being more evident in patients with low- and intermediate-risk MIPI. LYM-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00722137.

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.

Spontaneous chronic subdural hematomas in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with normal platelet count and no appreciable brain atrophy: Two case reports and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural hematomas (CSDHs) usually occur in elderly patients following minor head trauma. Their occurrence is usually linked to cerebral atrophy secondary to alcohol, old age, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Spontaneous CSDHs have also been documented but are rare. They are usually caused by coagulopathies and various pathologies resulting in intracranial hypotension. CASES: We have observed a number of spontaneous CSDHs in HIV patients with normal platelet counts and no appreciable cerebral atrophy possibly caused by platelet dysfunction, hence we report about two such cases. To the best of our knowledge, no such cases have been reported in literature before. CONCLUSION: It is important to include CSDHs in the differential diagnosis of HIV patients presenting with neurological deficits even without a history of trauma.

Final overall survival results of a randomized trial comparing bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with bortezomib alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Previous results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 study demonstrated that bortezomib combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was superior to bortezomib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had previously received one or more lines of therapy. Protocol-defined final survival data from that study are provided here. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either bortezomib alone (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of every 21-day cycle) or bortezomib-PLD (bortezomib plus PLD 30 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 4). The primary endpoint was the time to progression. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and the overall response rate. RESULTS: In total, 646 patients (bortezomib-PLD, n = 324; bortezomib alone, n = 322) were randomized between December, 2004, and March, 2006. On the clinical cutoff date (May 16, 2014) for the final survival analysis, at a median follow-up of 103 months, 79% of patients had died (bortezomib-PLD group: 253 of 324 patients; 78%; bortezomib alone group: 257 of 322 patients; 80%). The median OS in the bortezomib-PLD group was 33 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.9-37.1) versus 30.8 months (95% CI, 25.2-36.5) in the bortezomib alone group (hazard ratio, 1.047; 95% CI, 0.879-1.246; P = .6068). Salvage therapies included conventional and novel drugs, which were well balanced between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inducing a superior time to progression, long-term follow-up revealed that PLD-bortezomib did not improve OS compared with bortezomib alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The inability to sustain the early observed survival advantage may have been caused by the effects of subsequent lines of therapy, and underscores the need for long-term follow-up of phase 3 trials while recognizing the challenge of having adequate power to detect long-term differences in OS. Cancer 2016;122:2050-6. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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.

Bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction treatment before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of phase III randomized, controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To characterize efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction regimens through an integrated analysis of data from phase III studies in transplantation-eligible patients with previously untreated myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level data from the IFM 2005-01 (bortezomib-dexamethasone v vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone [VAD] induction), HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone v VAD), and PETHEMA GEM05MENOS65 (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone v thalidomide-dexamethasone) studies were pooled in an integrated analysis of efficacy and safety. Study-level data from the GIMEMA MM-BO2005 study (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone v thalidomide-dexamethasone) supplemented the integrated patient-level analysis. Key efficacy end points were post-transplantation complete plus near-complete response (CR+nCR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patient-level data for 1,572 patients (bortezomib-based induction, n = 787; nonbortezomib-based induction, n = 785) were included. Post-transplantation CR+nCR rate was significantly higher following bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction (38% v 24%; odds ratio, 2.05; P < .001); the benefit remained similar (pooled odds ratio, 1.96) when GIMEMA MM-BO2005 data were included. Median PFS was 35.9 months versus 28.6 months with bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.75; P < .001); 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 79.7% and 74.7%, respectively (hazard ratio for OS, 0.81; P = .0402). Median duration of induction treatment was 11 weeks in both treatment groups. Rates of peripheral neuropathy during induction were 34% versus 17% (grade ≥ 3, 6% v 1%). Overall, 3% and 4% of patients died during bortezomib-based and nonbortezomib-based induction, respectively. CONCLUSION: Bortezomib-based induction results in significant improvements in response and PFS/OS compared with nonbortezomib-based induction and is generally well tolerated, with a higher rate of peripheral neuropathy but no apparent increase in risk of death during induction.

Prespecified candidate biomarkers identify follicular lymphoma patients who achieved longer progression-free survival with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab.

PURPOSE: Identify subgroups of patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma deriving substantial progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab in the phase III LYM-3001 study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 676 patients were randomized to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab or rituximab. The primary end point was PFS; this prespecified analysis of candidate protein biomarkers and genes was an exploratory objective. Archived tumor tissue and whole blood samples were collected at baseline. Immunohistochemistry and genetic analyses were completed for 4 proteins and 8 genes. RESULTS: In initial pairwise analyses, using individual single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes, one biomarker pair (PSMB1 P11A C/G heterozygote, low CD68 expression) was associated with a significant PFS benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab, controlling for multiple comparison corrections. The pair was analyzed under dominant, recessive, and additive genetic models, with significant association with PFS seen under the dominant model (G/G+C/G). In patients carrying this biomarker pair [PSMB1 P11A G allele, low CD68 expression (≤50 CD68-positive cells), population frequency: 43.6%], median PFS was 14.2 months with bortezomib-rituximab versus 9.1 months with rituximab (HR 0.47, P < 0.0001), and there was a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.49, P = 0.0461). Response rates were higher and time to next antilymphoma therapy was longer in the bortezomib-rituximab group. In biomarker-negative patients, no significant efficacy differences were seen between treatment groups. Similar proportions of patients had high-risk features in the biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PSMB1 P11A (G allele) and low CD68 expression seemed to have significantly longer PFS and greater clinical benefit with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab.

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment of multiple myeloma in the U.S. with bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone versus thalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone or lenalidomide plus melphalan and prednisone with continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment.

The outlook for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients has improved enormously over recent years with the incorporation of new agents into standard regimens. Novel regimens combine melphalan and prednisone (MP) with bortezomib (VMP), with thalidomide (MPT), and with lenalidomide with (MPR-R) and without (MPR) lenalidomide maintenance. The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens have not yet been compared; therefore, we conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis using data from randomized controlled trials versus MP. Using a Markov model developed from a U.S. payer's perspective, we compared VMP with MPT and MPR-R over a lifetime horizon. MPT and MPR-R were chosen because, like VMP, they are superior to MP in response and outcomes. Data from the Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma (VISTA; VMP), Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) 99-06 (MPT), and MM-015 (MPR-R) trials were used. The IFM 99-06 study was selected because of the superior activity in this study compared with other MPT studies. Using patient-level (VMP) and published (MPT, MPR-R) data, we estimated the health-state transition and adverse event probabilities for each regimen, related costs, and state-specific utility estimates. Costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Discounted lifetime direct medical costs were lowest with VMP at $119,102. MPT cost $142,452 whereas MPR-R cost $248,358. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculations projected that VMP would confer cost savings and better health outcomes relative to MPT and MPR-R. We conclude that VMP is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with MP, MPT, and MPR-R.

Randomized phase II study of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without cyclophosphamide as induction therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) is an effective induction therapy in multiple myeloma (MM). This phase II, noncomparative study sought to determine whether addition of cyclophosphamide to this regimen (VTDC) could further increase efficacy without compromising safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age 18 to 70 years with previously untreated, measurable MM, who were eligible for high-dose chemotherapy-autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDCT-ASCT), were randomly assigned to bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), thalidomide 100 mg, and dexamethasone 40 mg, with (n = 49) or without (n = 49) cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m(2) for four 21-day cycles, followed by HDCT-ASCT. The primary end point was postinduction combined rate of near-complete response (nCR) or better (including complete response [CR] with normalized serum κ:λ free light chain ratio, CR, and nCR). RESULTS: Postinduction, 51% (VTD) and 44% (VTDC) of patients achieved combined CR/nCR, with bone marrow-confirmed CR in 29% and 31%, overall response rates of 100% and 96%, respectively, and very good partial response or better rates of 69% per arm. Post-HDCT-ASCT, combined CR/nCR rates were 85% (VTD) and 77% (VTDC). In all, 35% (VTD) and 27% (VTDC) of patients were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) during induction and postinduction. Three-year overall survival was 80% (both arms). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were observed in 47% and 22% (VTD) and 57% and 41% (VTDC) of patients, respectively. The primary health-related quality of life end point (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 [EORTC QLQ-C30] Global Health score) steadily increased with VTD during induction and reached a clinically relevant difference post-transplantation versus baseline. CONCLUSION: Both VTD and VTDC are highly active induction regimens producing high combined CR/nCR and MRD-negative rates; however, VTDC was associated with increased toxicity and suggestion of transient decreases in Global Health score, without an increase in activity.

Persistent overall survival benefit and no increased risk of second malignancies with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: This final analysis of the phase III VISTA trial (Velcade As Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment With Melphalan and Prednisone) was conducted to determine whether the overall survival (OS) benefit with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan-prednisone (MP) in patients with myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation was maintained after 5 years of follow-up and to explore the risk of second primary malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 682 patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP or MP and were then observed every 12 weeks or less. Data on second primary malignancies were collected by individual patient inquiries at all sites from 655 patients. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 60.1 months (range, 0 to 74 months), there was a 31% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.695; P < .001; median OS 56.4 v 43.1 months). OS benefit with VMP was seen across prespecified patient subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, stage III myeloma, creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min). Sixty-three percent of VMP patients and 73% of MP patients had received subsequent therapy. Time to next therapy (median, 30.7 v 20.5 months; HR, 0.557; P < .001) was longer with VMP than with MP. Among patients who received subsequent therapies, survival from start of subsequent therapy was similar following VMP (median, 28.1 months) or MP (median, 26.8 months; HR, 0.914). Following VMP/MP, incidence proportions of hematologic malignancies (1%/1%) and solid tumors (5%/3%) and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (0.017/0.013 per patient-year) were similar and were consistent with background rates. CONCLUSION: VMP resulted in a significant reduction in risk of death versus MP that was maintained after 5 years' follow-up and despite substantial use of novel-agent-based salvage therapies. There is no emerging safety signal for second primary malignancies following VMP.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. RESULTS: Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC(last)): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC(last): 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C(max)) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C(max) (t(max)) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E(max)) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E(max) was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.

Phase II clinical trial of first or second-line treatment with bortezomib in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Based on promising preclinical efficacy of bortezomib in mesothelioma, a single-arm phase II trial (Ireland Cooperative Oncology Research Group 05-10 study), with Simon's two-stage design, was undertaken to assess efficacy of bortezomib monotherapy in the first-line (poor performance status) and second-line settings. The Bcl-2 homology domain 3-only protein Noxa has been implicated as a key inducer of apoptosis by bortezomib. Thus, in a biomarker research substudy, we hypothesized that deficiency in Noxa expression might correlate with resistance. In the second-line setting, 23 patients were enrolled. Partial response was confirmed in one patient (4.8%) who received four cycles of bortezomib. One patient had stable disease; however, progression occurred in the majority of patients within the first two cycles. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 and 5.8 months, respectively. In the first-line setting, ten patients were accrued, and there was no evidence of objective response. In the tumor analysis, expression of Noxa was seen in all biopsies. Bortezomib monotherapy exhibits insufficient activity to warrant further investigation in unselected patients with mesothelioma.

Updated survival analysis of a randomized phase III study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

The phase III MMY-3021 study compared safety and efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with relapsed myeloma. The initial report demonstrated non-inferior efficacy with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib for the primary end point: overall response rate after four cycles of single-agent bortezomib. We report updated outcome analyses after prolonged follow up. Best response rate (after up to ten cycles of bortezomib ± dexamethasone) remained 52% in each arm, including 23% and 22% complete or near-complete responses with subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib, respectively. Time to progression (median 9.7 vs. 9.6 months; hazard ratio 0.872, P=0.462), progression-free survival (median 9.3 vs. 8.4 months; hazard ratio 0.846, P=0.319), and overall survival (1-year: 76.4% vs. 78.0%, P=0.788) were comparable with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Peripheral neuropathy rates remained significantly lower with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, with increased rates of improvement/resolution at the time of this analysis.

Superiority of the triple combination of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone over the dual combination of thalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma progressing or relapsing after autologous transplantation: the MMVAR/IFM 2005-04 Randomized Phase III Trial from the Chronic Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

PURPOSE: This prospective multicenter phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of a triple combination (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone [VTD]) versus a dual combination (thalidomide-dexamethasone [TD]) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) progressing or relapsing after autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 269 patients were randomly assigned to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus) or no bortezomib for 1 year, in combination with thalidomide (200 mg per day orally) and dexamethasone (40 mg orally once a day on 4 days once every 3 weeks). Bortezomib was administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 with a 10-day rest period (day 12 to day 21) for eight cycles (6 months), and then on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with a 20-day rest period (day 23 to day 42) for four cycles (6 months). RESULTS: Median time to progression (primary end point) was significantly longer with VTD than TD (19.5 v13.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80; P = .001), the complete response plus near-complete response rate was higher (45% v 21%; P 0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (17.9 v 13.4 months; P.04) [corrected].The 24-month survival rate was in favor of VTD (71% v 65%; P = .093). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was more frequent with VTD (29% v 12%; P = .001) as were the rates of grades 3 and 4 infection and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: VTD was more effective than TD in the treatment of patients with MM with progressive or relapsing disease post-ASCT but was associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 neurotoxicity.

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.

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.

Characterization of haematological parameters with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed myeloma, with evaluation of long-term outcomes and risk of thromboembolic events with use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: analysis of the VISTA trial.

Although haematological toxicities, such as anaemia, are common in multiple myeloma (MM), no clear consensus exists on the use and impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) on outcomes in MM. This analysis characterizes haematological toxicities and associated interventions in the phase III VISTA (Velcade(®) as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone) study of bortezomib plus melphalan/prednisone (VMP, n = 344) versus MP (n = 338) in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for high-dose therapy, and evaluates the impact of ESA use or red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusions on outcomes and thromboembolic risk. Incidence of haematological toxicities was similar with VMP and MP; similar rates of interventions and associated complications (e.g. bleeding, febrile neutropenia) were observed. Two hundred thirty three patients received ESA; 204 had RBC transfusions. Frequency of thromboembolic events was low and not affected by ESA use. Median time-to progression (TTP) was similar between ESA/non-ESA [hazard ratio: 1·03 (95% confidence interval 0·76-1·39); P = 0·8478] in both arms (VMP: 19·9/not reached; MP: 15·0/17·5 months). Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were similar between ESA/non-ESA in each arm. Patients receiving RBC transfusions had significantly shorter OS (P < 0·0001) versus non-RBC-transfusion patients. In conclusion, bortezomib did not add to melphalan haematological toxicity. Concomitant ESA use with VMP/MP in previously untreated MM patients did not adversely affect TTP or OS, or increase thromboembolic risk. However, RBC transfusion was associated with significantly shorter survival.