Impact of immunochemotherapy with R-bendamustine or R-CHOP for treatment naïve advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: A subset analysis of the FOLL12 trial by Fondazione Italiana Linfomi.

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the FOLL12 trial to determine the impact of different initial immunochemotherapy (ICT) regimens on patient outcomes. Patients were selected from the FOLL12 trial, which included adults with stage II-IV follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 1-3a and high tumor burden. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard ICT followed by rituximab maintenance (RM) or the same ICT followed by a response-adapted approach. ICT consisted of rituximab-bendamustine (RB) or rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHOP), per physician's decision. A total of 786 patients were included in this analysis, 341 of whom received RB and 445 R-CHOP. RB was more frequently prescribed to older subjects, females, patients without bulky disease, and those with grade 1-2 FL. After a median of 56 months of follow-up, R-CHOP and RB had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard Ratio for RB 1.11, 95% CI 0.87-1.42, p = 0.392). Standard RM was associated with improved PFS compared to response-adapted management both after R-CHOP and RB. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events were more frequent with R-CHOP during induction treatment and more frequent with RB during RM. Grade 3-4 infections were more frequent with RB. RB was also associated with a higher incidence of transformed FL. R-CHOP and RB showed similar activity and efficacy, but with different safety profiles and long-term events, suggesting that the treating physician should carefully select the most appropriate chemotherapy regimen for each patient based on patient's individual characteristics, choices, and risk profile.

Addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed, transplantation ineligible multiple myeloma (ELOQUENT-1): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown improved progression-free and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: ELOQUENT-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 185 hospitals, oncology practices, and research centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic myeloma and not candidates for high-dose therapy plus HSCT, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone using an interactive voice response system, stratified by the International Staging System (ISS; stage I-II vs III), age (<75 years vs ≥75 years), and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1-2). Patients in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group received elotuzumab administered intravenously at 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycles 1 and 2, days 1 and 15 during cycles 3-18, and then at 20 mg/kg on day 1 for subsequent cycles. In both treatment groups, patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally on days 1-21 of each cycle and 40 mg dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as per the primary definition from European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01335399 (completed). FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and June 19, 2014, 748 patients were randomly assigned (374 in each treatment group) and 742 patients received treatment (333 (90%) of 371 in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 339 (91%) of 371 in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group discontinued treatment). The median age of patients was 73·0 years (IQR 69·0-78·0), 294 (39%) patients were 75 years or older. Most patients were White (711 [95%]) and male (412 [55%]). At a minimum follow-up of 65·3 months, the median progression-free survival was not significantly different between the groups: 31·4 months (95% CI 26·2-36·8) in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 29·5 months (23·5-34·3) in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group (HR 0·93, 95·71% CI 0·77-1·12; stratified log-rank p=0·44). The median follow-up was 70·6 months (IQR 35·1-79·2). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (64 [17%] of 371 vs 79 [21%] of 371). Study drug toxicity was the reported cause of death in five (1%) versus four (1%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone did not significantly improve progression-free survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for HSCT. Although these data contribute to the treatment landscape, further research is needed to find ways to improve treatments in the front-line setting. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. FINDINGS: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated-195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group-and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2-19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4-19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73-not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11-10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. INTERPRETATION: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. FUNDING: Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL14): follow-up results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has been established as a fixed-duration treatment regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the long-term efficacy after treatment cessation of the combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. METHODS: CLL14 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 196 sites in 21 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and coexisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 30-69 mL/min, or both. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web and voicemail system with allocation concealment and based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of six and stratified by Binet stage and geographical region. Patients received either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (oral venetoclax initiated on day 22 of cycle 1 [28-day cycles], with a 5-week dose ramp-up [20 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, then 400 mg daily for 1 week], thereafter continuing at 400 mg daily until completion of cycle 12; combined with intravenous obinutuzumab for six cycles starting with 100 mg on day 1 and 900 mg on day 2 [or 1000 mg on day 1], 1000 mg on days 8 and day 15 of cycle 1, and subsequently 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each cycle for 12 cycles combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Patient enrolment is complete, and the study is registered with ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT02242942. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2015, and Aug 4, 2016, 432 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (n=216) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=216). All patients had been off treatment for at least 24 months at data collection. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 36·8-43·0), patients given venetoclax plus obinutuzumab had a significantly longer progression-free survival than did patients given chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (HR 0·31, 95% CI 0·22-0·44; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable to not estimable) in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group vs 35·6 months (33·7-40·7) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both groups was neutropenia (112 [53%] of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group versus 102 [48%] of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (54%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group and 95 (44%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. Venetoclax or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in one (1%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 sepsis) and two (1%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 septic shock, n=1 metastatic skin squamous carcinoma). INTERPRETATION: 2 years after treatment cessation, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab continues to significantly improve progression-survival compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab, thereby providing a limited duration treatment option for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie.

Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab in Patients with CLL and Coexisting Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has shown activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but its efficacy in combination with other agents in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions is not known. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we investigated fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions. Patients with a score of greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (scores range from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more impaired function of organ systems) or a calculated creatinine clearance of less than 70 ml per minute were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The safety of each regimen was also evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 432 patients (median age, 72 years; median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 66.4 ml per minute) underwent randomization, with 216 assigned to each group. After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, 30 primary end-point events (disease progression or death) had occurred in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 77 had occurred in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.53; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 24 months was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group: 88.2% (95% CI, 83.7 to 92.6) as compared with 64.1% (95% CI, 57.4 to 70.8). This benefit was also observed in patients with TP53 deletion, mutation, or both and in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 52.8% of patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and in 48.1% of patients in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group, and grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 17.5% and 15.0%, respectively. All-cause mortality was 9.3% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 7.9% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group. These differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with untreated CLL and coexisting conditions, venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02242942.).

Osimertinib.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated (exons 18-21) advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) are generally characterized by exquisite sensitivity to treatment with an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (-TKI). First-generation or reversible EGFR-TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, while, more recently, second-generation or irreversible EGFR-TKIs have been developed, namely afatinib and dacomitinib, with the aim of overcoming/delaying acquired resistance to treatment. Nevertheless, clinical trials have shown that resistance eventually emerges after a median time of slightly less than one year, regardless of whether first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs are used. In this context, a secondary EGFR mutation in exon 20, namely T790M, has been found to be responsible for approximately 60% of cases of acquired resistance. Alternatively, T790M resistance mutation can be found de novo, in which case it limits the antitumor activity of both first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs. Osimertinb is an orally bioavailable, third-generation EGFR-TKI that acts by irreversibly binding both EGFR activating mutations and T790M, while sparing wild-type EGFR. On this basis, osimertinib has proven more efficacious than platinum-based chemotherapy in the setting of EGFR T790M-positive NSCLCs pretreated with a first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI. More recently, in another phase 3 trial, osimertinib outperformed gefitinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated (ex19del or L858R) advanced NSCLCs, thus emerging as a new standard of care in this setting. In the present review, we will discuss the preclinical and clinical development of osimertinib, briefly touching upon its activity in special populations and biomarkers of sensitivity to treatment.

Nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin combination regimen in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and cardiac comorbidity. Results of the HEART01 phase II trial conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi.

The purpose of this phase 2, multicenter study was to determine the activity and safety of nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin as part of "R-COMP" combination in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and coexisting cardiac disorders. The study was conducted using a Bayesian continuing assessment method using complete remission rate and rate of cardiac events as study endpoints. Between November 2009 and October 2011, 50 evaluable patients were enrolled (median age, 76 years). Median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 60%. Ischemic cardiopathy was the most frequent preexisting cardiac disorder (35%), followed by atrial fibrillation (15%), left ventricular hypertrophy (13%), and baseline LVEF <50% (12%). Based on the intent to treat analysis, overall response rate was 72%, including 28 patients in complete remission (complete remission rate, 56%), and 8 in partial remission (16%). At the end of treatment, grades 3 to 4 cardiac events were observed in 6 patients. No significant modifications from baseline values of LVEF were observed during treatment and follow-up. Nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin instead of doxorubicin in the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is a feasible option for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma presenting with concomitant cardiac disorders.

Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard-of-care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The overall response rate was 90.9% in the daratumumab group, as compared with 73.9% in the control group (P<0.001), and the rate of complete response or better (including stringent complete response) was 42.6%, versus 24.4% (P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.3% of the patients were negative for minimal residual disease (at a threshold of 1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 6.2% of those in the control group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hematologic: neutropenia (in 39.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group and in 38.7% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 34.4% and 37.6%, respectively), and anemia (in 15.9% and 19.8%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 infections was 23.1% in the daratumumab group and 14.7% in the control group; the rate of treatment discontinuation due to infections was 0.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 27.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, daratumumab combined with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than the same regimen without daratumumab. The daratumumab-containing regimen was associated with more grade 3 or 4 infections. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ALCYONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02195479 .).

Management of adverse events associated with ixazomib plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is approved in the United States, European Union and other countries, in combination with oral lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Approval was based on the global, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study of ixazomib-Rd (IRd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. IRd resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-Rd (median: 20·6 vs. 14·7 months; hazard ratio 0·74). Common toxicities observed more commonly with IRd versus placebo-Rd were thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, rash, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral oedema and back pain; these were generally grade 1/2 in severity except for thrombocytopenia (19% vs. 9% grade 3/4), which appeared manageable and reversible, with no differences between arms in significant bleeding or dose discontinuations. No cumulative toxicities were observed, indicating the potential feasibility of long-term IRd treatment. Safety data from TOURMALINE-MM1 are reviewed and guidance for managing clinically relevant adverse events associated with IRd is provided. Most toxicities were manageable with supportive care and dose delays or reductions as needed. Clinicians should be aware of and understand these potential side effects to optimise and prolong patient benefit.

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A multicenter phase I-II GIMEMA trial.

The activity and safety of a regimen combining lenalidomide with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) was investigated in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Treatment consisted of six monthly courses of the FC regimen combined with 14 days of lenalidomide given at the starting dose of 2.5 mg during course 1. The maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide was 5 mg. Forty patients were assessed for response, 66% were IGHV unmutated, 45% showed deletion 11q or 17p. The overall response and complete remission rates were 62.5% and 22.5%, respectively, the median progression-free and overall survival (OS) were 19 and 45 months, respectively. Grade 3-4 granulocytopenia was observed in 65% of cases, severe infections in 7.5%, the lenalidomide-related toxicity was mild. In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that low-dose lenalidomide associated with the FC schedule is an effective treatment for R/R patients with CLL, associated with an acceptable safety profile.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists for preparing adult patients with immune thrombocytopenia to splenectomy: results of a retrospective, observational GIMEMA study.

In patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) refractory to corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), splenectomy may result at higher risk of peri-operative complications and, for this reason, potentially contraindicated. The thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) romiplostim and eltrombopag have shown high therapeutic activity in primary ITP, but data of efficacy and safety regarding their use in preparation for splenectomy are missing. Thirty-one adult patients, median age 50 years, with corticosteroids and/or IVIG refractory persistent and chronic ITP who were treated with TPO-RAs (romiplostim= 24; eltrombopag= 7) with the aim to increase platelet count and allow a safer execution of splenectomy were retrospectively evaluated. Twenty-four patients (77%) responded to the use of TPO-RAs with a median platelet count that increased from 11 × 10(9) /L before starting TPO-RAs to 114 × 10(9) /L pre-splenectomy, but a concomitant treatment with corticosteroids and/or IVIG was required in 19 patients. Twenty-nine patients underwent splenectomy while two patients who responded to TPO-RAs subsequently refused surgery. Post-splenectomy complications were characterized by two Grade 3 thrombotic events (1 portal vein thrombosis in the patient with previous history of HCV hepatitis and 1 pulmonary embolism), with a platelet count at the time of thrombosis of 260 and 167 × 10(9) /L, respectively and one Grade 3 infectious event. TPO-RAs may represent a therapeutic option to improve platelet count and reduce the risk of peri-operative complications in ITP candidates to splenectomy. An increased risk of post-splenectomy thromboembolic events cannot be ruled out and thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparin is generally recommended.

MET dysregulation is a hallmark of aggressive disease in multiple myeloma patients.

Abnormal activation of MET/HGF (Hepatocyte Growth Factor) pathway has been described in several tumours and increased HGF plasmatic levels have been detected in patients with aggressive multiple myeloma (MM). MET and HGF mRNA expression was investigated in 105 samples of purified plasma cells derived from newly diagnosed MM patients treated with bortezomib-based induction therapy. Gene expression was compared with response to therapy and clinical outcome. MET gene copy number was also evaluated. MET mRNA expression was higher in CD138(+) than in CD138(-) cells (median 76·90 vs. 11·24; P = 0·0009). Low MET mRNA expression characterized patients with better response (complete response or very good partial response) compared to other patients (median 56·10 vs. 134·83; P = 0·0006). After a median follow-up of 50 months, patients with high MET mRNA expression displayed a worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0·0029) and overall survival (OS; P = 0·0023) compared to those with low MET mRNA levels. Patients with both high MET mRNA expression and high ß2-microglobulin level (>5·5 mg/l) had further worse median PFS (P < 0·0001) and OS (P < 0·0001). Patients carrying 4 MET gene copies (8 out of 82, 9·8%) also had a short PFS. High MET mRNA expression identifies patients with dismal PFS and OS and the combination with high ß2-microglobulin further characterizes patients with worse outcome.

Bendamustine compared with chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: updated results of a randomized phase III trial.

The efficacy of bendamustine versus chlorambucil in a phase III trial of previously untreated patients with Binet stage B/C chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was re-evaluated after a median observation time of 54 months in May 2010. Overall survival (OS) was analysed for the first time. At follow-up, investigator-assessed complete response (CR) rate (21·0% vs 10·8%), median progression-free survival (21·2 vs 8·8 months; P < 0·0001; hazard ratio 2·83) and time to next treatment (31·7 vs 10·1 months; P < 0·0001) were improved for bendamustine over chlorambucil. OS was not different between groups for all patients or those ≤65 years, >65 years, responders and non-responders. However, patients with objective response or a CR experienced a significantly longer OS than non-responders or those without a CR. Significantly more patients on chlorambucil progressed to second/further lines of treatment compared with those on bendamustine (78·3% vs 63·6%; P = 0·004). The benefits of bendamustine over chlorambucil were achieved without reducing quality of life. In conclusion, bendamustine is significantly more effective than chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL patients, with the achievement of a CR or objective response appearing to prolong OS. Bendamustine should be considered as a preferred first-line option over chlorambucil for CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: updated results of a randomized controlled trial.

The initial analysis of the oral combination melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) in newly diagnosed patients with myeloma showed significantly higher response rate and longer progression-free survival (PFS) than did the standard melphalan and prednisone (MP) combination and suggested a survival advantage. In this updated analysis, efficacy and safety end points were updated. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral MPT or MP alone. Updated analysis was by intention to treat and included PFS, overall survival (OS), and survival after progression. After a median follow-up of 38.1 months, the median PFS was 21.8 months for MPT and 14.5 months for MP (P = .004). The median OS was 45.0 months for MPT and 47.6 months for MP (P = .79). In different patient subgroups, MPT improved PFS irrespective of age, serum concentrations of beta(2)-microglobulin, or high International Staging System. Thalidomide or bortezomib administration as salvage regimens significantly improved survival after progression in the MP group (P = .002) but not in the MPT group (P = .34). These data confirm activity of MPT for PFS but failed to show any survival advantage. New agents in the management of relapsed disease could explain this finding. The study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00232934.

Prospective, multicenter randomized GITMO/IIL trial comparing intensive (R-HDS) versus conventional (CHOP-R) chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk follicular lymphoma at diagnosis: the superior disease control of R-HDS does not translate into an overall survival advantage.

In this randomized multicenter study of 136 patients, 6 courses of CHOP (cyclo-phosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone) followed by rituximab (CHOP-R) were compared with rituximab-supplemented high-dose sequential chemotherapy with autografting (R-HDS) to assess the value of intensified chemo-therapy as a first-line treatment for high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL) after the introduction of monoclonal antibodies. The analysis was intention to treat with event-free survival (EFS) as the primary endpoint. Complete remission (CR) was 62% with CHOP-R and 85% with R-HDS (P < .001). At a median follow-up (MFU) of 51 months, the 4-year EFS was 28% and 61%, respectively (P < .001), with no difference in overall survival (OS). Molecular remission (MR) was achieved in 44% of CHOP-R and 80% of R-HDS patients (P < .001), and was the strongest independent outcome predictor. Patients relapsing after CHOP-R underwent salvage R-HDS in 71% of cases. Salvage R-HDS had an 85% CR rate and a 68% 3-year EFS (MFU, 30 months). We conclude that (1) achieving MR is critical for effective disease control, regardless of which treatment is used; (2) R-HDS ensures superior disease control and molecular outcome than CHOP-R, but no OS improvement; and (3) CHOP-R failures have a good outcome after salvage R-HDS, suggesting that relapsed/refractory FL could be the most appropriate setting for R-HDS-like treatments. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as no. NCT00435955.