Phase 3 SELENE study: ibrutinib plus BR/R-CHOP in previously treated patients with follicular or marginal zone lymphoma.

The phase 3 SELENE study evaluated ibrutinib + chemoimmunotherapy (CIT; bendamustine and rituximab [BR]; or rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CHOP]) for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Adult patients who had received ≥1 prior line of CIT were randomized 1:1 to oral ibrutinib (560 mg) or placebo daily, plus 6 cycles of BR/R-CHOP. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Overall, 403 patients were randomized to ibrutinib + CIT (n = 202) or placebo + CIT (n = 201). Most patients received BR (90.3%) and had FL (86.1%). With a median follow-up of 84 months, median PFS was 40.5 months in the ibrutinib + CIT arm and 23.8 months in the placebo + CIT arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.806; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.626-1.037; P = .0922). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm (HR, 0.980; 95% CI, 0.686-1.400). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 85.6% and 75.4% of patients in the ibrutinib + CIT and placebo + CIT arms, respectively. In each arm, 13 patients had TEAEs leading to death. The addition of ibrutinib to CIT did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo + CIT. The safety profile was consistent with known profiles of ibrutinib and CIT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01974440.

High-dose imatinib induction followed by standard-dose maintenance in pre-treated chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients--final analysis of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous data suggest that the response of chronic myeloid leukemia cells to imatinib is dose-dependent. The potential benefit of initial dose intensification of imatinib in pre-treated patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia remains unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-seven pre-treated patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase were randomly assigned to continuous treatment with a standard dose of imatinib (400 mg/day; n=113) or to 6 months of high-dose induction with imatinib (800 mg/day) followed by a standard dose of imatinib as maintenance therapy (n=114). RESULTS: The rates of major and complete cytogenetic responses were significantly higher in the high-dose arm than in the standard-dose arm at both 3 and 6 months (major cytogenetic responses: 36.8% versus 21.2%, P=0.01 and 50.0% versus 34.5%, P=0.018; complete cytogenetic responses: 22.8% versus 6.2%, P<0.001 and 40.4% versus 16.8%, P<0.001) on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months, the difference between treatment arms remained statistically significant for complete cytogenetic responses (40.4% versus 24.8%, P=0.012) but not for major cytogenetic responses (49.1% versus 44.2%, P=0.462). The rate of major molecular responses was also significantly better at 3 and 6 months in the high-dose arm (month 3: 14.9% versus 3.5%, P=0.003; month 6: 32.5% versus 8.8%, P<0.001). Overall and progression-free survival rates were comparable between arms, but event-free survival was significantly worse in the high-dose arm (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Standard-dose imatinib remains the standard of care for pre-treated patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00327262).

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide is a structural analogue of thalidomide with similar but more potent biologic activity. This phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: Of 351 patients who had received at least one previous antimyeloma therapy, 176 were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of oral lenalidomide and 175 to receive placebo on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, all patients received 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 for the first four cycles and subsequently, after the fourth cycle, only on days 1 to 4. Patients continued in the study until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was time to progression. RESULTS: The time to progression was significantly longer in the patients who received lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (lenalidomide group) than in those who received placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo group) (median, 11.3 months vs. 4.7 months; P<0.001). A complete or partial response occurred in 106 patients in the lenalidomide group (60.2%) and in 42 patients in the placebo group (24.0%, P<0.001), with a complete response in 15.9% and 3.4% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in the lenalidomide group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; P=0.03). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients in the lenalidomide group were neutropenia (29.5%, vs. 2.3% in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs. 5.7%), and venous thromboembolism (11.4% vs. 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than high-dose dexamethasone alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00424047 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

High-dose imatinib improves cytogenetic and molecular remissions in patients with pretreated Philadelphia-positive, BCR-ABL-positive chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia: first results from the randomized CELSG phase III CML 11 "ISTAHIT" study.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib 400 mg/day is the standard treatment for patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Recent reports suggested higher and more rapid cytogenetic and molecular responses with higher doses of imatinib. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective international, multicenter phase III study, 227 patients with pre-treated Philadelphia chromosome-positive, BCR-ABL-positive chronic myeloid leukemia were randomized to a standard-dose imatinib arm (400 mg/day) or a high-dose imatinib arm (800 mg/day for 6 months followed by 400 mg/day as maintenance therapy). In this planned interim analysis hematologic, cytogenetic and molecular responses as well as toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared to the standard-dose, high-dose imatinib led to higher rates of major and complete cytogenetic responses at both 3 months (major: 21% versus 37%, P=0.01; complete: 6% versus 25%, P<0.001) and 6 months (major: 34% versus 54%, P=0.009; complete: 20% versus 44%, P<0.001). This was paralleled by a significantly higher major molecular response rate at 6 months in the high-dose imatinib arm (11.8% versus 30.4%; P=0.003). At 12 months, the rates of major cytogenetic response (the primary end-point) were comparable between the two arms (57% versus 59%). In contrast to non-hematologic toxicities, grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were more common in the high-dose arm. Cumulative complete cytogenetic response rates were higher in patients without dose reduction in the high-dose arm (61%) than in the patients with no dose reduction in the standard-dose arm (36%) (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized phase III trial in patients with pre-treated chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia demonstrating improvements in major cytogenetic response, complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response rates with high-dose imatinib therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00327262).

Efficacy and safety of frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone plus bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) in a subset of newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma patients medically eligible for transplantation in the randomized, phase 3 LYM-3002 study.

This post-hoc subanalysis of the LYM-3002 phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of substituting vincristine in rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (R-CHOP; n = 42) for bortezomib (VR-CAP; n = 38) in a subgroup of 80 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients aged <60 years who did not receive stem cell transplantation (SCT) despite medical eligibility. Complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu) rates were 67 vs. 39% (odds ratio 3.69 [95% CI(confidence interval): 1.31, 10.41]; p = .012). After 40 months median follow-up, median progression-free survival by independent radiology committee with VR-CAP vs. R-CHOP was 32.6 vs. 12.0 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% CI: 0.31, 1.13]; p = .108); median overall survival was not reached vs. 47.3 months (HR 0.81 [95% CI: 0.33, 1.96]; p = .634). Adverse events included neutropenia (92/76%), thrombocytopenia (70/10%) and leukopenia (65/50%). VR-CAP represents a potential alternative to R-CHOP in combined and/or alternating regimens for younger, SCT-eligible MCL patients.

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice: Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study.

BACKGROUND: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. CONCLUSION: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.

The efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma patients with impaired renal function.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multiple myeloma, renal impairment (RI) at the time of diagnosis is associated with poor survival. To the authors' knowledge, the current retrospective analysis presented is the first to assess the impact of various degrees of renal dysfunction on safety and efficacy outcomes in a large cohort of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who received treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-three patients from 2 large phase 3 trials were randomized to receive lenalidomide (25 mg) plus dexamethasone (40 mg). For the purpose of this analysis, RI was defined according to the calculated creatinine clearance (CLCr) level as follows: mild or no RI (CLCr>or=60 mL/minute), moderate RI (CLCr from >or=30 mL/minute to <60 mL/minute), and severe RI (CLCr<30 mL/minute). RESULTS: The RI subgroups did not differ significantly in terms of the overall response rate (range, 50%-64%) or response quality (very good partial response or better, 27%-37%). In all RI subgroups, the time to progression and progression-free survival did not differ significantly compared with the mild or no RI group. Patients with RI experienced an increased incidence of thrombocytopenia, required more frequent lenalidomide dose reduction or interruption, and had shorter overall survival than patients with mild or no RI (P=.006). Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone led to improvement in renal function in the majority of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicated that, with careful monitoring of the CLCr level and adverse events as well as appropriate dose adjustments, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have RI.