Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma. We investigated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) could improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 487 adults with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantation to receive six to eight 21-day cycles of R-CHOP intravenously on day 1 (with prednisone administered orally on days 1 to 5) or VR-CAP (R-CHOP regimen, but replacing vincristine with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (according to independent radiologic review) was 14.4 months in the R-CHOP group versus 24.7 months in the VR-CAP group (hazard ratio favoring the VR-CAP group, 0.63; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 59%. On the basis of investigator assessment, the median durations of progression-free survival were 16.1 months and 30.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.51; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 96%. Secondary end points were consistently improved in the VR-CAP group, including the complete response rate (42% vs. 53%), the median duration of complete response (18.0 months vs. 42.1 months), the median treatment-free interval (20.5 months vs. 40.6 months), and the 4-year overall survival rate (54% vs. 64%). Rates of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were higher in the VR-CAP group. CONCLUSIONS: VR-CAP was more effective than R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma but at the cost of increased hematologic toxicity. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals; LYM-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00722137.).

Frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) for non-GCB DLBCL.

This phase 2 study evaluated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy could improve efficacy in non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (non-GCB DLBCL), centrally confirmed by immunohistochemistry (Hans method). In total, 164 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), and doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), all IV day 1, prednisone 100 mg/m(2) orally days 1-5, plus either bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib [VR-CAP]; n = 84) or vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) (maximum 2 mg) IV day 1 (R-CHOP; n = 80). There were no significant differences between VR-CAP and R-CHOP in complete response rate (64.5%, 66.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.91; P = .80), overall response rate (93.4%, 98.6%; OR, 0.21; P = .11), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P = .76), or overall survival (HR, 0.89; P = .75). Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 88%, 89%), serious AEs (38%, 34%), discontinuations due to AEs (7%, 3%), and deaths due to AEs (2%, 5%) were similar with VR-CAP and R-CHOP. Grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy rates were 6% and 3%, respectively. VR-CAP did not improve efficacy vs R-CHOP in non-GCB DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01040871.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, follicular lymphoma: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib and rituximab have shown additive activity in preclinical models of lymphoma, and have been shown to be active and generally well tolerated in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of rituximab alone or combined with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 trial, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive five 35-day cycles consisting of intravenous infusions of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of cycles 2-5, either alone or with bortezomib 1·6 mg/m(2), administered by intravenous injection on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of all cycles. Randomisation was stratified by FLIPI score, previous use of rituximab, time since last therapy, and region. Treatment assignment was based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed by intention to treat. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312845. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2006, and Aug 12, 2008, 676 patients were randomised to receive rituximab (n=340) or bortezomib plus rituximab (n=336). After a median follow-up of 33·9 months (IQR 26·4-39·7), median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·1-12·0) in the rituximab group and 12·8 months (11·5-15·0) in the bortezomib plus rituximab group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·68-0·99; p=0·039). The magnitude of clinical benefit was not as large as the anticipated prespecified improvement of 33% in progression-free survival. Patients in both groups received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-5); 245 of 339 (72%) and 237 of 334 (71%) patients in the rituximab and bortezomib plus rituximab groups, respectively, completed five cycles. Of patients who did not complete five cycles, most discontinued early because of disease progression (77 [23%] patients in the rituximab group, and 56 [17%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group). Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (70 [21%] of 339 rituximab-treated patients vs 152 [46%] of 334 bortezomib plus rituximab treated patients), and serious adverse events (37 [11%] patients vs 59 [18%] patients) were lower in the rituximab group than in the combination group. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (15 [4%] patients in the rituximab group and 37 [11%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group), infection (15 [4%] patients and 36 [11%] patients, respectively), diarrhoea (no patients and 25 [7%] patients, respectively), herpes zoster (one [<1%] patient and 12 [4%] patients, respectively), nausea or vomiting (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively). No individual serious adverse event was reported by more than three patients in the rituximab group; in the bortezomib plus rituximab group, only pneumonia (seven patients [2%]) and pyrexia (six patients [2%]) were reported in more than five patients. In the bortezomib plus rituximab group 57 (17%) of 334 patients had peripheral neuropathy (including sensory, motor, and sensorimotor neuropathy), including nine (3%) with grade 3 or higher, compared with three (1%) of 339 patients in the rituximab group (no events of grade ≥3). No patients in the rituximab group but three (1%) patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group died of adverse events considered at least possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Although a regimen of bortezomib plus rituximab is feasible, the improvement in progression-free survival provided by this regimen versus rituximab alone was not as great as expected. The regimen might represent a useful addition to the armamentarium, particularly for some subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Association between bortezomib dose intensity and overall survival in mantle cell lymphoma patients on frontline VR-CAP in the phase 3 LYM-3002 study.

The pivotal LYM-3002 study compared frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) with bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (VR-CAP) in newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients for whom stem cell transplantation was not an option. This post hoc subanalysis of the VR-CAP data from LYM-3002 evaluated the effect of bortezomib dose intensity on OS in patients who completed ≥6 cycles of treatment. From the end of cycle 6, patients receiving ≥4.6 mg/m2/cycle of bortezomib had significantly longer OS (but not PFS) compared with those receiving <4.6 mg/m2/cycle by univariate analysis (HR 0.43 [95% CI: 0.23-0.80]; p = .0059). This association remained significant in multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics (HR 0.40 [95% CI: 0.20-0.79]; p = .008]. Higher bortezomib dose intensity was the strongest predictor of OS in newly diagnosed MCL patients receiving VR-CAP. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00722137.

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.