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.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2-5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. RESULTS: 103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The phase 3 LYM3001 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT00312845.

Fewer bone disease events, improvement in bone remodeling, and evidence of bone healing with bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone vs. melphalan-prednisone in the phase III VISTA trial in multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Bone disease is a key presenting feature of myeloma. This post hoc analysis of the phase III VISTA trial of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs. MP in previously untreated myeloma patients assessed clinical bone disease events and changes in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), a marker for osteoblast activation, and serum Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), an inhibitor of osteoblast differentiation, during treatment. METHODS: Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) , days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9, plus melphalan 9mg/m(2) and prednisone 60mg/m(2) , days 1-4, cycles 1-9; N=344) or MP alone (N=338). RESULTS: Rates of bisphosphonates use during treatment (73% vs. 82%), progression because of worsening bone disease (3% vs. 11%), and requirement for subsequent radiotherapy (3% vs. 8%) were lower with VMP vs. MP. Median maximum ALP increase was significantly higher with VMP vs. MP overall (49.7% vs. 30.3%, P=0.029), and higher by response group (complete response [CR]: 68.7% vs. 43.9%; partial response [PR]: 41.5% vs. 31.2%). Greater maximum ALP increase was strongly associated with achievement of CR (P≤0.0001) and CR/PR (P≤0.01). Median DKK-1 decreased with VMP by 694.4pg/mL and increased with MP by 1273.3pg/mL from baseline to day 4 (P=0.0069). Available radiologic data revealed evidence of bone healing in 6/11 VMP-treated patients, who achieved best responses of three CR, one PR, and two stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a positive effect of bortezomib on bone metabolism and potentially bone healing in myeloma.

Risk factors for, and reversibility of, peripheral neuropathy associated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma: subanalysis of the phase 3 VISTA study.

OBJECTIVES: This subanalysis of the phase 3 VISTA trial aimed to assess the frequency, characteristics and reversibility of, and prognostic factors for, bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy (PN) in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy who received bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone. METHODS: Patients received nine 6-wk cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1-4, and days 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5-9; melphalan 9 mg/m(2), days 1-4, cycles 1-9; and prednisone 60 mg/m(2), days 1-4, cycles 1-9). RESULTS: Overall, 47% of patients receiving VMP developed PN, including 19% grade 2 and 13% grade ≥ 3 (<1% grade 4). The PN incidence was dose-related and reached a plateau at a cumulative bortezomib dose of approximately 45 mg/m(2). Median time to PN onset was 2.3 months. Bortezomib-associated PN was reversible; 79% of events improved by at least one NCI CTCAE grade within a median of 1.9 months and 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months, with reversibility similar in responding and non-responding patients. By multivariate analysis, baseline neuropathy was the only consistent risk factor for any PN [hazard ratio (HR) 1.785, P=0.0065], grade ≥ 2 PN (HR 2.205, P=0.0032), and grade ≥ 3 PN (HR 2.438, P=0.023); age, pre-existing diabetes, International Staging System stage, obesity, and creatinine clearance did not affect the overall rate of PN. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bortezomib-induced PN in the frontline setting were similar to those in relapsed patients and resolved in most cases.

Combined phase I/II study of imexon (AOP99.0001) for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Imexon [AOP99.0001 (4-imino-1,3-diazobicyclo[3. 1. 0]-hexan-2-one)] belongs to a novel class of promising anticancer agents that induce tumor apoptosis through oxidative stress. Clinical experience since the late 1960s has provided initial evidence for a clinical antitumor activity. Our open-label, multicenter phase I clinical trial was designed to further investigate the adverse event (AEs) profile and pharmacokinetics of AOP99.0001 in pretreated myeloma patients and collect initial data on the potential clinical efficacy in this indication. Thirty-six patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, who had been pretreated with at least two lines of therapy earlier, were included. Imexon was applied intravenously on 5 consecutive days for 2 weeks (d1-5 and d8-12) for a 3-week cycle. The plasma half-life of AOP99.0001 and its active metabolite AOP99.0002 was found to be approximately 1.2 and 2.6 h, respectively. The mean duration of treatment with Imexon was 6.8 weeks in a dose range between 50 and 1000 mg/m without reaching dose-limiting toxicity. Drug-related AEs occurring with a frequency of greater than 10% were fatigue, nausea, constipation, headache, asthenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia and creatinine increase. A total of nine severe adverse events occurred in three patients. No mortality was encountered when patients were on treatment with Imexon. Preliminary antimyeloma efficacy of AOP99.0001 was observed with 1 minimal response, 12 (36%) stable disease responses, and all other evaluable patients had progressive disease. Remarkably, the patient with minimal response also experienced a complete clinical resolution of myeloma-associated polyneuropathy. Overall, Imexon was safe and well tolerated in the dose range investigated. Imexon showed minor clinical activity as a single agent in heavily pretreated myeloma patients. On account of its unique mechanism of action, favorable toxicity profile, initial clinical evidence for antimyeloma activity, and its known synergistic activity in combination with approved agents for myeloma treatment, AOP99.0001 is recommended for future clinical studies in combination regimens in multiple myeloma.

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to confirm overall survival (OS) and other clinical benefits with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan and prednisone (MP) in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma) trial after prolonged follow-up, and evaluate the impact of subsequent therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated symptomatic patients with myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (n = 344) or MP (n = 338). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio, 0.653; P < .001); median OS was not reached with VMP versus 43 months with MP; 3-year OS rates were 68.5% versus 54.0%. Response rates to subsequent thalidomide- (41% v 53%) and lenalidomide-based therapies (59% v 52%) appeared similar after VMP or MP; response rates to subsequent bortezomib-based therapy were 47% versus 59%. Among patients treated with VMP (n = 178) and MP (n = 233), median survival from start of subsequent therapy was 30.2 and 21.9 months, respectively, and there was no difference in survival from salvage among patients who received subsequent bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide. Rates of adverse events were higher with VMP versus MP during cycles 1 to 4, but similar during cycles 5 to 9. With VMP, 79% of peripheral neuropathy events improved within a median of 1.9 months; 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months. CONCLUSION: VMP significantly prolongs OS versus MP after lengthy follow-up and extensive subsequent antimyeloma therapy. First-line bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapse. VMP used upfront appears more beneficial than first treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel agent-based treatment until relapse.

VMP (Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone) is active and well tolerated in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma with moderately impaired renal function, and results in reversal of renal impairment: cohort analysis of the phase III VISTA study.

PURPOSE To assess bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and melphalan and prednisone (MP) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) with renal impairment enrolled on the phase III VISTA study, and to evaluate renal impairment reversibility. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received nine 6-week cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), melphalan 9 mg/m(2), prednisone 60 mg/m(2)) or MP. Patients with serum creatinine higher than 2 mg/dL were excluded. Results In the VMP/MP arms, 6%/4%, 27%/30%, and 67%/66% of patients had baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of < or = 30, 31 to 50, and higher than 50 mL/min, respectively. Response rates were higher and time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) longer with VMP versus MP across renal cohorts. Response rates with VMP and TTP in both arms did not appear significantly different between patients with GFR < or = 50 or higher than 50 mL/min; OS appeared somewhat longer in patients with normal renal function in both arms. Renal impairment reversal (baseline GFR < 50 improving to > 60 mL/min) was seen in 49 (44%) of 111 patients receiving VMP versus 40 (34%) of 116 patients receiving MP. By multivariate analysis, younger age (< 75 years; P = .006) and less severe impairment (GFR > or = 30 mL/min; P = .027) were associated with higher reversal rates. In addition, treatment with VMP approached significance (P = .07). In both arms, rates of grade 4 and 5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs appeared higher in patients with renal impairment; with VMP, rates of discontinuations/bortezomib dose reductions due to AEs did not appear affected. CONCLUSION VMP is a feasible, active, and well-tolerated treatment option for previously untreated patients with MM with moderate renal impairment, resulting in 44% renal impairment reversal.

A randomized phase 3 study of tipifarnib compared with best supportive care, including hydroxyurea, in the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in patients 70 years or older.

This phase 3, multicenter, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tipifarnib compared with best supportive care (BSC), including hydroxyurea, as first-line therapy in elderly patients (>or=70 years) with newly diagnosed, de novo, or secondary acute myeloid leukemia. A total of 457 patients were enrolled with 24% 80 years of age or older. Tipifarnib 600 mg orally twice a day was administered for the first 21 consecutive days, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 107 days for the tipifarnib arm and 109 days for the BSC arm. The hazard ratio (tipifarnib vs BSC) for overall survival was 1.02 (P value by stratified log-rank test, .843). The complete response rate for tipifarnib in this study (8%) was lower than that observed previously, but with a similar median duration of 8 months. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cytopenias in both arms, slightly more infections (39% vs 33%), and febrile neutropenia (16% vs 10%) seen in the tipifarnib arm. The results of this randomized study showed that tipifarnib treatment did not result in an increased survival compared with BSC, including hydroxyurea. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00093990.

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression. RESULTS: The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan-prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone was superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.)