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.

Primary therapy of Waldenström macroglobulinemia with bortezomib, dexamethasone, and rituximab: WMCTG clinical trial 05-180.

PURPOSE: We examined the activity of bortezomib, dexamethasone, and rituximab (BDR) in patients with symptomatic, untreated Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cycle of therapy consisted of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; and rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 11. Patients received four consecutive cycles for induction therapy and then four more cycles, each given 3 months apart, for maintenance therapy. Twenty-three patients received a median of seven cycles of treatment. RESULTS: Median bone marrow disease involvement declined from 55% to 10% (P = .0004), serum immunoglobulin M levels declined from 4,830 to 1,115 mg/dL (P < .0001), and hematocrit increased from 29.8% to 38.2% (P = .0002) at best response. The overall response rates and major response rates were 96% and 83% with three complete responses, two near complete responses, three very good partial responses, 11 partial responses, and three minor responses. Responses occurred at a median of 1.4 months. With a median follow-up of 22.8 months, 18 of 23 patients remained free of disease progression. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common toxicity, and it resolved to grade < or = 1 in 13 of 16 patients at a median of 6.0 months. Four of the first seven treated patients developed herpes zoster, resulting in the institution of prophylactic antiviral therapy. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that BDR produces rapid and durable responses, along with high rates of response and complete remissions in WM. Herpes zoster prophylaxis is necessary with BDR, and reversible peripheral neuropathy was the most common toxicity leading to premature discontinuation of bortezomib in 61% of patients. Exploration of alternative schedules for bortezomib administration that includes weekly dosing should be pursued.

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.)

Bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with less than optimal response to bortezomib alone.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and safety of added dexamethasone were assessed in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who had a suboptimal response to bortezomib alone. DESIGN AND METHODS: In two previously reported, open-label, multicenter phase 2 studies, bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2 was administered intravenously twice weekly for 2 weeks of a 3-week cycle for up to 8 cycles to patients who had failed either > or = 2 lines of therapy (SUMMIT, n=202) or first-line therapy (CREST, n=54). Patients with progressive disease after the first two cycles or stable disease after four cycles of bortezomib were eligible for addition of oral dexamethasone 20 mg on the day of and after each bortezomib dose. Responses were assessed by an Independent Review Committee using European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria. RESULTS: Addition of dexamethasone to bortezomib was associated with improved responses in 13 of 74 evaluable patients (18%) in SUMMIT and 9 of 27 (33%) in CREST; eight of these 22 patients had been previously refractory to dexamethasone. There were 2 complete, 8 partial, and 12 minimal responses. Dexamethasone did not appear to alter the type or number of adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in > or = 20% of patients receiving combination therapy were fatigue (25%), thrombocytopenia (24%), insomnia (21%), and nausea (20%). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Addition of dexamethasone to bortezomib in patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma who had suboptimal responses to bortezomib alone was associated with improvement in responses without prohibitive toxicity.

Safety of prolonged therapy with bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib, a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, is active with manageable toxicities in relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. METHODS: Bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2 was administered Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days for up to 8 cycles to patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma participating in two Phase II trials. Dexamethasone could be added because of progressive disease after 2 cycles or stable disease after 4 cycles. Continuation of or retreatment with bortezomib was offered to patients who, in the investigator's opinion, would benefit from extended treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma treated in this extension trial received a median of 7 additional cycles of therapy, for a total of 14 cycles (range, 7-32) over a median duration of therapy of 45.1 weeks in the parent and extension studies. Seventy-eight percent of patients completed this study at the same or higher bortezomib dose than they started on during this study, and the treatment schedule of twice-weekly administration remained unchanged in 89%. Overall, 75% of patients received dexamethasone in combination with bortezomib for a median of 5 cycles starting either in the parent or extension study. The safety profile was similar between the extension and parent trials, with no evidence of new cumulative toxicity. The most commonly reported Grade 3/4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (29%), with a consistent pattern of recovery during the rest period of each cycle, diarrhea (11%), anemia (11%), and neutropenia (10%). Neuropathy was reported less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with or continuation of bortezomib +/- dexamethasone beyond 6 months was safe, and toxicities were manageable, in patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma.

Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: This study compared bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had received one to three previous therapies. METHODS: We randomly assigned 669 patients with relapsed myeloma to receive either an intravenous bolus of bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for eight three-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for three five-week cycles, or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg orally) on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 for four five-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1 through 4 for five four-week cycles. Patients who were assigned to receive dexamethasone were permitted to cross over to receive bortezomib in a companion study after disease progression. RESULTS: Patients treated with bortezomib had higher response rates, a longer time to progression (the primary end point), and a longer survival than patients treated with dexamethasone. The combined complete and partial response rates were 38 percent for bortezomib and 18 percent for dexamethasone (P<0.001), and the complete response rates were 6 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively (P<0.001). Median times to progression in the bortezomib and dexamethasone groups were 6.22 months (189 days) and 3.49 months (106 days), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; P<0.001). The one-year survival rate was 80 percent among patients taking bortezomib and 66 percent among patients taking dexamethasone (P=0.003), and the hazard ratio for overall survival with bortezomib was 0.57 (P=0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 75 percent of patients treated with bortezomib and in 60 percent of those treated with dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib is superior to high-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have had a relapse after one to three previous therapies.

Bortezomib in recurrent and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Initial clinical experience in patients with impared renal function.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib is a potent, reversible proteasome inhibitor that has been approved for the treatment of recurrent and/or refractory multiple myeloma, but its activity in patients with renal impairment has not been studied to date. METHODS: Response rates, safety, and 20S proteasome activity were assessed in relation to baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) among patients with recurrent and/or refractory myeloma (n = 256 patients) who were treated with bortezomib in 2 Phase II trials. Bortezomib was administered by intravenous bolus on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle at 2 doses, 1.0 mg/m2 (n = 28 patients) and 1.3 mg/m2 (n = 228 patients). RESULTS: Of 10 patients with CrCl < or = 30 mL/minute, 7 patients completed the protocol-specified 8 cycles of treatment; 4 patients received the 1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib dose, and 3 patients received the 1.0 mg/m2 bortezomib dose. Using the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria, responses were assigned by an independent committee to 3 of the 10 patients (2 partial responses and 1 minimal response), a response rate similar to that of the overall treated population. Patients with CrCl > 80 mL/minute (n = 105 patients), 51-80 mL/minute (n = 99 patients), and < or = 50 mL/minute (n = 52 patients) had similar rates of discontinuation and similar adverse event profiles. Renal function did not appear to affect the 1-hour postdose proteasome inhibition or its recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experience in a limited number of patients with impaired renal function suggests that bortezomib provides clinical benefit with manageable toxicities in this high-risk population.