Phase III trial of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) versus bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAd) in newly diagnosed myeloma.

We aimed at demonstrating non-inferiority of bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCD) compared to bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone (PAd) induction therapy with respect to very good partial response rates or better (⩾VGPR) in 504 newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients. VCD was found to be non-inferior to PAd with respect to ⩾VGPR rates (37.0 versus 34.3%, P=0.001). The rates of progressive disease (PD) were 0.4% (VCD) versus 4.8% (PAd; P=0.003). In the PAd arm, 11 of 12 patients with PD had either renal impairment (creatinine ⩾2 mg/dl) at diagnosis or the cytogenetic abnormality gain 1q21, whereas no PD was observed in these subgroups in the VCD arm. Leukocytopenia/neutropenia (⩾3°) occurred more frequently in the VCD arm (35.2% versus 11.3%, P<0.001). Neuropathy rates (⩾2°) were higher in the PAd group (14.9 versus 8.4%, P=0.03). Serious adverse events, both overall and those related to thromboembolic events, were higher in the PAd group (32.7 versus 24.0%, P=0.04 and 2.8 versus 0.4%, P=0.04). Stem cell collection was not impeded by VCD. VCD is as effective as PAd in terms of achieving ⩾VGPR rates with fewer PD and has a favorable toxicity profile. Therefore, VCD is preferable to PAd as induction therapy.

CNS disease in younger patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma: an analysis of patients treated on the Mabthera International Trial and trials of the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group.

BACKGROUND: To describe incidence, risk factors, and influence of treatment on occurrence of central nervous system (CNS) relapse or progression in younger patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 2210 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated on various studies for CNS relapse/progression. Treatment consisted of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) ± etoposide. Six hundred and twenty patients also received rituximab. CNS prophylaxis was intrathecal methotrexate on High-CHOEP and MegaCHOEP phase III studies if upper neck, head, bone marrow, or testes were involved. RESULTS: Fifty-six of 2196 patients (2.6%) developed CNS disease. It occurred early (median 7.0 months), median survival was 5.0 months. Patients with age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) 0 or 1 treated with rituximab showed a low risk for CNS disease (2-year rates: 0% or 0.5%), and rituximab decreased the risk (relative risk 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.9, P = 0.029). Patients with aaIPI 2 or 3 showed a moderate risk (4.2%-9.7%) and no significant reduction of CNS disease with rituximab. CNS prophylaxis was of no significant benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In younger patients with aaIPI 0 or 1, CNS relapse/progression is very rare; in patients with aaIPI 2 or 3, the risk is higher (up to 10%) and requires new diagnostic strategies and treatment.