A steroid-independent regimen of bortezomib, liposomal doxorubicin and thalidomide demonstrate high response rates in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients

Novel agents have provided a new foundation for multiple myeloma therapies. When combined with other anti-myeloma agents, these compounds significantly enhance clinical efficacy. High-dose steroids are frequently used in anti-myeloma combination regimens; however, the doses employed are often poorly tolerated, especially in patients with concurrent comorbid conditions. We hypothesized that a steroid-independent combination regimen could be developed without significant compromise of efficacy. The availability of such a regimen will be important for patients whose concurrent ailments make them poor candidates for steroid containing anti-myeloma regimens. A phase II single institute, non-randomized clinical trial was conducted to investigate a novel steroid-free three-drug combination of bortezomib (V), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (D), and thalidomide (T), the VDT regimen. Forty-three newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients requiring treatment were enrolled on this study. The overall response rate and complete response (CR) + near complete response (nCR) rate was 78% and 35%, respectively. Median time to progression was 29·5 months. Fatigue, rash, neuropathy, constipation and infections were the most common side effects. We concluded that VDT is a tolerable and an effective regimen capable of inducing high response rates and can be employed in patients considered to be poor candidates for steroid-based treatment regimens.     

Bortezomib in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, and novel agents are therefore needed to improve outcome. Bortezomib is the first proteasome inhibitor to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products for the treatment of refractory/relapsed MM. Bortezomib has demonstrated significant anti-myeloma activity as a single agent in refractory/relapsed MM. When used in combination with other agents, responses have suggested the possibility of chemosensitization and synergy. All these facts have been the rationale for the use of bortezomib-based regimens as upfront treatment in young and elderly newly diagnosed MM patients. Furthermore, bortezomib does not appear to have an adverse effect on subsequent stem-cell collection. Bortezomib is well tolerated; most side-effects are only mild to moderate and manageable. Practical management of these side-effects is given so that they can be recognized and minimized by dose modification or concomitant therapy.     

Bortezomib,ascorbic acid and melphalan (BAM) therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an effective and well-tolerated frontline regimen

Background: We conducted a single-arm, multicentre phase 2 study to evaluate bortezomib, ascorbic acid and melphalan (BAM) for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Induction consisted of up to eight 28-d cycles of bortezomib 1.0 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, plus oral ascorbic acid 1 g and oral melphalan 0.1 mg/kg on days 1–4, followed by maintenance bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² every 2 wk until progression. Results: Among 35 patients enrolled (median age 70 yr), responses occurred in 23/31 evaluable patients (74%) including five (16%) complete, three (10%) very good partial, six (19%) partial and nine (29%) minimal responses. Six patients (19%) had stable disease. Thus, disease control was achieved in 29 (94%) patients. Median times to first and best responses were 2 and 3 months (ranges 1–5 and 1–7), respectively. Median time to progression was 19 months and median overall survival has not been reached (range 2–23+ months). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 17 and 5 patients, respectively; the most common were neutropenia, neuropathy and thrombocytopenia. Conclusions: BAM is an efficacious, well-tolerated and steroid- and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-free frontline treatment regimen for MM patients.     

Emerging combination treatment strategies containing novel agents in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Treatment strategies for multiple myeloma have changed substantially over the past 10 years following the introduction of bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide. In the front-line setting, combination regimens incorporating these novel agents are demonstrating substantial activity, which is translating into improved outcomes compared with previous standards of care. Response rates and depth of response that were previously only seen with high-dose therapy plus stem-cell transplantation (HDT–SCT) can now be achieved with new induction regimens utilizing these novel agents. This has raised the need for trials that will determine the clinical benefit of early SCT in patients that have already achieved a high quality of response. Here, we review the improvements in response and outcome that are seen with these novel-agent regimens, both as induction therapy prior to HDT–SCT and in non-transplant patients, and highlight the latest data from key studies of various novel combinations, including regimens featuring bortezomib plus thalidomide or lenalidomide. We also review data on response and outcomes in patients with poor prognostic characteristics that indicate that the adverse impact typically seen with these factors may be overcome using novel-agent therapy.     

Therapeutic approaches for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in the era of novel drugs

The treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved rapidly over recent years. The availability of new effective drugs with novel mechanisms of action, such as thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib in the last decade, has resulted in a new scenario expected to impact favorably on the outcome of patients with MM. The introduction of new drugs in the treatment of patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has allowed for a significant increase of complete response rate with a positive impact on progression‐free survival. In patients not eligible for ASCT, randomized trials have shown that both thalidomide and bortezomib when combined with melphalan and prednisone (MP) are superior to MP and are now considered the standard of care. Ongoing trials are assessing whether MP plus lenalidomide or the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone should be considered an attractive treatment option, while additional studies are needed to determine the role of routine maintenance or consolidation therapy with these new drugs. This new therapeutic armamentarium in light of adequate prophylaxis and supportive care allows clinicians to greatly improve the survival perspectives for both young and elderly patients. In this review, we report updated data for the front‐line therapy of MM, examining the role of new drugs either when administered as induction therapy before ASCT in younger patients or when combined with alkylating agents for the treatment of older patients. The most relevant articles on therapy of MM published from November 1982 to January 2010 (selected through PubMed), and recent meeting abstracts were used as sources for this review.     

Efficacy of single-agent bortezomib vs. single-agent thalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic comparison

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of single-agent bortezomib vs. single-agent thalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple. METHODS: Publications in English from 1966 to June 2005 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library), publication reference lists, Janssen-Cilag data-on-file and abstracts from recent multiple myeloma conferences were reviewed. Prospective studies containing at least a single arm of either treatment group with n> or =30 were included. Studies adding dexamethasone for non-responders were excluded. Statistical pooling was performed for response rate and overallsurvival. RESULTS: One bortezomib study (n = 333, NEJM 2005, 352; 2487-98) and 15 thalidomide (n = 1007) studies met these criteria and were included. Patient baseline characteristics including age, gender, IgG : IgA, disease duration and beta-2 microglobulin were well matched except that 48% of bortezomib patients had received prior thalidomide. Response rate, defined as serum M-protein reduction > or =50%, was 53% for patients receiving bortezomib vs. 32% for thalidomide (P < 0.001, n = 10 studies). Response rate determined by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria was 41% for patients receiving bortezomib vs. 22% for thalidomide (P < 0.001, n = 4 studies). CONCLUSION: Bortezomib was associated with a significantly higher response rate and complete remission rate using both M-protein and EBMT criteria.     

硼替佐米为主化疗方案治疗初治与复发难治多发性骨髓瘤近期疗效分析

目的:分析硼替佐米为主化疗方案治疗初治与复发难治多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者的临床疗效和不良反应.方法:初治MM患者11例,复发、难治MM患者7例均采用VD方案化疗:硼替佐米1.0～1.3 mg/m2第1、4、8和11天快速静脉注射,地塞米松20 mg第1～4天(7例复发难治予地塞米松40 mg)静脉滴注,3周为1疗程,所...     

Therapy with thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma patients - the revival of an old drug

We have treated 17 refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma patients resistant to chemotherapy with thalidomide at a dose of 200-800 mg/day. Eleven patients responded, five of whom had a very good partial response (> 75% decline in M protein) and another five exhibited a partial response (> 50% decline in M protein). Except for one patient, treatment was well tolerated with only mild side-effects. Thalidomide should be included in the therapeutic options for refractory myeloma.     

Low-dose thalidomide in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide and pulsed dexamethasone is a well tolerated and effective regimen in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

The feasibility and efficacy of a triple regimen of oral weekly cyclophosphamide, monthly pulsed dexamethasone and low-dose Thalidomide (CDT) was studied in 52 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). All 52 patients were evaluable for response with a median follow up of 18 (4-29) months. About 17% achieved complete response (CR), 62% partial response (PR), 11% minimal response (MR), 6% stable disease (SD) and 4% progressive disease (PD), resulting in an objective response rate (>/=MR) of 90%. Subsequent to successful response, nine patients received high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by stem cell transplantation (SCT) and 34 received thalidomide monotherapy as maintenance. Response rate was not influenced by disease status, prior HDT or age. The regimen was successfully delivered to all patients except for one patient who developed abnormal liver function at 7 weeks. Infective complications were minimal and there were no infection-related deaths. The estimated overall and event-free survival (EFS) at 2 years was 73% and 34%, respectively, and the median time to progression has not been reached. We conclude that the CDT regimen is safe, well tolerated and effective in patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma.     

Bortezomib, low-dose intravenous melphalan, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

This multicenter phase I/II study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of low dose intravenous (IV) melphalan in combination with bortezomib for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 and escalating doses of IV melphalan (2·5–10·0 mg/m²) on day 2 of a 28-day cycle for a maximum of eight cycles. Dexamethasone 20 mg was added for progressive or stable disease. Fifty-three patients were enrolled. The MTD was defined at melphalan 7·5 mg/m² and bortezomib 1·3 mg/m². The overall response rate (ORR) was 68% (23% complete or near-complete responses [CR/nCR]) whilst at the MTD ( n  = 33) the ORR was 76% (34% CR/nCR). After median follow-up of 17 months, the median progression free survival was 10 months, rising to 12 months at the MTD ( P  < 0·05 vs. non-MTD regimens). The median overall survival was 28 months, but was not yet reached at the MTD. Grade 3/4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (62%), neutropenia (57%), infection (21%), and neuropathy (15%). Bortezomib and low-dose IV melphalan combination therapy is a safe and highly effective regimen for patients with relapsed MM. These data suggest further investigation of this combination is warranted.     

小剂量沙利度胺联合含小剂量地塞米松的VAD方案治疗老年多发性骨髓瘤的研究

目的:观察小剂量沙利度胺联合含小剂量地塞米松的VAD方案治疗老年多发性骨髓瘤的疗效。方法:回顾性分析46例多发性骨髓瘤患者,分为治疗组及对照组。对照组采用标准剂量的VAD方案,治疗组应用小剂量沙利度胺及小剂量地塞米松(40mg.d-1,只应用4d)的VAD方案联合治疗,4周为1个疗程,3个疗程后观察疗效。结果:治疗组有效率为83.34%,略高于对照组(72.72%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,治疗组血红蛋白高于对照组(P<0.05),肌酐低于对照组(P<0.05),卡氏评分高于对照组(P<0.05),骨痛评分明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。沙利度胺的主要不良反应为嗜睡、便秘及下肢深静脉血栓形成,但减低了剂量后未见严重上述不良反应。大剂量地塞米松的不良反应为血糖升高及增加感染的发生率,但本研究中减少了地塞米松的剂量,高血糖及感染的发生率明显降低,与对照组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:小剂量沙利度胺联合含小剂量地塞米松的VAD方案与标准剂量的VAD方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤患者疗效相似,但在改善患者生活质量方面有较好的疗效。并且能减少严重并发症的发生,增加患者治疗的依从性。     

�෢�Թ��������Ʋ��Խ�չ

多发性骨髓瘤仍是一种不可治愈的血液肿瘤,近10年的治疗突破很大程度上依赖新药的研发,主要包括蛋白酶体抑制剂硼替佐米、免疫调节剂如来那度胺和沙利度胺等。力求达到完全缓解(CR)是目前的治疗目标,因为CR意味着无进展生存期(PFS)甚至总生存期(OS)的延长。以新药为基础的不同诱导方案显著提高一线治疗缓解率。缓解后或移植后进行巩固和维持治疗显著延长PFS。文章主要对包含新药的诱导方案进行总结,并简要讨论难治复发骨髓瘤患者的治疗。     

Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients destined for autologous stem-cell transplantation: MRC Myeloma IX randomized trial results

Background

Thalidomide is active in multiple myeloma and is associated with minimal myelosuppression, making it a good candidate for induction therapy prior to high-dose therapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation.

Design and Methods

Oral cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was compared with infusional cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Results

The post-induction overall response rate (≥ partial response) for the intent-to-treat population was significantly higher with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone (n=555) versus cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (n=556); 82.5% versus 71.2%; odds ratio 1.91; 95% confidence interval 1.44–2.55; P<0.0001. The complete response rates were 13.0% with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone and 8.1% with cyclophos-phamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (P=0.0083), with this differential response being maintained in patients who received autologous stem-cell transplantation (post-transplant complete response 50.0% versus 37.2%, respectively; P=0.00052). Cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone was non-inferior to cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone for progression-free and overall survival, and there was a trend toward a late survival benefit with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone in responders. A trend toward an overall survival advantage for cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone over cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone was also observed in a subgroup of patients with favorable interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Compared with cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with more constipation and somnolence, but a lower incidence of cytopenias.

Conclusions

The cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone regimen showed improved response rates and was not inferior in terms of survival outcomes to the standard infusional regimen of cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone. Based on its oral administration and the reduced incidence of infection and cytopenia, cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexa-methasone may be considered an effective induction therapy option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (ISRCTN: 68454111)