Efficacy and toxicity of 2 schedules of frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin, vincristine,and prednisone plus bortezomib in patients with B‐cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND:

Bortezomib demonstrated promising activity in lymphomas. The authors conducted a randomized phase 2 trial of frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R‐CHOP) with the addition of bortezomib in patients with B‐cell lymphoma.

METHODS:

Patients were randomized between 2 schedules of bortezomib, Arm A (Days 1, 4, 8, and 11) and Arm B (Days 1 and 8), combined with 6 cycles of R‐CHOP. For the first patients (Step 1), bortezomib was given at a dose of 1 mg/m² in Arm A and 1.3 mg/m² in Arm B. For the next patients (Step 2), doses were increased to 1.3 mg/m² and 1.6 mg/m² in Arms A and B, respectively. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete response (CR) and unconfirmed CR (CR/CRu) after 6 cycles.

RESULTS:

Forty‐nine patients were included in the study, and 41 patients (84%) achieved a CR/CRu, ie, 18 of 20 patients (90%) in Arm A and 23 of 29 patients (79%) in Arm B. There were 6 partial responses and 2 patients with progressive disease. Neurologic toxicity occurred in 21 patients (43%) and was grade 2 in 11 patients (7 patients in Step 2) and grade 3 in 10 patients (9 patients in Step 2). Other grade 3 and 4 toxicities included constipation (n = 1), infections (n = 3), and cardiac events (n = 2). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia and leucopenia occurred in 14% and 41% of cycles, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

R‐CHOP + bortezomib was an effective regimen and produced an 84% CR rate. However, the dose‐limiting neurotoxicity should be kept in mind for further trials with vinca alkaloids or other potentially neurotoxic drugs combination therapies. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Phase I study of proteasome inhibitor bortezomib plus CHOP in patients with advanced,aggressive T-cell or NK/T-cell lymphoma

The aim of the study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of the combination of bortezomib and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP) as first-line therapy in advanced, aggressive T-cell lymphoma. Patients received increasing doses of bortezomib on days 1 and 8 (weekly schedule, 1.0, 1.3, and 1.6 mg/m²/dose) in addition to 750 mg/m² cyclophosphamide, 50 mg/m² doxorubicin, 1.4 mg/m² vincristine on day 1 and 100 mg/day prednisolone on days 1 to 5, every 3 weeks. Six cycles of therapy administered every 21 days were planned. Thirteen patients, who had stage III/IV chemonaive aggressive T-cell lymphoma, received a total of 55 cycles of treatment. One patient experienced hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (grade 4 neutropenia associated with febrile episode) at the 1.0 mg/m²/dose of bortezomib. There was no dose-limiting non-hematologic toxicity. The MTD was not reached at 1.6 mg/m² dose level of bortezomib. The overall complete remission rate in all patients was 61.5% (95% confidence interval = 31.6–86.1). Bortezomib can be safely combined with CHOP chemotherapy and constitutes an active regimen in advanced-stage, aggressive T-cell lymphoma patients. The recommended dose for subsequent phase II studies of bortezomib plus CHOP is 1.6 mg/m²/dose of bortezomib on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks as first-line treatment.     

Phase 2 trial of rituximab and bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell and follicular lymphoma

BACKGROUND:

In vitro studies in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) cell lines and patient‐derived cells have demonstrated synergistic apoptosis with combined rituximab and bortezomib (R‐bortezomib) compared with single‐agent bortezomib. Therefore, the authors of this report evaluated R‐bortezomib in a preclinical model and in a phase 2 clinical trial.

METHODS:

A Hu‐MCL‐severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) model engrafted with the Jeko cell line was treated with R‐bortezomib, bortezomib, or rituximab. Twenty‐five patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (n = 11) and MCL (n = 14) received 375 mg/m² rituximab on Days 1 and 8 and 1.3 to 1.5 mg/m² bortezomib on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days for a median of 3 cycles (range, 1‐5 cycles).

RESULTS:

R‐bortezomib resulted in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in Hu‐MCL‐SCID mice. In the clinical trial, the overall response rate was 40% in all 25 patients, 55% in patients with follicular lymphoma, and 29% in patients with MCL. The estimated 2‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) rate was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%‐53%) in all patients and 60% (95% CI, 20%‐85%) in responding patients. Thirteen patients (52%) developed grade 3 neurotoxicity, which consisted of constipation/ileus, sensory or motor neuropathy, or orthostatic hypotension. Patients who were heterozygous for the CD32a (Fcγ receptor IIa) 131 histidine (H) to arginine (R) polymorphism had a significantly decreased PFS (P = .009) after R‐bortezomib compared with HH and RR homozygotes.

CONCLUSIONS:

R‐bortezomib had significant activity in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma and MCL, although an unexpectedly high incidence of grade 3 neurologic toxicity was a potential limiting factor with this combination. Cancer 2011. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Dose-escalating and pharmacological study of bortezomib in adult cancer patients with impaired renal function: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study

Purpose

To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and maximum tolerated dose of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment and to develop dosing guidelines for such a patient population.

Patients and Methods

Sixty-two adult cancer patients received intravenous bortezomib at 0.7?C1.5?mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 3?weeks. Patients were stratified by 24-h creatinine clearance (CrCl) normalized to body surface area (BSA) 1.73?m² into five cohorts: normal renal function (??60?ml/min/1.73?m²); mild dysfunction (40?C59?ml/min/1.73?m²); moderate dysfunction (20?C39?ml/min/1.73?m²); severe dysfunction (<20?ml/min/1.73?m²); and dialysis. Dose escalation was planned for the four cohorts with renal dysfunction. Plasma bortezomib concentrations and blood 20S proteasome inhibition were assayed.

Results

Bortezomib escalation to the standard 1.3?mg/m² dose was well tolerated in all patients with CrCl ??20?ml/min/1.73?m²; 0.7?mg/m² was tolerated in three patients with severe renal dysfunction (<20?ml/min/1.73?m²). Bortezomib dose escalation was well tolerated in nine dialysis patients, including to 1.3?mg/m² in four patients. Decreased CrCl did not affect bortezomib pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Bortezomib-related side-effects were neither more common nor severe in patients with renal dysfunction versus those with normal renal function.

Conclusion

Bortezomib 1.3?mg/m² is well tolerated, and dose reductions are not necessary in patients with renal dysfunction. Extrapolation from clinical and pharmacologic data suggests patients with severe renal dysfunction, including dialysis patients, can receive bortezomib at the full dose established to be clinically effective in the general patient population.     

A randomized phase 2 trial of a preparative regimen of bortezomib, high-dose melphalan, arsenic trioxide, and ascorbic acid

BACKGROUND:

Bortezomib is active for newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma, and it has synergistic activity with melphalan. The authors of this report conducted a randomized trial to determine the safety and efficacy of adding bortezomib to a preparative regimen of arsenic trioxide (ATO), ascorbic acid (AA), and melphalan.

METHODS:

Among 60 patients who enrolled between October 2006 and September 2007, 58 patients underwent autologous transplantation with a preparative regimen of melphalan 200 mg/m² intravenously, AA 1000 mg daily intravenously for 7 days, and ATO 0.25 mg/kg intravenously for 7 days. Patients were randomized to receive no bortezomib (Group 1), bortezomib 1 mg/m² × 3 doses (Group 2), and bortezomib 1.5 mg/m² × 3 doses (Group 3). Primary endpoints were complete response (CR), grade IV toxicity, and 90‐day treatment‐related mortality (TRM). Secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS:

The median follow‐up of all surviving patients was 36 months (range, 20‐43 months). The CR rates in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 20%, 10%, and 10%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities and TRM were comparable. The median OS was not reached in the groups, whereas the median PFS in Groups 1, 2, and 3 was 17.8 months, 17.4 months, and 20.7 months, respectively. PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients who had high‐risk cytogenetics (P = .016 and P = .0001, respectively) and relapsed disease (P = .0001 and P = .0001, respectively) regardless of the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adding bortezomib to a preparative regimen of ATO, AA, and high‐dose melphalan was safe and well tolerated in patients with multiple myeloma. There was no significant improvement in the CR rate, PFS, or OS in the bortezomib groups. Cancer 2012;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

A study of paclitaxel,carboplatin, and bortezomib in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND:

Chemotherapy has not been reported to have a significant impact on survival for patients with metastatic melanoma. Bortezomib was shown to have additive/synergistic effects with several chemotherapeutic agents, including paclitaxel and platinum. A phase 1 trial of this 3‐drug combination reported that 6 of 28 patients treated with bortezomib followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin achieved a partial response (including 2 of 5 patients with metastatic melanoma).

METHODS:

A 2‐stage phase 2 clinical trial was conducted to assess the antitumor activity of this 3‐agent combination in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received at most 1 prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Treatment included bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on Days 1, 4, and 8; paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m²; and carboplatin at an area under the concentration (AUC) of 6 on Day 2 of a 21‐day cycle. The primary endpoint of this trial was tumor response rate (TRR).

RESULTS:

Seventeen eligible patients were enrolled. A median of 4 cycles were administered (range, 1‐7 cycles). Three patients discontinued treatment due to persistent grade 4 (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) neutropenia with grade 3 leukopenia (2 patients) or grade 4 pulmonary embolism (1 patient). Grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (71%), leukopenia (41%), thrombocytopenia (29%), and arthralgia (12%). Two partial responses were observed (TRR, 11.8%). Four patients had stable disease at >12 weeks. The median progression‐free survival was 3.2 months, and the median overall survival was 7.0 months.

CONCLUSIONS:

Due to insufficient clinical efficacy, this trial did not proceed to second‐stage accrual. The combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bortezomib demonstrated limited clinical benefit and was associated with significant toxicity. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of two doses of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

Purpose

Characterize bortezomib pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in relapsed myeloma patients after single and repeat intravenous administration at two doses.

Methods

Forty-two patients were randomized to receive bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3?mg/m², days 1, 4, 8, 11, for up to eight 21-day treatment cycles (n?=?21, each dose group). Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis were taken on days 1 and 11, cycles 1 and 3. Observational efficacy and safety data were collected.

Results

Twelve patients in each dose group were evaluable for pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. Plasma clearance decreased with repeat dosing (102?C112?L/h for first dose; 15?C32?L/h following repeat dosing), with associated increases in systemic exposure and terminal half-life. Systemic exposures of bortezomib were similar between dose groups considering the relatively narrow dose range and the observed pharmacokinetic variability, although there was no readily apparent deviation from dose-proportionality. Blood 20S proteasome inhibition profiles were similar between groups with mean maximum inhibition ranging from 70 to 84% and decreasing toward baseline over the dosing interval. Response rate (all 42 patients) was 50%, including 7% complete responses. The safety profile was consistent with the predictable and manageable profile previously established; data suggested milder toxicity in the 1.0?mg/m² group.

Conclusions

Bortezomib pharmacokinetics change with repeat dose administration, characterized by a reduction in plasma clearance and associated increase in systemic exposure. Bortezomib is pharmacodynamically active and tolerable at 1.0 and 1.3?mg/m² doses, with recovery toward baseline blood proteasome activity over the dosing interval following repeat dose administration, supporting the current clinical dosing regimen.     

A salvage chemotherapy of R‐P‐IMVP16/CBDCA consisting of rituximab,methylprednisolone, ifosfamide,methotrexate, etoposide,and carboplatin for patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma who had previously received R‐CHOP therapy as first‐line chemotherapy

We have reported the efficacy of the salvage chemotherapy P‐IMVP16/CBDCA for patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had previously received CHOP before the availability of rituximab (R). Here, we confirmed the efficacy of R combined with P‐IMVP16/CBDCA as a salvage chemotherapy for patients with DLBCL, who had previously received R‐CHOP. We retrospectively analysed 59 patients with relapse or refractory DLBCL (38 male patients and 21 female patients) presenting between June 2004 and June 2013. The patients received R 375 mg/m² on day 1, methylprednisolone 1000 mg/body for 3 days (from day 3 to day 5), ifosfamide 1000 mg/m² for 5 days (from day 3 to day 7), methotrexate 30 mg/m² on day 5 and day 12, etoposide 80 mg/m² for 3 days (from day 3 to day 5), and carboplatin 300 mg/m² on day 3 every 21 days. Patients aged 70 years or older were given 75% of the standard dose. The overall response rate (complete response + partial response) was 64.4%. The 2‐year overall survival rate was 55.3%. The 2‐year progression free survival rate was 34.7%. The 2‐year overall survival rate was 61.5% for the relapse patients, and 15.6% for the refractory patients (p < 0.0001). One patient died because of sepsis related to the treatment regimen. Non‐hematological adverse effects were mild and tolerable. The R‐P‐IMVP‐16/CBDCA regimen displayed a significant activity in relapsed DLBCL, with acceptable toxicity, and should be considered a candidate for salvage chemotherapy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A phase 2 trial of bortezomib followed by the addition of doxorubicin at progression in patients with recurrent or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E1303)

BACKGROUND:

Bortezomib, an inhibitor of the 26S proteasome and NF‐κB, may have antitumor activity in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). Preclinical studies have shown synergy between bortezomib and doxorubicin.

METHODS:

Eligibility criteria included incurable ACC, any number of prior therapies but without an anthracycline, unidimensionally measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0‐2, and ejection fraction within normal limits. Patients with stable disease for ≥9 months were excluded. Patients received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² by intravenous (IV) push on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11, every 21 days until progression. Doxorubicin 20 mg/m² IV on Days 1 and 8 was added at the time of progression.

RESULTS:

Twenty‐five patients were enrolled, of whom 24 were eligible; the most common distant metastatic sites were the lung (n = 22) and the liver (n = 7). There was no objective response with single‐agent bortezomib; best response was stable disease in 15 (71%) of 21 evaluable patients. The median progression‐free survival and overall survival were 6.4 months and 21 months, respectively. Of 10 evaluable patients who received bortezomib plus doxorubicin, 1 had a partial response, and 6 had stable disease. The most frequent toxicity with bortezomib was grade 3 sensory neuropathy (16%). With bortezomib plus doxorubicin, serious toxicities seen more than once were grade 3‐4 neutropenia (n = 3) and grade 3 anorexia (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS:

Bortezomib was well tolerated and resulted in disease stabilization in a high percentage of patients but no objective responses. The combination of bortezomib and doxorubicin was also well tolerated and may warrant further investigation in ACC. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

Efficacy and safety of the combination of rituximab,fludarabine, and mitoxantrone for rituximab‐naive,recurrent/refractory follicular non‐Hodgkin lymphoma with high tumor burden

BACKGROUND:

This phase 2 trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab combined with intravenous fludarabine and mitoxantrone (R‐FM) for patients with recurrent/refractory follicular lymphoma who had high tumor burden according to Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) criteria.

METHODS:

Fifty patients were enrolled who had received a maximum of 2 previous regimens, including 1 cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP)/CHOP‐like regimen but no previous exposure to rituximab, fludarabine, or mitoxantrone. At baseline, 58% of patients had bulky disease (lesion >7cm), 56% had high‐risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) scores (range, 3‐5), and 22% were refractory. Treatment consisted of 4 courses of R‐FM (rituximab 375 mg/m² intravenously on Day 1, fludarabine 25 mg/m² intravenously on Days 2 through 4, and mitoxantrone 10 mg/m² intravenously on Day 2, recycling at Day 28) and consolidation with 2 courses of fludarabine and mitoxantrone (the same regimen without rituximab).

RESULTS:

The best response (84% overall response rate including 68% complete response/complete response unconfirmed) was achieved after 4 courses of R‐FM. Response rates were high regardless of age, refractoriness to last previous therapy, and FLIPI score. After a median follow‐up of 4 years, the 3‐year progression‐free survival rate was 47%, the event‐free survival rate was 41%, and the 3‐year overall survival rate was 66%. Grade ≥3 neutropenia and infections were the most common toxicities and occurred in 72% and 14% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Cytoreduction with 4 courses of R‐FM was safe and highly efficient in patients with recurrent/refractory follicular lymphoma who had high tumor burden; however, better consolidation than FM is needed to further improve outcome. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oxaliplatin and bortezomib: activity, but dose-limiting neurotoxicity

Purpose

The potential synergy of modulating platinum-induced DNA damage by combining the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with oxaliplatin was studied in patients with solid tumors, with special attention to avoidance of cumulative neurotoxicity (NT).

Patients and methods

In a 3 + 3 dose escalation design, patients received bortezomib at 1.0–1.5 mg/m² on days 1 and 4 and oxaliplatin at 60–85 mg/m² on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. NT assessments were performed at the start of every two cycles. Oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics (PK) were determined pre- and post-bortezomib.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled with 25 (11 men, 14 women) fully evaluable for NT assessments at cycle 2. The median age was 56 years (range 35–74 years); median number of cycles received 2 (range 1–10). At dose levels 2–5 (B 1.3 mg/m²), patients manifested NT grades 3 and 4 at a median 3.4 cycles (range 2–9 cycles): 3 had ataxia (one also with sensory neuropathy or neurogenic hypotension, respectively) and 3 had just sensory neuropathy. A 6th dose-level reducing bortezomib to 1.0 mg/m² with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m²) was explored and no NT or dose limiting toxicities were noted among 7 evaluable patients (5 receiving two or more cycles). Four patients experienced a partial response—one with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, another with gastroesophageal cancer, another with ampulla of Vater carcinoma, and a patient with cholangiocarcinoma. PK studies at dose levels 1 and 2 showed greater mean ultrafiltrable platinum when oxaliplatin was dosed after bortezomib.

Conclusions

Bortezomib 1.0 mg/m² × 2 every 14 days combines safely with oxaliplatin. At higher doses, cumulative NT (i.e., cerebellar signs and sensory neuropathy) occurs at an accelerated pace perhaps from a PK interaction.     

Phase 2 Open-Label Study of Bortezomib,Cladribine, and Rituximab in Advanced,Newly Diagnosed,and Relapsed/Refractory Mantle-Cell and Indolent Lymphomas

Background

Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) and indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) are incurable heterogeneous diseases characterized by relapse. There is a need for newer treatments in MCL and iNHL, especially in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. We therefore investigated the novel combination of bortezomib (Velcade), cladribine, and rituximab (VCR) in front-line and R/R settings in MCL and iNHL (NCT00980395).

Bortezomib,melphalan, and prednisone in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND:

In elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the addition of bortezomib to standard, combined oral melphalan and prednisone (MP) significantly increases the response rate and event‐free survival compared with MP alone.

METHODS:

In this phase 1/2 trial, the authors assessed the dosing, efficacy, and safety of a lower dose‐intensity MP schedule plus weekly bortezomib as salvage treatment for elderly patients with MM. To assess the maximum tolerated dose, 19 patients who had relapsed/refractory MM after 1 or 2 lines of treatment entered the first phase of the study. They received melphalan at a dose of 24 mg for 28 days; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; and prednisone at a dose of 50 mg every other day of a 28‐day cycle for a total of 9 cycles. At the end of the first phase, based on the good efficacy and acceptable toxicity of this combination, an additional 23 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS:

After a median follow‐up of 21 months, of 42 patients who relapsed, 24 (57%) obtained at least a partial response, 4 had stable disease, and 11 had progressive disease. The median time to progression was 18 months, and the median overall survival was 30 months. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was observed in 16 of 42 patients (38%) and was more frequent during the early cycles.

CONCLUSIONS:

A weekly infusion of bortezomib associated with lower dose‐intensity MP induced a high proportion of responses and was well tolerated in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Phase I/II study of bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisolone for previously untreated Japanese patients with multiple myeloma

This phase I/II study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisolone in Japanese patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who are ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. One hundred and one patients were enrolled, and 99 patients received up to nine 6‐week cycles of bortezomib (0.7/1.0/1.3 mg/m²) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 in cycles 1–4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 in cycles 5–9, with melphalan (9 mg/m²) and prednisolone (60 mg/m²) on days 1–4 of each cycle. The recommended dose was determined in the phase I portion, and the overall response rate and safety of bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisolone at the recommended dose were assessed in the phase II portion. The recommended dose of bortezomib was determined to be 1.3 mg/m². Grade 3 or higher non‐hematological adverse events included diarrhea (12%) and peripheral neuropathy (10%); grade 4 hematological adverse events included lymphopenia (41%), neutropenia (30%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). Eleven patients had lung injury associated with bortezomib; two had grade 3 disease, and the other nine had grade 1 or 2 disease. Of the 86 patients treated with 1.3‐mg/m² bortezomib in phases I and II, the median number of treatment cycles was 4.5, and the overall response rate was 70% (95% confidence interval: 59–79%). Bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisolone with 1.3‐mg/m² bortezomib was considered to be tolerable and effective in Japanese patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. However, further investigation is needed to refine the administration schedule.     

Prognostic value of MYC rearrangement in cases of B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma

BACKGROUND:

B‐cell lymphoma, Unclassifiable with features intermediate between diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and Burkitt lymphoma, for convenience referred to here as unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma, is a category in the 2008 World Health Organization system used for a group of histologically aggressive neoplasms that are difficult to classify definitively. Currently, there is no established standard therapy for these neoplasms.

METHODS:

The authors assessed MYC status and correlated it with treatment response and outcome in a group of 52 patients with unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma treated with either a standard DLBCL regimen (R‐CHOP [rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone‐related therapy]) or more intensive regimens, such as R‐hyper‐CVAD (rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high‐dose methotrexate and cytarabine). The regimens were selected by the treating clinicians based on the overall clinical and pathological findings.

RESULTS:

Thirty (58%) unclassifiable B‐cell lymphomas had MYC abnormalities (MYC⁺) including 27 with rearrangement, 2 with amplification, and 1 with both. The MYC⁺ and MYC^? groups were similar in their age distribution and International Prognostic Index scores. Progression‐free survival of patients with MYC⁺ unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma treated initially with R‐CHOP was significantly worse than patients treated with R‐hyper‐CVAD (P = .0358). In contrast, for the MYC^? unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma group, some patients responded to R‐CHOP, and others were refractory to R‐hyper‐CVAD.

CONCLUSIONS:

MYC aberrations are common in unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma. The presence of MYC aberrations identifies a patient subset that requires more aggressive therapy than R‐CHOP. In contrast, MYC^? unclassifiable B‐cell lymphoma patients responded variably to either R‐CHOP or aggressive therapy, and the latter showed no survival advantage. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

Results from AMBER,a randomized phase 2 study of bevacizumab and bortezomib versus bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND.

Newer systemic therapies have significantly advanced the treatment of multiple myeloma, but additional agents are needed. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma that inhibits tumor angiogenesis, a process that has been implicated in multiple myeloma pathogenesis.

METHODS.

In AMBER(“A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo‐Controlled, Multicenter, Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma”), patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each 21‐day cycle) and either placebo or bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle) for up to 8 cycles. At completion, patients in the bortezomib‐plus‐bevacizumab arm could continue bevacizumab until they developed progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS).

RESULTS.

The stratified hazard ratio of PFS for the bevacizumab‐containing arm (n = 49) relative to the bortezomib monotherapy arm (n = 53) was 0.743 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43‐1.28; P = .2804); the median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.4‐8.5 months) and 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.2‐7.2 months), respectively; the overall response rates were 51% and 43.4% (P = .4029), respectively; and the median response duration was 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.73‐11.83 months) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.86‐8.31 months), respectively. Frequent adverse events occurred at similar rates across treatment arms, but hypertension, fatigue, and neuralgia occurred more frequently in the bevacizumab‐containing arm.

CONCLUSIONS.

The addition of bevacizumab to bortezomib in unselected patients with pretreated multiple myeloma did not result in significant improvements in efficacy outcomes. The combination was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns for either agent were identified. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

A phase 1 Bayesian dose selection study of bortezomib and sunitinib in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies

Background:

This phase 1 trial utilising a Bayesian continual reassessment method evaluated bortezomib and sunitinib to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and recommended doses of the combination.

Methods:

Patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were enrolled and received bortezomib weekly with sunitinib daily for 4 weeks, every 6 weeks. Initial doses were sunitinib 25 mg and bortezomib 1 mg m⁻². Cohort size and dose level estimation was performed utilising the Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) adaptive method. Seven dose levels were evaluated; initially, sunitinib was increased to a goal dose of 50 mg with fixed bortezomib, then bortezomib was increased. Efficacy assessment occurred after each cycle using RECIST criteria.

Results:

Thirty patients were evaluable. During sunitinib escalation, DLTs of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (14%) and neutropenia (6%) at sunitinib 50 mg and bortezomib 1.3 mg m⁻² were seen. Subsequent experience showed tolerability and activity for sunitinib 37.5 mg and bortezomib 1.9 mg m⁻². Common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and diarrhoea. The recommended doses for further study are bortezomib 1.9 mg m⁻² and sunitinib 37.5 mg. Four partial responses were seen. Stable disease >6 months was noted in an additional six patients.

Conclusion:

Bortezomib and sunitinib are well tolerated and have anticancer activity, particularly in thyroid cancer. A phase 2 study of this combination in thyroid cancer patients is planned.     

Weekly docetaxel and bortezomib as first-line treatment for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial

Background

Docetaxel is currently the standard first-line treatment in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Bortezomib, the first proteasome inhibitor in clinical use, demonstrated activity against prostate cancer in phase I trials. For this reason, we evaluated the efficacy of docetaxel plus bortezomib in the first-line treatment of patients with HRPC.

Patients and Methods

Between February 2004 and May 2005, 63 eligible patients entered this phase II trial. All patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate that had progressed on hormonal therapy. All patients received docetaxel 30 mg/m² and bortezomib 1.6 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were reevaluated after 8 weeks of treatment; responding and stable patients continued treatment until tumor progression.

Results

Sixty patients (95%) received ≤ 2 courses of treatment and were evaluable for response. Fifteen patients (25%; 95% confidence interval, 15%-38%) had a > 50% decrease in serum prostate-specific antigen level with treatment; the median response duration was 8 months. The median progression-free and overall survival times for the entire group were 4.1 months and 13.8 months, respectively; 20% of patients were alive at 2 years. The regimen was well tolerated, with uncommon grade 3/4 toxicity.

Conclusion

Treatment with this combination of weekly docetaxel and bortezomib showed no suggestion of improved efficacy versus previous results with docetaxel alone. Bortezomib has minimal activity in patients with HRPC and is unlikely to make any impact on treatment efficacy.     

Efficacy and safety of clofarabine in relapsed and/or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including rituximab-refractory patients

BACKGROUND:

Currently, no standard therapy exists for patients with relapsed and/or refractory non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who are ineligible for transplantation or who have failed after bone marrow transplantation. The authors of this report investigated the safety and efficacy of clofarabine (CLO) in these patients.

METHODS:

In a 2‐step, open‐label study, CLO (as a 1‐hour intravenous infusion given daily for 5 days) was given every 28 days (maximum, 6 cycles). In the phase 1 portion (n = 7; standard 3 + 3 study design), the dose was escalated by 2 mg/m² to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The phase 2 study (n = 26) was initiated at the MTD, and patients were followed until disease progression.

RESULTS:

Of 33 patients who were enrolled, 31 patients (median age, 69 years) were evaluable; 24% failed after previous stem cell transplantation, and 72% were rituximab‐refractory. The MTD for CLO was 4 mg/m². The overall response rate was 42%. Seven patients (23%) achieved a complete response, and 6 patients (19%) achieved a partial response. The median response duration was 5 months. Among the rituximab‐refractory patients, the overall response rate was 47% (complete response rate, 28%), and the median response duration was 7 months. At a median follow‐up of 14 months, 45% of patients remained alive (median overall survival, 10 months). Toxicity was mainly hematologic (≥60% of patients had neutropenia or thrombocytopenia). Nonhematologic toxicity included tumor lysis syndrome, infection, and renal insufficiency (in 6% of patients each). No treatment‐related mortality was observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

Single‐agent CLO was active and was tolerated well in patients with refractory NHL, including patients in a rituximab‐refractory subset. Reversible myelosuppression was the major toxicity. Study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00156013). Cancer 2011. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

A phase I pharmacodynamic trial of bortezomib in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose  This phase I trial sought to define the toxicity, maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacodynamics of a combination of bortezomib and doxorubicin in patients with advanced malignancies. Patients and methods  Twenty-six patients were treated with bortezomib intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, with doxorubicin also administered intravenously on days 1 and 8, both in a 21-day cycle. Dosing ranged from 1.0 mg/m² of bortezomib with 15 mg/m² of doxorubicin to 1.5 mg/m² of bortezomib with 20 mg/m² of doxorubicin. Pharmacodynamic studies performed included assessment of levels of 20S proteasome activity and ubiquitin-protein conjugates. Results  The combination of bortezomib and doxorubicin was generally well tolerated. There were two dose limiting toxicities (DLT) at dose cohort 3 (1.3 mg/m² bortezomib, 20 mg/m² doxorubicin) and 2 DLT at dose cohort 3a (1.5 mg/m² bortezomib, 15 mg/m² doxorubicin). DLT seen included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neuropathy. In addition, one patient developed grade 3 central nervous system toxicity in cycle 2 (not a DLT). One patient with hormone refractory prostate cancer had a partial response. Proteasome inhibition in whole blood was demonstrated and an increase in ubiquitin-protein conjugates was observed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of most patients. Conclusions  Bortezomib and doxorubicin can be administered safely. The recommended phase II dose for this 21-day cycle is bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, and doxorubicin 20 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8. This combination may be of special interest in multiple myeloma, given the activity of both drugs in that disease. Supported by grant: U01 CA062491 “Early Clinical Trials of Anti-Cancer Agents With Phase I Emphasis, NCI” and M01 RR03186 “General Clinical Research Center Program of The National Center for Research Resources, NIH”.