A phase 2 study of modified lenalidomide,bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma

We sought a regimen that incorporates optimal novel agents and balances efficacy with toxicity in transplant‐ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Our study evaluated modified lenalidomide‐bortezomib‐dexamethasone (RVD lite) in this population and was administered over a 35‐day cycle. Lenalidomide 15 mg was given orally on days 1–21; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² weekly subcutaneously on days 1, 8, 15 and 22; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally was given on the day of and day after bortezomib for 9 cycles followed by 6 cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR); secondary objectives included safety, progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Fifty‐three eligible patients were screened between April 2013 and May 2015; 50 received at least one dose of therapy. Median age at study entry was 73 years (range 65–91). The ORR was 86% and 66% of patients achieved a very good partial response or better. Median PFS was 35·1 months (95% confidence interval 30·9–not reached) and median OS was not reached at a median follow‐up of 30 months. Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 31 (62%) patients with only 1 patient experiencing grade 3 symptoms. RVD lite is a well‐tolerated and highly effective regimen, with robust PFS and OS, in the transplant‐ineligible MM population.     

Response and survival for primary therapy combination regimens and maintenance rituximab in Waldenström macroglobulinaemia

Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) is a rare and incurable lymphoma. Comparative studies evaluating the efficacy of primary therapy in symptomatic WM patients have not been performed. In this study, we compared response and survival outcomes in WM patients who received primary therapy with cyclophosphamide‐dexamethasone‐rituximab (CDR), bortezomib‐dexamethasone‐rituximab (BDR) and bendamustine‐rituximab (Benda‐R), as well as maintenance rituximab following primary therapy. Analyses were adjusted for relevant clinical factors associated with response and survival. Maintenance rituximab was analysed as a time‐varying covariate. Our study included 182 patients, of which 57 (31%) received Benda‐R, 87 (48%) BDR and 38 (21%) CDR; 116 (64%) received maintenance rituximab. The median time to best response was shorter for Benda‐R and BDR than CDR (18, 20 and 30 months, respectively). Benda‐R and BDR were associated with better median progression‐free survival (PFS) than CDR (5·5, 5·8 and 4·8 years, respectively), and better 10‐year overall survival rates (OS; 95%, 96% and 81%, respectively). Maintenance rituximab was associated with higher rates of major response (97% vs. 68%), and better median PFS (6·8 years vs. 2·8 years) and 10‐year OS rate (84% vs. 66%) when compared to not receiving maintenance. Benda‐R, BDR and maintenance rituximab associate with higher response rates and longer survival in WM patients than CDR and no maintenance, respectively.     

Phase II trial of R‐CHOP plus bortezomib induction therapy followed by bortezomib maintenance for newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma: SWOG S0601

Bortezomib is active in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), with approval in upfront and relapsed settings. Given inevitable recurrence following induction chemoimmunotherapy, maintenance approaches are a rational strategy to improve clinical outcomes. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of six cycles of R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) plus bortezomib (1·3 mg/m² days 1 and 4 of 21 d cycles) followed by bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m² days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 3 months for 2 years). Sixty‐five eligible patients were enrolled. The treatment was well tolerated and toxicities were mainly haematological. The rate of grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy was low (5%). With a median follow‐up of 6·8 years, 2‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) was 62%, and 2‐year overall survival (OS) was 85%. At 5 years, PFS was 28% and OS was 66%. MCL International Prognostic Index scores were significantly associated with 2‐year PFS, but did not predict long‐term (≥5‐year) PFS. Baseline Ki‐67 index was significantly associated with survival. Combination R‐CHOP with bortezomib followed by maintenance bortezomib appears to improve outcomes compared historically with R‐CHOP alone, with prolonged remissions in a subset of patients. These results suggest that inclusion of bortezomib with induction chemotherapy and/or maintenance is promising in MCL and warrants further exploration.     

A prospective,international phase 2 study of bortezomib retreatment in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) typically follows a relapsing course with many patients requiring multiple therapies. This single‐arm phase 2 study prospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of bortezomib retreatment in MM patients who had relapsed after achieving at least a partial response (≥PR) to prior bortezomib‐based therapy. Patients aged ≥18 years, with measurable, secretory MM, who relapsed ≥6 months after prior bortezomib treatment were eligible. Patients received up to eight cycles of bortezomib (±dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was best confirmed response at retreatment; secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), time to progression (TTP), and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. A total of 130 patients (median of two prior lines of therapy) were enrolled and received retreatment. At retreatment, 28% and 72% of patients received bortezomib and bortezomib‐dexamethasone, respectively. Overall response rate was 40%. In patients who achieved ≥PR, median DOR and TTP were 6·5 and 8·4 months, respectively. Thrombocytopenia was the most common grade ≥3 AE (35%). Forty percent of patients experienced neuropathy events, which improved and resolved in a median of 1·5 and 8·9 months, respectively. In conclusion, bortezomib retreatment was effective and tolerable in relapsed MM patients, with no evidence of cumulative toxicities.     

Bortezomib,cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone versus lenalidomide,cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients at first relapse

Bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens are well-established therapies in multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite their extensive use, head-to-head comparisons have never been performed. Therefore, we compared bortezomib and lenalidomide in fixed-duration therapies. In this open-label, phase III study, we randomized MM patients at first relapse to receive either nine cycles of bortezomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (VCD) or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (RCD). The primary endpoint was achievement of a very good partial response (VGPR) or better at six weeks after nine treatment cycles. From March 2011 to February 2015, 155 patients were randomized. VGPR or better was achieved by 12 patients (15%) in the VCD arm and 14 patients (18%) in the RCD arm (P = 0·70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16·3 (95% CI: 12·1–22·4) with VCD and 18·6 months (95% CI: 14·7–25·5) with RCD, and the two-year overall survival (OS) was 75% (95% CI: 66–86%) and 74% (95% CI: 64–85%) respectively. In subgroup analyses, no differences in PFS were observed in bortezomib- and lenalidomide-naïve patients, nor in patients who received a bortezomib-based regimen in first line. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profiles of both drugs. Bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments were equally effective in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS in MM patients at first relapse.     

Upfront lower dose lenalidomide is less toxic and does not compromise efficacy for vulnerable patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: final analysis of the phase II RevLite study

The combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone is an established treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Increasingly, treatment attenuation is advocated for frail/elderly patients to minimize toxicity even though there have been no prospective studies to demonstrate whether lenalidomide dose attenuation impacts on response and survival outcome. This prospective multicentre phase II study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lower dose lenalidomide (15 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg) in 149 eligible patients with relapsed/refractory MM aged over 59 years and/or with renal impairment. The overall response rate was 71% (complete response 15%). Median (range) progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8·9 (6·9–11·5) and 30·5 (20·0–36·2) months, respectively. Upon formal statistical comparison of these endpoints to that of a matched cohort of patients from the pivotal phase III MM009/MM010 studies who received standard‐dose lenalidomide (25 mg) and high‐dose dexamethasone (40 mg) no difference was seen in PFS (P = 0·34) and OS (P = 0·21). Importantly, grade 3–4 toxicities were reduced with low‐dose lenalidomide, mainly lower neutropenia (29% vs. 41%), infections (23% vs. 31%) and venous thromboembolism (3% vs. 13%). This study supports a strategy of lenalidomide dose reduction at the outset for at‐risk patients, and prospectively confirms that such an approach reduces adverse events while not compromising patient response or survival outcomes.     

Overall survival of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients after adjusting for crossover in the MM‐003 trial for pomalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone

In the phase III MM‐003 trial, pomalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) improved overall survival (OS) versus high‐dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in 455 patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Here, a two‐stage Weibull method was used to adjust for the crossover of patients in the HiDEX arm to pomalidomide‐based therapy. The adjusted difference in median OS between patients in the POM+LoDEX and HiDEX arms was 7·0 months (12·7 vs. 5·7 months, respectively). These findings provide important evidence for understanding the clinical efficacy of pomalidomide on OS benefits seen in RRMM patients.     

Phase II study of bortezomib,cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone as induction therapy in multiple myeloma: DSMM XI trial

We assessed the safety and efficacy of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) induction therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. A total of 414 patients received three 21‐day cycles of VCD prior to autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT). Most common grade ≥3 adverse events were leucopenia (31·4%) and thrombocytopenia (6·8%). The overall response rate (ORR) by investigator‐based assessment was 85·4%. Most patients (74%) underwent successful central laboratory‐based molecular cytogenetic analysis. No clinically relevant differences in ORR post‐induction were seen between patients with or without high‐risk cytogenetic abnormalities (86·2% vs. 84·3%). Further follow‐up data are available for 113 patients receiving ASCT who were included in a prospective consolidation trial (median follow‐up, 55·5 months); median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 35·3 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. In patients with high‐risk versus standard‐risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 19·9 vs. 43·6 months (P < 0·0001), and median OS was 54·7 months versus not reached (P = 0·0022). VCD is an effective and tolerable induction regimen; results suggest that VCD induces high response rates independently of cytogenetic risk status, but after long‐term follow‐up, cytogenetic high risk is associated with markedly reduced PFS and OS post‐ASCT.     

Phase 2 study of two sequential three‐drug combinations containing bortezomib,cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone,followed by bortezomib,thalidomide and dexamethasone as frontline therapy for multiple myeloma

Novel sequential combination therapy for induction may improve the quality of response and therefore prolong survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We report results from a phase 2 study of two sequential three‐drug combinations. Forty‐four previously untreated, symptomatic MM patients received: bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² (days 1, 4, 8, 11), cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m² (days 1, 8), plus dexamethasone 40 mg (day of and day after bortezomib) for three 21‐day cycles, followed by bortezomib 1·0 mg/m², dexamethasone 40 mg and thalidomide 100 mg daily for three cycles. Overall response rate for 42 evaluable patients was 95%, including 19% stringent complete response (sCR), 26% CR, and 57%≥ very good partial response. Twenty‐two patients have undergone stem‐cell transplantation. After a median follow‐up of 20·9 months, five patients have died; none was induction therapy‐related. Median event‐free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) have not been reached; estimated 1‐year EFS and OS rates were 81% and 91% respectively. Both three‐drug combinations were well tolerated; 82% of patients completed all six cycles. Toxicities were predictable and manageable; the most‐commonly reported grade 3/4 toxicity was neuropathy (11%). This novel sequential three‐drug combination therapy is effective and well‐tolerated in previously untreated MM patients.     

Addition of bortezomib to standard dose chop chemotherapy improves response and survival in relapsed mantle cell lymphoma

The proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, potentially increases cell sensitivity to chemotherapy. This study was performed to determine the overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS) and toxicity of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone) compared to CHOP + bortezomib chemotherapy in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients at first relapse. Forty‐six patients were randomly assigned to standard dose CHOP ± bortezomib 1·6 mg/m² given on a 21‐d cycle for up to eight cycles of treatment. Median age was 71 years (CHOP arm) and 69 years (CHOP‐bortezomib arm). Median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 1 (CHOP) and 0 (CHOP‐bortezomib) with 65% and 52%, respectively, having a disease stage of IV. ORR was 47·8% (CHOP) and 82·6% (CHOP‐bortezomib). Complete response rate was 21·7% (CHOP) vs. 34·8% (CHOP‐bortezomib); partial response rate was 26·1% (CHOP) vs. 47·8% (CHOP‐bortezomib). Median OS was 11·8 months (CHOP) and 35·6 months (CHOP‐bortezomib) (P = 0·01, Hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·16–0·83)] and there was a non‐significant improvement in PFS: 8·1 months (CHOP) and 16·5 months (CHOP‐bortezomib) [P = 0·12, HR 0·60 (95% CI 0·31–1·15)]. Severe (≥grade 3) sensory neuropathy was similar in both arms (4·3% CHOP vs. 6·5% CHOP‐bortezomib). We conclude that the addition of bortezomib to CHOP chemotherapy for relapsed MCL significantly improves outcome with a manageable increase in toxicity.     

D(T)PACE as salvage therapy for aggressive or refractory multiple myeloma

Dexamethasone ± thalidomide with infusion of cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide [D(T)PACE] is generally reserved as salvage therapy for aggressive multiple myeloma (MM) or plasma cell leukaemia (PCL) resistant to conventional therapies. The efficacy and durability of this potentially toxic regimen in this setting is unclear. We identified 75 patients who received D(T)PACE for relapsed/refractory MM at two tertiary care centres: Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto and Mayo Clinic Arizona. At time of D(T)PACE, 16 patients had PCL and three patients had leptomeningeal disease. Patients were heavily pretreated (median three prior regimens, range 1–12; prior autologous stem cell transplant [ASCT] 33%). Overall response rate was 49% (very‐good partial response 16%, partial response 33%) with stable disease in an additional 36%. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 5·5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]:4·3–9·8); overall survival (OS) 14·0 months (95% CI:8·7–19·3). Thirty‐five patients proceeded to ASCT or clinical trial, with median PFS for this subset of 13·4 months (95% CI:7·7–20·1) and OS 20·5 months (95% CI:14·8–63·8). D(T)PACE is an effective salvage therapy for heavily pretreated MM patients. Although the overall response rate of 49% in this poor prognosis cohort is reasonable, the PFS is short, suggesting the best role for D(T)PACE is in bridging to definitive therapy, such as transplantation.     

Elotuzumab in combination with thalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone: a phase 2 single‐arm safety study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Elotuzumab is an immunostimulatory, humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively targets and kills signalling lymphocytic activation molecule family member 7–expressing myeloma cells. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of elotuzumab 10 mg/kg combined with thalidomide 50–200 mg and dexamethasone 40 mg (with/without cyclophosphamide 50 mg) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The primary endpoint was the proportion of grade ≥3 non‐haematological adverse events (AEs); other endpoints included the number of dose reductions/discontinuations and efficacy. Forty patients were treated, who had a median of three previous therapies, including bortezomib (98%) and lenalidomide (73%). Grade ≥3 non‐haematological AEs were reported in 63% of patients, most commonly asthenia (35%) and peripheral oedema (25%). Six (15%) patients had an infusion reaction. Twenty‐six (65%) patients had ≥1 dose reduction/discontinuation due to an AE, none related to elotuzumab. Overall response rate was 38%; median progression‐free survival was 3·9 months. Median overall survival was 16·3 months and the 1‐year survival rate was 63%. Minimal incremental toxicity was observed with addition of elotuzumab to thalidomide/dexamethasone with or without cyclophosphamide, and efficacy data suggest clinical benefit in a highly pre‐treated population. Elotuzumab combined with thalidomide may provide an additional treatment option for patients with RRMM.     

Safety and efficacy of pomalidomide,dexamethasone and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Immunomodulatory drugs including thalidomide, lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM), are effective for treating multiple myeloma (MM). POM has shown enhanced efficacy with dexamethasone (DEX). Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with bortezomib is US Food and Drug Administration‐approved for treating MM. PLD with LEN or thalidomide has shown efficacy for MM patients. LEN with DEX, PLD and bortezomib achieves high response rates. We evaluated the combination of POM with DEX 40 mg and PLD 5 mg/m² with the latter two drugs administered on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 on a 28‐day cycle for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM patients. During Phase 1, the maximum tolerated dose of POM was 4 mg, and was used in Phase 2, which also required patients to be refractory to LEN. However, neutropenia ≥ grade 3 was observed in 10/17 (59%) patients, and the dose was lowered to 3 mg. Median PFS was 5·4 months (range, 0·3–29·0 +  months). Overall response rates for patients in Phase 2 were 39% and 31% among subjects receiving POM at 3 mg and 4 mg, respectively, and clinical benefit rates were 51% and 44%, respectively. POM, PLD and DEX is a treatment option for relapsed/refractory MM patients including those who are refractory to LEN.     

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment failure

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted in early treatment lines need effective therapies. In cohort A of the phase 2 MM-014 trial, we examined the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment failure in patients with RRMM and two prior lines of therapy. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1 to 21 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The intention-to-treat population comprised 56 patients; all received prior lenalidomide (87·5% lenalidomide refractory) and 39 (69·6%) received prior bortezomib. ORR was 32·1% (28·2% in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median PFS was 12·2 months (7·9 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median OS was 41·7 months (38·6 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (25·0%), pneumonia (14·3%) and fatigue (14·3%). These findings support earlier sequencing of pomalidomide-based therapy in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with RRMM, including those who have become refractory to lenalidomide. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01946477.     

Favourable outcomes of poor prognosis diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma patients treated with dose‐dense Rituximab,high‐dose Methotrexate and six cycles of CHOP‐14 compared to first‐line autologous transplantation

The optimal therapeutic approach for young diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients with high‐intermediate and high‐risk age‐adjusted international prognostic index (aaIPI) remains unknown. Hereby we report a 10‐year single‐centre study of 63 consecutively treated patients. To optimize outcome, two approaches were carried out: Cohort 1 patients received four cycles R‐CHOP‐21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, daunorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone over 21 days) followed by first‐line high‐dose chemotherapy with autologous stem‐cell support (HDCT‐ASCT), resulting in 2‐year progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 60·6% and 67·9%. 39·4% of those patients were not transplanted upfront, mainly due to early progressive disease (24·2%). Cohort 2 patients received an early intensified protocol of six cycles of CHOP‐14 (cyclophosphamide, daunorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone over 14 days) with dose‐dense rituximab and high‐dose methotrexate resulting in promising overall response‐ (93·3%) and complete remission (90%) rates and sustained survival (2‐year PFS and OS: 93·3%). In an intention‐to‐treat analysis, 2‐year PFS (60·6% vs. 93·3%, hazard ratio [HR] 7·2, P = 0·009) and OS (69·7% vs. 93·3%, HR 4·95, P = 0·038) differed significantly, in favour of the early intensified protocol (Cohort 2). In a multivariate Cox‐regression model, PFS (HR 8·12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1·83–35·9, P = 0·006) and OS (HR 5·86, 95% CI 1·28–26·8, P = 0·02) remained superior for Cohort 2 when adjusted for aaIPI3 as the most important prognostic factor. Survival of young poor‐prognosis DLBCL patients appears superior after early therapy intensification.     

Clinical efficacy of a bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (Vel-CTD) regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a phase II study

The clinical efficacy and safety of a four-drug combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was assessed for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Seventy patients received at least two cycles of treatment with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; cyclophosphamide 150 mg/m² orally on days 1–4; thalidomide 50 mg/day orally every day; and dexamethasone 20 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11. The overall best response rate was 88%, with 46% complete response, 9% very good partial response, and 33% partial response. After a median follow-up of 12.6 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.6 months with a 3-year PFS of 14% and the median overall survival (OS) was 31.6 months with a 3-year OS of 47%. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (4%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (3%), with thrombosis being very rare (<1%). Bortezomib combined with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone is a highly effective salvage therapy with manageable toxicity for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.     

Everolimus for patients with mantle cell lymphoma refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib: multicentre,single‐arm,phase 2 study

The multicentre, open‐label, two‐stage, single‐arm, phase 2, PILLAR (PIvotaL Lymphoma triAls of RAD001)‐1 study (NCT00702052) assessed the efficacy and safety of everolimus 10 mg/d in adults with confirmed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib who received ≥1 other antineoplastic agent, either separately or in combination with bortezomib. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per investigator review according to the response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Secondary endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Fifty‐eight patients were enrolled from August 2008–January 2011. Five partial responses were observed (ORR 8·6%; 90% confidence interval [CI] 3·5–17·3%); the study did not meet the prespecified objective of ≥8 objective responses among 57 patients. Median PFS and OS were 4·4 months (95% CI 3·5–6·1) and 16·9 months (95% CI 14·4–29·9), respectively. Grade 3/4 non‐haematological toxicities occurred in 70·7% of patients. Based on laboratory values, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anaemia occurred in 13·8%, 13·8% and 8·6% of patients, respectively. Everolimus demonstrated modest activity and acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with MCL refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib. Future studies evaluating everolimus in a less refractory population or in combination with other targeted therapies in refractory MCL are warranted.     

Daratumumab,bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma: LYRA study

This United States community study evaluated the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (D-VCd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). Patients received 4–8 induction cycles of bortezomib 1·5 mg/m², cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m² and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered as approved except for a split-first dose in Cycle 1. Eligible patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. All patients received ≤12 daratumumab maintenance doses monthly. Eighty-six NDMM and 14 RMM patients received ≥1 treatment dose. In NDMM patients, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and overall response rates after 4 induction cycles were 44% (primary endpoint) and 79%, respectively, and 56% and 81% at end of induction. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 87%. Efficacy was also observed in RMM patients. Fatigue (59%) and neutropenia (13%) were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and grade 3/4 TEAE, respectively. Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients, primarily during the first dose, and were mild (2% grade 3). The first 2 daratumumab infusions were 4·5 and 3·8 h (median). Overall, D-VCd was well tolerated, split-first daratumumab dosing was feasible, the ≥VGPR rate after 4 cycles was 44% and the 1-year PFS rate was 87%.     

Lenalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible patients of all ages in the randomized,phase III,Myeloma XI trial

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n=2,042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before autologous stem-cell transplantation to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation, eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96; P=0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.93; P=0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.42-1.15) and ultra-high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n=451) or observation (n=377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; P<0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.     

Bortezomib maintenance after R-CHOP,cytarabine and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with mantle cell lymphoma,results of a randomised phase II HOVON trial

Rituximab-containing induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard first-line treatment for young mantle cell lymphoma patients. However, most patients relapse after ASCT. We investigated in a randomised phase II study the outcome of a chemo-immuno regimen and ASCT with or without maintenance therapy with bortezomib. Induction consisted of three cycles R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), two cycles high-dose cytarabine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT. Patients responding were randomised between bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m² intravenously once every 2 weeks, for 2 years) and observation. Of 135 eligible patients, 115 (85%) proceeded to ASCT, 60 (44%) were randomised. With a median follow-up of 77·5 months for patients still alive, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 51% (95% CI 42–59%); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI 65–80%). The median follow-up of randomised patients still alive was 71·5 months. Patients with bortezomib maintenance had a 5-year EFS of 63% (95% CI 44–78%) and 5-year OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). The patients randomised to observation had 5-year PFS of 60% (95% CI, 40–75%) and OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). In conclusion, in this phase II study we found no indication of a positive effect of bortezomib maintenance after ASCT.