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.     

Combination therapy with bortezomib,continuous low‐dose cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by one year of maintenance treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma patients

Combination therapy for longer periods but at low dose might be an effective and tolerable manner to treat patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). We used bortezomib, dexamethasone and low‐dose oral cyclophosphamide as an induction regimen, followed by 1 year of maintenance consisting of bortezomib and cyclophosphamide. Relapsed MM patients were treated with six cycles of bortezomib twice weekly, cyclophosphamide 50 mg daily and dexamethasone. Maintenance therapy was given for 1 year. Primary endpoints were toxicity during re‐induction and maintenance therapy. Secondary endpoints were response to treatment and progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). This study included 59 patients. Myelosuppression and neuropathy were the most common side effects. Median follow‐up was 27·1 (0·46–54·4) months with an overall response of 71%, and a very good partial response or more of 33%. During maintenance, improved responsiveness was observed in 19% of the patients. The median PFS was 18·4 months (range 0·13–43·5) and the median OS was 28·1 months (range 0·13–54·4). In conclusion, our study demonstrates that treatment with bortezomib, dexamethasone and low‐dose cyclophosphamide is an effective and manageable regimen. Adding 1 year of maintenance was feasible, with limited side effects and an increased response rate.     

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.     

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.     

Single‐agent lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: results from a UK phase II study suggest activity and possible gender differences

We present data from a phase II study investigating a novel treatment strategy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Twenty‐six patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/d (days 1–21 of a 28‐d cycle) for up to 6 cycles followed by low‐dose maintenance lenalidomide (15 mg) in responding patients. Eight patients achieved complete or partial response to give an overall response rate of 31% with median response duration of 22·2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·0–53·6] and median progression‐free survival (PFS) of 3·9 months (95% CI 0·0–11·1). An additional six patients (23%) achieved stable disease. Eleven patients received maintenance with median PFS of 14·6 months (95% CI 7·3–21·9). Correlative studies showed that peripheral T and Natural Killer (NK) cells increased in responding patients by 40–60% over the first 6 cycles with an initial dip in NK cells suggestive of tumour infiltration. Peripheral regulatory T cells were increased in MCL patients (P = 0·001) and expanded further following lenalidomide. Sequential plasma analysis showed increased IL12 p40 and IL7 alongside decreased MMP9, IL10, and adiponectin. Finally, a significant correlation (P = 0·02) between gender and response suggested that female MCL patients were more sensitive to lenalidomide than males. In summary, we confirm the activity, safety and immunomodulatory properties of lenalidomide in MCL and highlight its potential as a low‐dose maintenance agent.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Carfilzomib,lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma categorised by age: secondary analysis from the phase 3 ASPIRE study

A primary analysis of the ASPIRE study found that the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS ) compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM ). This post hoc analysis examined outcomes from ASPIRE in patients categorised by age. In the carfilzomib group, 103/396 patients were ≥70 years old, and in the control group, 115/396 patients were ≥70 years old. Median PFS for patients <70 years old was 28·6 months for the carfilzomib group versus 17·6 months for the control group [hazard ratio (HR ), 0·701]. Median PFS for patients ≥70 years old was 23·8 months for the carfilzomib group versus 16·0 months for the control group (HR , 0·753). For patients <70 years the overall response rate (ORR ) was 86·0% (carfilzomib group) and 66·9% (control group); for patients ≥70 years old the ORR was 90·3% (carfilzomib group) and 66·1% (control group). Within the carfilzomib group, grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events occurred more frequently among patients ≥70 years old compared with patients <70 years old. Carfilzomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone has a favourable benefit‐risk profile for patients with RMM , including elderly patients ≥70 years old. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01080391.     

Phase I study of carfilzomib,lenalidomide, vorinostat,and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

Research has shown that proteasome inhibitors (e.g., carfilzomib), immunomodulatory agents (e.g., lenalidomide), histone deacetylase inhibitors (e.g., vorinostat) and corticosteroids (e.g., dexamethasone) have synergistic anti‐multiple myeloma (MM) activity. This phase I dose‐escalation study evaluated a regimen combining carfilzomib, lenalidomide, vorinostat and dexamethasone (QUAD) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Seventeen patients received carfilzomib (15, 20, or 20/27 mg/m²; 30‐min infusion; days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16), lenalidomide (15 or 25 mg; days 1–21), vorinostat (300 or 400 mg; days 1–7, 15–21), and dexamethasone (40 mg; days 1, 8, 15, 22) in 28‐d cycles. No dose‐limiting toxicities were observed; the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The maximum administered dose was carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m², lenalidomide 25 mg, vorinostat 400 mg, and dexamethasone 40 mg. Common grade ≥3 adverse events included neutropenia (53%), thrombocytopenia (53%) and anaemia (41%). The overall response rate was 53%: 12% of patients achieved a very good partial response (PR) and 41% of patients achieved a PR. At a median follow‐up of 10 months, median progression‐free survival was 12 months and median overall survival was not reached. Treatment with QUAD was feasible and had encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus cyclophosphamide/lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Novel agents are considered standard components of induction therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. We retrospectively compared the results of three consecutive phase 2 clinical trials; RD (lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 34), CRD (cyclophosphamide/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, n = 53) and CyBorD (cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, n = 63) (N = 150). Response rates after four cycles of treatment were: ≥near complete response (nCR), 12% vs. 2% vs. 41%, P < 0·0001 and very good partial response or better, 35% vs. 30% vs. 65%, P = 0·0003, respectively. With all cycles of therapy considered, ≥nCR was 35%, 15% and 41%, P = 0·006. However, there is no evidence that one regimen produced superior progression‐free survival (PFS) (median: 3·2 vs. 2·3 vs. 2·7 years, P = 0·11) or overall survival (3‐year: 88% vs. 79% vs. 88%, P = 0·23). Transplantation did not impact PFS (median: 2·7 vs. 2·3 years, P = 0·41) but was associated with improved OS (3‐year: 93% vs. 75%, P ≤ 0·001). High genetic risk patients (n = 40) had earlier relapse despite lenalidomide or bortezomib (median: 2·1 vs. 2·7 years, P = 0·45). Grade 3/4 toxicities were least with CyBorD while CRD had most toxicity. In conclusion, CyBorD demonstrated superior responses and less frequent serious toxicity but more neuropathy when compared to RD and CRD. Importantly, 80% of patients treated with modern therapeutic approaches are alive at 4 years.     

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: ELOQUENT‐2 follow‐up and post‐hoc analyses on progression‐free survival and tumour growth

The randomized phase III ELOQUENT‐2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab + lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 30% versus Ld (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70). Median time from diagnosis was 3·5 years. We present extended 3‐year follow‐up data. Endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and interim overall survival (OS). Exploratory post‐hoc analyses included impact of time from diagnosis and prior lines of therapy on PFS, and serum M‐protein dynamic modelling. ORR was 79% (ELd) and 66% (Ld) (P = 0·0002). ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 27% versus Ld (HR 0·73; P = 0·0014). Interim OS demonstrated a trend in favour of ELd (P = 0·0257); 1‐, 2‐ and 3‐year rates with ELd versus Ld were: 91% versus 83%, 73% versus 69% and 60% versus 53%. In patients with ≥ median time from diagnosis and one prior therapy, ELd resulted in a 53% reduction in the risk of progression/death versus Ld (HR 0·47). Serum M‐protein dynamic modelling showed slower tumour regrowth with ELd. Adverse events were comparable between arms. ELd provided a durable and clinically relevant improvement in efficacy, with minimal incremental toxicity.     

Development of extramedullary myeloma in the era of novel agents: no evidence of increased risk with lenalidomide–bortezomib combinations

Proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory agents (IMIDs) have improved the overall survival (OS) of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but concerns have been raised about increased incidence of extramedullary disease (EMD) after the combined use of PIs and IMIDs for upfront therapy. We evaluated whether the addition of lenalidomide to bortezomib‐based front‐line regimens precipitated earlier development of EMD. We reviewed the charts of 117 MM patients (median follow‐up from diagnosis 6·1 years; range 0·1–10·2 years) enrolled in eight clinical trials of first‐line treatment with bortezomib‐based regimens, with or without lenalidomide. We assessed development of EMD as extraosseous (distant from bone) or osseous (originating from bone) plasmacytomas. The primary endpoint was time from diagnosis until development of EMD, based on imaging, biopsy and/or physical examination. Any form of EMD at progression was observed in 40 (34·2%) patients, including 21 (18%) osseous, 8 (7%) extraosseous and 11 (9%) both osseous and extraosseous. Median OS was 0·9 years (range 0·1–4·8 years) after extraosseous EMD development. Sensitivity analyses with follow‐up times truncated at 5 years detected no statistically significant difference in rates of any EMD form between the two groups (P > 0·2 for each comparison). Therefore, we observed no evidence that bortezomib–lenalidomide‐based front‐line therapy precipitates earlier EMD.     

Autologous stem cell transplantation outcomes in elderly patients with B cell Non‐Hodgkin Lymphoma

The precise role of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains unclear in patients over 60 years of age. There is potential for increased procedural morbidity and mortality, and differences in disease biology that could impact outcomes. We performed a retrospective single‐centre review of 81 elderly B‐cell Non‐Hodgkin Lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Five‐year overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) was 54·7% and 49·1% respectively. Non‐relapse mortality (NRM) at 100 days and 1 year was 1·3% and 2·5%, suggesting no major excess compared to younger cohorts. OS and PFS were significantly worse in those over 65 years compared to those aged 60–64 (47·6% vs. 57·7%, P = 0·0437, and 27·6% vs. 57·7%, P = 0·0052 at 5 years). This resulted largely from an increased relapse risk (RR) (53·8% vs. 30·1%, P = 0·0511) rather than excess NRM, and age remained independently significant for PFS on multivariate analyses [Hazard ratio 2·56 (1·35–4·84, P = 0·0052) for PFS and 1·89 (0·99–3·61, P = 0·054) for OS]. Our data adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating that ASCT can be an effective treatment strategy with an acceptable safety profile in selected elderly patients. Further evaluation of its overall benefit is warranted, however, in those over 65 years of age, as RR appears to be considerably higher.     

Twice‐weekly ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Weekly ixazomib with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) is feasible and has shown activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. This phase 1/2 study (NCT01383928) evaluated the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of twice‐weekly ixazomib plus Rd in NDMM; 64 patients were enrolled across both phases. Patients received twice‐weekly oral ixazomib 3·0 or 3·7 mg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg (10 mg in cycles 9–16) for up to sixteen 21‐day cycles, followed by maintenance with twice‐weekly ixazomib alone. No dose‐limiting toxicities were reported in cycle 1; the RP2D was 3·0 mg based on overall tolerability across multiple cycles. In 62 evaluable patients, the confirmed overall response rate was 94% (68% ≥very good partial response; 24% complete response). Median progression‐free survival was 24·9 months. Responses (median duration 36·9 months for patients receiving the RP2D) deepened during treatment. Grade 3 drug‐related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 64% of patients, including: rash, 13%; peripheral neuropathy, 8%; hyperglycaemia, 8%. There were no grade 4 drug‐related AEs. Thirteen patients discontinued due to AEs. Twice‐weekly ixazomib‐Rd offers substantial activity with promising long‐term outcomes in NDMM patients but may be associated with greater toxicity compared with weekly ixazomib‐Rd in this setting.     

Intensification treatment based on early FDG‐PET in patients with high‐risk diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma: a phase II GELTAMO trial

We conducted a multicentre, phase II study of interim positron emission tomography (PET) as a guide to risk‐adapted therapy in high‐risk patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients achieving negative fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)‐PET after three courses of R‐MegaCHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) received three additional courses, whereas PET‐positive patients received two courses of R‐IFE (rituximab, ifosfamide, etoposide) followed by BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and autologous stem‐cell transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). 71 patients (median age 55 years, range 25–69) were enrolled. With a median follow‐up of 42·8 months (range 7·2–58·4), the estimated 4‐year PFS and overall survival (OS) were 67% and 78%, respectively, for the global series. Patients in complete remission after interim PET (N = 36) had significantly better 3‐year PFS than those with partial response (N = 30) [81% vs. 57%, Hazard ratio (HR) = 2·6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1·02–6·65] but not a statistically significant longer OS. A retrospective PET central review was done for 51 patients. According to semiquantitative analysis, 3‐year PFS (81% vs. 33%; HR = 6·9, 95% CI = 2·35–20·6) and OS (95% vs. 33%, HR = 19·4, 95% CI = 3·89–97·0) were significantly better for negative than for positive interim PET patients. Early PET assessment is valuable for risk stratification in DLBCL; for this purpose semiquantitative evaluation is a better predictor than visual criteria.     

A phase IIb trial of vorinostat in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to previous lenalidomide‐containing regimens

Clinical trials of vorinostat, a Class I/II histone deacetylase inhibitor, in combination with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents have shown activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. This phase IIb, open‐label, single‐institution study evaluated the efficacy of vorinostat in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in lenalidomide‐refractory patients. Patients were considered lenalidomide‐refractory if they had no clinical response (<minimal response) on a previous lenalidomide‐containing regimen (lenalidomide non‐responsive) or if they had progressive disease on or within 60 days of discontinuing a previous lenalidomide‐containing regimen (lenalidomide relapsed/refractory). Patients received oral vorinostat 400 mg days 1–7 and 15–21, lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15 and 22 in 28‐day cycles. Twenty‐five patients were enrolled, median age was 65 years and patients had received a median of 5 prior regimens. The overall response rate was 24% (6 partial responses) and clinical benefit rate (≥stable disease) was 80%. Median time to a partial response was 1·9 months and median duration of response was 3·3 months. Median progression‐free survival was 5·3 months. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (48%), thrombocytopenia (32%), anaemia (20%) and gastrointestinal toxicities (16%). In this heavily pre‐treated population, vorinostat in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone was active in lenalidomide‐refractory patients.     

The UK NCRI study of chlorambucil,mitoxantrone and dexamethasone (CMD) versus fludarabine,mitoxantrone and dexamethasone (FMD) for untreated advanced stage follicular lymphoma: molecular response strongly predicts prolonged overall survival

We present a long-term follow-up of the UK chlorambucil, mitoxantrone and dexamethasone (CMD) versus fludarabine, mitoxantrone and dexamethasone (FMD) for untreated advanced, symptomatic follicular lymphoma (FL). This trial was the first to prospectively assess molecular response and the impact on outcomes for 400 patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for CMD were 3·6 and 14·6 years vs. 3·0 and 15·7 years for FMD, respectively. Estimates for Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) suggested no difference in PFS or OS. For the whole cohort there was a highly significant difference in survival by POD24, with a median OS from a risk-defining event of 3·9 years compared to 13·7 years for all others (RMST P < 0·001). Molecular remission was achieved in 25/46 patients (54·3%) in the CMD arm and 20/41 (48·8%) in the FMD arm (P = 0·6). Molecular negativity resulted in median PFS of 5·6 years vs. 2·3 years for molecularly positive (log-rank P < 0·001) and median OS not reached versus 12·5 years (log-rank P < 0·01). No cases of progression occurred in minimal residual disease (MRD) negative patients after six years of follow-up. Although there was no difference in outcomes between arms, this is the first prospective study to report MRD negativity resulting in significantly improved OS.