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

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

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone treatment in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

We conducted a multicenter, open-label study to investigate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma The study was composed of the “monotherapy phase”, a dose-escalation phase, to determine the tolerability to single agent lenalidomide and the “combination phase” to determine the safety and obtain preliminary data on the efficacy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. The primary end points were the tolerability to 25 mg lenalidomide and safety. Nine and six patients were enrolled in the monotherapy phase and the combination phase, respectively. Since 25 mg of monotherapy treatment did not satisfy the DLT criteria, this dose was employed in the combination phase. The major adverse event was myelosuppression. At the planned interim analysis (median study duration, 26.3 weeks), grade 3 or grade 4 neutropenia was observed with high frequency (66.7%). However, all adverse events observed were clinically manageable. In the combination cohort, the overall response rate (≥PR) was 100%. The pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide showed rapid absorption and elimination after both single and multiple doses. In conclusion, 25 mg of lenalidomide was given safely as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone in Japanese patients. The good efficacy of the combination therapy was also demonstrated in this study.     

Lenalidomide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma disease: feasibility and benefits of long-term treatment

Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone is an effective and well-established treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) disease. Due to the scarcity of reports assessing benefit and risk of long-term lenalidomide treatment in non-selected rrMM patients, we retrospectively analysed the long-term outcome in patients with rrMM treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Sixty-seven patients (pts) who were treated with lenalidomide/dexamethasone for rrMM in the approved indication from 2007 to 2011 were included in this retrospective, single-centre analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared between total population, patients on lenalidomide for more than 12 months (mo) and patients discontinuing therapy earlier than 12 months. Median overall survival (OS) of the total patient population was 33.2 mo. OS of pts treated beyond 12 mo was 42.9 mo compared to 20.2 mo (p?=?0.027) for pts stopping lenalidomide earlier than 12 mo for other reasons than progression disease (PD). OS of pts >12 mo on lenalidomide treatment did not significantly differ between pts who had received previous autologous transplantation, allogeneic transplantation or conventional therapy. Main non-hematologic toxicities were infections of grade 3/4 in 25 % and thrombembolic events of all grades in 18 % of patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on feasibility and efficacy of long-term lenalidomide treatment in a non-selected patient cohort. OS of pts >12 mo on lenalidomide is superior when compared to pts discontinued earlier for reasons other than PD. Our data confirm the current use of lenalidomide as a continuous long-term treatment strategy.     

Tanespimycin with bortezomib: activity in relapsed/refractory patients with multiple myeloma

Tanespimycin (17‐allylamino‐17‐demethoxygeldanamycin, 17‐AAG) disrupts heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), a key molecular chaperone for signal transduction proteins critical to myeloma growth, survival and drug resistance. In previous studies, tanespimycin monotherapy was well tolerated and active in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Preclinical data have shown antitumour synergy between tanespimycin and bortezomib, with more pronounced intracellular accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins than either drug alone, an effect attributed to the synergistic suppression of chymotryptic activity in the 20S proteasome. HSP70 induction has been observed in all Phase 1 tanespimycin studies in which it has been measured, with several separate reports of HSP70 overexpression protecting against peripheral nerve injury. In this Phase 2, open‐label multicentre study, we compared 1·3 mg/m² bortezomib + three doses of tanespimycin: 50, 175 and 340 mg/m² in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory MM and measured HSP70 expression and proteasome activity levels in plasma of treated patients. The study was closed prematurely for resource‐based reasons, precluding dose comparison. Nonetheless, antitumour activity was observed, with promising response rates and promising severity of peripheral neuropathy.     

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.     

Combined thalidomide and cyclophosphamide treatment for refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma patients: a prospective phase II study

Thalidomide is an effective agent for patients with refractory multiple myeloma (MM) with a response rate of 30–40% at doses of 200–800 mg but with considerable side effects. We questioned whether lower doses of thalidomide in combination with a daily dose of cyclophosphamide might be an effective regimen with fewer side effects. We included 38 patients with relapsed or refractory MM. The median doses of thalidomide and cyclophosphamide were 100 and 95 mg/day, respectively. Side effects were observed in all patients, with neurotoxicity as the most troublesome. With a median follow-up of 14 months 84% of the patients responded, including 64% partial responses. The median time of progression-free survival was 30 months and the median overall survival time was 20 months. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that the combination of low-dose thalidomide with a daily dose of cyclophosphamide is an effective regimen with a high overall response rate and manageable side effects.This work is financially supported by research funding from the KWF (Dutch Cancer Society)Conflict of interest: There are no financial and personal relationsships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) our work.     

Long-term results of thalidomide in refractory and relapsed multiple myeloma with emphasis on response duration

OBJECTIVE: Thalidomide administered as a single agent produces a response rate of about 40% in patients with refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of our study was to determine the quality and duration of such responses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients with refractory (20) or relapsed (22) MM were given thalidomide as a single agent at our institution. Most of them (70%) had previously received two or more lines of therapy, and 38% had undergone autologous stem cell transplantation. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (43%) responded to thalidomide [11 minimal responses (MR) and seven partial responses (PR)] according to the European Marrow Transplant Registry (EBMT) criteria. The median time to response was 3 months and the median duration of therapy in responding patients was 9 months. Treatment was discontinued because of toxicity in 10 responding patients. The toxicity mainly led to peripheral neuropathy and fatigue. At the time of this analysis, all responding patients had progressed except one who remains in continued stable PR. The median time to progression was 15.6 months (range 1.3 to 70+), with a trend towards a longer duration for patients who achieved PR vs. MR (21.2 vs. 11.2 months, P = 0.11). The median duration of response was 12.4 months (range: 0.3-67+) (17.2 months for PR vs. 9.7 months for MR, P = 0.11). CONCLUSION: These results show that the effect of thalidomide in refractory/relapsed MM can be sustained, particularly in patients who achieve a greater degree of response, and support the finding that this drug can be used for maintenance therapy.     

Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Recent studies have shown a clinical benefit of lenalidomide, an oral immunomodulatory drug, plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were cytopenias, fatigue, muscle cramps, rash, infection, insomnia, and venous thromboembolism. Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of patients with MM who have received at least one prior therapy. An expert panel reviewed the efficacy and toxicity of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and provided recommendations on the management of patients receiving this treatment. Patient selection is straightforward, as prognostic factors do not appear to heavily influence efficacy. In addition, the panel agreed on strategies for the management of side effects. The recommendations presented here will aid the safe administration of lenalidomide, and avoid unnecessary dose reduction and discontinuation, thus assuring the best efficacy of treatment.     

Monotherapy with low-dose thalidomide for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: better response rate with earlier treatment

BACKGROUND: Thalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug used in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The optimal dosing regimen of thalidomide is not known. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the overall response rate and response duration of 53 patients with relapsed MM who received thalidomide in a median dose of 100 mg daily. The aim of the study was to compare the response rates of thalidomide given as the second-line treatment to those of thalidomide given as the third-line therapy. RESULTS: Of 33 patients receiving thalidomide as second line, 13 (39%) had overall treatment response. Of 20 patients treated with thalidomide monotherapy as the third-line treatment, there were three treatment responses (15%) (P = 0.039). The median duration of treatment response in the second-line thalidomide group (12 months, range 6-60 months) was twice as long as that in the third-line thalidomide group (6 months, range 3-57 months), although the difference was not statistically significant, probably due to low number of patients. Only 6% of patients (3/53) had to stop the treatment because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with low-dose thalidomide results in treatment responses in approximately 30% of patients with advanced MM. The response rate appears to be higher if thalidomide treatment is started after the first relapse or progression in comparison with the second relapse or progression. Treatment toxicity is acceptable even with prolonged exposure to the drug.     

Tanespimycin and bortezomib combination treatment in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: results of a phase 1/2 study

This open-label, dose escalation, multicentre phase 1/2 trial was undertaken to determine the safety and tolerability of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibitor tanespimycin (100-340 mg/m(2) )+ bortezomib (0·7-1·3 mg/m(2) ) given on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 in each 21-d cycle. Phase 2 expansion occurred at the highest tested dose of tanespimycin at 340 mg/m(2) and bortezomib at 1·3 mg/m(2) . Seventy-two patients (median age, 60 years) with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) were enrolled; 63 patients (89%) completed the study. Tanespimycin in combination with bortezomib was well tolerated; few patients experienced significant neutropenia, constipation and anorexia (<10%), and no patients developed severe peripheral neuropathy. Among 67 efficacy-evaluable patients, there were 2 (3%) complete responses and 8 (12%) partial responses, for an objective response rate (ORR) of 27%, including 8 (12%) minimal responses. Response rates were highest among bortezomib-naive patients and proved durable in all patient subgroups, including those with bortezomib-refractory disease. Pharmacodynamic analyses indicated that tanespimycin plus bortezomib effectively inhibited the proteasome, as evidenced by decreased 20S proteasome activity, and inhibited HSP90, as reflected by increased HSP70 expression. The results of this study support additional studies of this combination approach in MM.     

Analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in community practice

The clinical data on the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib as treatment for multiple myeloma patients are restricted to prospective phase II studies in expert myeloma centers. Here we report a multi-institutional analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who were treated in community centers in a compassionate need program.     

Bendamustine in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone is a viable salvage option in myeloma relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide

Treatment options are limited in myeloma relapsed or refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide (double-relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; DRMM). Bendamustine is an antitumour agent that has efficacy in relapsed myeloma. We retrospectively analysed data from 30 DRMM patients who received a combination of bendamustine, thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) in 28-day treatment cycles. Bendamustine was administered with a cumulative dose of up to 200 mg/m². Thalidomide (50–150 mg) was given daily as tolerated, and dexamethasone was given at an equivalent dose of up to 160 mg per cycle. A median of 5 (2–9) treatment cycles were administered per patient. Twenty-six patients (87 %) achieved stable disease or better. At a median follow-up time of 12.1 (2.3–21.5) months, median (95 % CI) progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.0 (2.6–5.3) months and 7.2 (5.2–9.2) months, respectively. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological: anaemia (n?=?8, 34.8 %), neutropenia (n?=?16, 69.6 %) and thrombocytopenia (n?=?10, 43.5 %). Non-haematological toxicities included pain (n?=?3, 13.0 %), infection (n?=?7, 30.4 %) and sensory neuropathy (n?=?1, 4.3 %). We propose that BTD is a viable salvage treatment option for DRMM patients.     

High response rate to bortezomib with or without dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: results of a global phase 3b expanded access program

Phase 2 trials have demonstrated that bortezomib ± dexamethasone is safe and effective in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3b trial, 638 patients with relapsed or refractory MM (median 3 prior therapies) received bortezomib 1·3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a maximum of eight 3-week cycles (median 5 cycles). Dexamethasone 20 mg/d was added the day of and day after each bortezomib dose for progressive disease after ≥2 cycles or for stable disease after ≥4 cycles. Responses were assessed based on M-protein changes. Overall response rate was 67%, including 11% complete (100% M-protein reduction), 22% very good partial (75–99% reduction), 18% partial (50–74% reduction), and 16% minimal response (25–49% reduction). Dexamethasone was added in 208 patients (33%), of whom 70 (34%) showed improved response. Median time to best response of minimal response or better was 84 d. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (39%), neutropenia (16%), anaemia (12%), diarrhoea (7%), and peripheral neuropathy (6%). Neuropathy (any grade) was seen in 25% of the patients and led to discontinuation in 5%. Bortezomib, alone and combined with dexamethasone, is safe and effective in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory MM.     

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior thalidomide exposure

This analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with thalidomide. Of 704 patients, 39% were thalidomide exposed. Thalidomide-exposed patients had more prior lines of therapy and longer duration of myeloma than thalidomide-naive patients. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone led to higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + dexamethasone despite prior thalidomide exposure. Among lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients, ORR was higher in thalidomide-naive versus thalidomide-exposed patients (P = .04), with longer median TTP (P = .04) and PFS (P = .02). Likewise for dexamethasone alone-treated patients (P = .03 for ORR, P = .03 for TTP, P = .06 for PFS). Prior thalidomide did not affect survival in lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients (36.1 vs 33.3 months, P > .05). Thalidomide-naive and thalidomide-exposed patients had similar toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone resulted in higher rates of venous thromboembolism, myelosuppression, and infections versus placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Lenalido-mide + dexamethasone was superior to placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Although prior thalidomide may have contributed to inferior TTP and PFS compared with thalidomide-naive patients, these parameters remained superior compared with placebo + dexamethasone; similar benefits compared with placebo + dexamethasone were not evident for thalidomide-exposed patients in terms of overall survival. Studies were registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00056160 and NCT00424047.     

Frequent good partial remissions from thalidomide including best response ever in patients with advanced refractory and relapsed myeloma

Twenty-three patients with advanced and heavily pretreated myeloma were treated with thalidomide. Starting dose was 200 mg/d, and 20 patients had dose escalations up to 400 (n = 5), 600 (n = 12) or 800 mg/d (n = 3), usually in divided doses. Nineteen patients were refractory to recent chemotherapy, and four had untreated relapse after prior intensive therapy. Ten out of 23 patients (43%) achieved partial response (PR; nine with refractory and one with relapsed disease), six patients had minor response or stabilization of the disease and four had disease progression. Another three patients died early from advanced myeloma at less than 3 weeks of thalidomide therapy. Of the 10 patients with PR, seven had a better response than after any prior therapy, despite vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (VAD)-based treatment in all but one and high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell support in four. Time to achieve PR was rapid in patients receiving thalidomide in divided doses (median 31 d). Responses also included reduced bone marrow plasma cell infiltration and improved general status. Normalized polyclonal gammaglobulin levels were seen in four cases. Six out of 10 patients with PR remained in remission with a median time on treatment of 23 weeks (range 15-50 weeks). Sedation was common but usually tolerable, and some patients continued full- or part-time work. Four patients had skin problems, three patients had pneumonia, one hypothyrosis, one sinus bradycardia and one minor sensory neuropathy. Thalidomide may induce good partial remissions in advanced refractory myeloma with tolerable toxicity, and should be evaluated in other settings for myeloma patients. Divided thalidomide doses seem to reduce time to achieve remission and may improve response rate.     

酞胺哌啶酮联合环磷酰胺及地塞米松治疗难治复发性多发性骨髓瘤疗效观察

目的:评价酞胺哌啶酮(商品名:反应停)联合环磷酰胺及地塞米松治疗难治复发性多发性骨髓瘤(MM)的疗效和不良反应。方法:12例难治复发性MM患者口服酞胺哌啶酮350-400 mg／d,环磷酰胺50 mg／d,地塞米松40 mg／d(第1个月第1-4天,第9-12天,第17-20天,第2个月第1-4天,第9-12天;以后每月服第1-4天)。观察有效率、效应发挥时间、生存时间及不良反应。结果:完全缓解2例,部分缓解3例,进步1例,无效6例,有效率50．0％;效应时间为2-6个月,平均3．5个月;生存时间为8-34个月。不良反应多能耐受,末梢神经炎发生率100％(12／12),窦性心动过缓发生率为50．0％(6／12),便秘为66．7％(8／12),肺栓塞8．3％(1／12),粒细胞减少16．7％(2／12),感染16．7％(2／12)。结论:酞胺哌啶酮联合环磷酰胺及地塞米松治疗难治复发性MM有效,安全,平台期时间长,不良反应较轻。