Summary Background Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown significant efficacy in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma. We aimed to study whether the addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival and provide better response rates in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who were not planned for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18 years and older from participating Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) institutions (both inpatient and outpatient settings). Key inclusion criteria were presence of CRAB (C=calcium elevation; R=renal impairment; A=anaemia; B=bone involvement) criteria with measurable disease (measured by assessment of free light chains), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–3, haemoglobin concentration 9 g/dL or higher, absolute neutrophil count 1 × 103 cells per mm3; or higher, and a platelet count of 80 000/mm3 or higher. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either an initial treatment of bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd group). Randomisation was stratified based on International Staging System stage (I, II, or III) and intent to transplant (yes vs no). The VRd regimen was given as eight 21-day cycles. Bortezomib was given at 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, combined with oral lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–14 plus oral dexamethasone 20 mg daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The Rd regimen was given as six 28-day cycles. The standard Rd regimen consisted of 25 mg oral lenalidomide once a day for days 1–21 plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone once a day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0·02. Analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00644228. Findings Between April, 2008, and February, 2012, we randomly assigned 525 patients at 139 participating institutions (264 to VRd and 261 to Rd). In the randomly assigned patients, 21 patients in the VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or early or late baseline laboratory data. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved in the VRd group (43 months vs 30 months in the Rd group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·712, 96% CI 0·56–0·906; one-sided p value 0·0018). The median overall survival was also significantly improved in the VRd group (75 months vs 64 months in the Rd group, HR 0·709, 95% CI 0·524–0·959; two-sided p value 0·025). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were...

PurposeCPX-351 is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin that delivers a synergistic 5:1 drug ratio into leukemia cells to a greater extent than normal bone marrow cells. Prior clinical studies demonstrated a sustained drug ratio and exposure in vivo and prolonged survival versus standard-of-care cytarabine plus daunorubicin chemotherapy (7+3 regimen) in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML).Patients and MethodsIn this open-label, randomized, phase III trial, 309 patients age 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/sAML received one to two induction cycles of CPX-351 or 7+3 followed by consolidation therapy with a similar regimen. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsCPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus 7+3 (9.56 v 5.95 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; one-sided P = .003). Overall remission rate was also significantly higher with CPX-351 versus 7+3 (47.7% v 33.3%; two-sided P = .016). Improved outcomes were observed across age-groups and AML subtypes. The incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were comparable between arms, despite a longer treatment phase and prolonged time to neutrophil and platelet count recovery with CPX-351. Early mortality rates with CPX-351 and 7+3 were 5.9% and 10.6% (two-sided P = .149) through day 30 and 13.7% and 21.2% (two-sided P = .097) through day 60.ConclusionCPX-351 treatment is associated with significantly longer survival compared with conventional 7+3 in older adults with newly diagnosed sAML. The safety profile of CPX-351 was similar to that of conventional 7+3 therapy.

Promising new drugs are being evaluated for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but their impact should be measured against the expected outcome in patients failing current therapies. However, the natural history of relapsed disease in the current era remains unclear. We studied 286 patients with relapsed MM, who were refractory to bortezomib and were relapsed, refractory, or ineligible, to an IMiD (Immunomodulatory Drug), with measurable disease and ECOG PS of 0, 1 or 2. The date patients satisfied the entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). The median age at diagnosis was 58 years and time from diagnosis to T0 was 3.3 years. Following T0, 213 (74%) patients had a treatment recorded with one or more regimens (median=1; range 0-8). The first regimen contained bortezomib in 55 (26%) patients and an IMiD in 70 (33%). A minor response or better was seen to at least one therapy after T0 in 94 patients (51%) including >=partial response in 69 (38%). The median overall survival and event free survival from T0 were 9 and 5 months respectively. This study confirms the poor outcome once patients become refractory to current treatments. The results provide context for interpreting ongoing trials of new drugs.

Understanding the profile of oncogene and tumor suppressor gene mutations with their interactions and impact on the prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) can improve the definition of disease subsets and identify pathways important in disease pathobiology. Using integrated genomics of 1273 newly diagnosed patients with MM, we identified 63 driver genes, some of which are novel, including ,, ,, and Oncogene mutations are significantly more clonal than tumor suppressor mutations, indicating they may exert a bigger selective pressure. Patients with more driver gene abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, as are identified mechanisms of genomic instability. Oncogenic dependencies were identified between mutations in driver genes, common regions of copy number change, and primary translocation and hyperdiploidy events. These dependencies included associations with t(4;14) and mutations in, , and; t(11;14) with mutations in and; t(14;16) with mutations in ,, , and; and hyperdiploidy with gain 11q, mutations in , and rearrangements. These associations indicate that the genomic landscape of myeloma is predetermined by the primary events upon which further dependencies are built, giving rise to a nonrandom accumulation of genetic hits. Understanding these dependencies may elucidate potential evolutionary patterns and lead to better treatment regimens.

Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) with high-risk disease are in need of new treatment strategies to improve the outcomes. Multiple clinical, cytogenetic, or gene expression features have been used to identify high-risk patients, each of which has significant weaknesses. Inclusion of molecular features into risk stratification could resolve the current challenges. In a genome-wide analysis of the largest set of molecular and clinical data established to date from NDMM, as part of the Myeloma Genome Project, we have defined DNA drivers of aggressive clinical behavior. Whole-genome and exome data from 1273 NDMM patients identified genetic factors that contribute significantly to progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (cumulative R = 18.4% and 25.2%, respectively). Integrating DNA drivers and clinical data into a Cox model using 784 patients with ISS, age, PFS, OS, and genomic data, the model has a cumlative R of 34.3% for PFS and 46.5% for OS. A high-risk subgroup was defined by recursive partitioning using either a) bi-allelic TP53 inactivation or b) amplification (≥4 copies) of CKS1B (1q21) on the background of International Staging System III, comprising 6.1% of the population (median PFS = 15.4 months; OS = 20.7 months) that was validated in an independent dataset. Double-Hit patients have a dire prognosis despite modern therapies and should be considered for novel therapeutic approaches.

No abstract

MRI is a more powerful tool for detection of FLs than is MBS. MRI-FL number had independent prognostic implications; additionally, MRI-FL resolution identified a subgroup with superior survival. We therefore recommend that, in addition to MBS, MRI be used routinely for staging, prognosis, and response assessment in myeloma.

The Total Therapy 3 trial 2003-33 enrolled 303 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and was noted to provide superior clinical outcomes compared with predecessor trial Total Therapy 2, especially in gene expression profiling (GEP)-defined low-risk disease. We report here on the results of successor trial 2006-66 with 177 patients, using bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone maintenance for 3 years versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone in year 1 and thalidomide/dexamethasone in years 2 and 3 in the 2003-33 protocol. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) plots were super-imposable for the 2 trials, as were onset of complete response and complete response duration (CRD), regardless of GEP risk. GEP-defined highrisk designation, pertinent to 17% of patients, imparted inferior OS, EFS, and CRD in both protocols and, on multivariate analysis, was the sole adverse feature affecting OS, EFS, and CRD. Mathematical modeling of CRD in low-risk myeloma predicted a 55% cure fraction (P < .001). Despite more rapid onset and higher rate of CR than in other molecular subgroups, CRD was inferior in CCND1 without CD20 myeloma, resembling outcomes in MAF/ MAFB and proliferation entities. IntroductionTotal Therapy 3 (2003-33; TT3) used, for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), 2 cycles of VTD-PACE (bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone and 4-day continuous infusions of cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) as induction before and consolidation therapy after melphalan-based tandem transplantation, which was followed by 3 years of intended maintenance with VTD in year 1 and thalidomide/dexamethasone in years 2 and 3. 1-3 Results revealed superior outcomes, especially in gene expression profiling (GEP)-defined low-risk MM, compared with predecessor phase 3 trial Total Therapy 2 (TT2), which randomized patients up-front to receive or not receive thalidomide during induction, consolidation, and maintenance phases. 4 In further analyses examining the timeliness of completion of intended protocol steps, we concluded that the improved results in TT3 versus TT2 were attributable to the incorporation, up-front, of bortezomib in TT3. 3 To validate these findings and bortezomib pharmacogenomic data, 5 a successor trial 2006-66 enrolled another 177 patients. The trials were identical in design, except that the maintenance phase in 2006-66 applied 3 years rather than 1 year of bortezomib and used lenalidomide instead of thalidomide. with monthly cycles of bortezomib 1.0 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, whereas thalidomide was given continuously at 100 mg/day and dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1 to 4 and 8 to 11; in years 2 and 3, thalidomide was continued at 100 mg/day and dexamethasone was limited to monthly pulses of 20 mg on days 1 to 4. In 2006-66, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) was given for 3 years, composing monthly cycles of bortezomib 1.0 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in year 1 followed by weekly administration in years 2 and 3; lenalidomide was administered...