A B S T R A C T PurposeWe investigated whether bortezomib during induction and maintenance improves survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and MethodsIn all, 827 eligible patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (VAD) or bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD) followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous stemcell transplantation. Maintenance consisted of thalidomide 50 mg (VAD) once per day or bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 (PAD) once every 2 weeks for 2 years. The primary analysis was progression-free survival (PFS) adjusted for International Staging System (ISS) stage. ResultsComplete response (CR), including near CR, was superior after PAD induction (15% v 31%; P Ͻ .001) and bortezomib maintenance (34% v 49%; P Ͻ .001). After a median follow-up of 41 months, PFS was superior in the PAD arm (median of 28 months v 35 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.90; P ϭ .002). In multivariate analysis, overall survival (OS) was better in the PAD arm (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.00; P ϭ .049). In high-risk patients presenting with increased creatinine more than 2 mg/dL, bortezomib significantly improved PFS from a median of 13 months to 30 months (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.78; P ϭ .004) and OS from a median of 21 months to 54 months (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.65; P Ͻ .001). A benefit was also observed in patients with deletion 17p13 (median PFS, 12 v 22 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.86; P ϭ .01; median OS, 24 months v not reached at 54 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.74; P ϭ .003). ConclusionBortezomib during induction and maintenance improves CR and achieves superior PFS and OS.

The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology Group-65/German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group-HD4 (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4) phase III trial compared bortezomib (BTZ) before and after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM, PAD arm) compared with classical cytotoxic agents prior and thalidomide after HDM (VAD arm) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients aged 18-65 years. Here, the long-term follow-up and data on second primary malignancies (SPM) are presented. After a median follow-up of 96 months, progression-free survival (censored at allogeneic transplantation, PFS) remained significantly prolonged in the PAD versus VAD arm (hazard ratio (HR)=0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.65-0.89, P=0.001). Overall survival (OS) was similar in the PAD versus VAD arm (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.08, P=0.24). The incidence of SPM were similar between the two arms (7% each, P=0.73). The negative prognostic effects of the cytogenetic aberration deletion 17p13 (clone size ⩾10%) and renal impairment at baseline (serum creatinine >2 mg dl) on PFS and OS remained abrogated in the PAD but not VAD arm. OS from first relapse/progression was similar between the study arms (HR=1.02, P=0.85). In conclusion, the survival benefit with BTZ induction/maintenance compared with classical cytotoxic agents and thalidomide maintenance is maintained without an increased risk of SPM.

a prospective clinical study of the HOVON in the Netherlands and Belgium and the GMMG in Germany. Key exclusion criteria included the presence of systemic AL amyloidosis, non-secretory MM, neuropathy grade 2 or higher, a history of active malignancy during the past 5 years, positivity for human immunodeficiency virus, or hepatic dysfunction. Patients could be included regardless of their renal function including dialysis dependence. A total of 827 eligible patients were available for analysis.

Summary In the phase III AZA-001 trial, low-dose cytarabine (LDara-C), the most widely used low-dose chemotherapy in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who are ineligible for intensive treatment, was found to be associated with poorer survival compared with azacitidine. This analysis further compared the efficacy and the toxicity of these two drug regimens. Before randomization, investigators preselected patients to receive a conventional care regimen, one of which was LDara-C. Of 94 patients preselected to LDara-C, 45 were randomized to azacitidine and 49 to LDara-C. Azacitidine patients had significantly more and longer haematologicalal responses and increased red blood cell transfusion independence. Azacitidine prolonged overall survival versus LDara-C in patients with poor cytogenetic risk, presence of −7/del(7q), and French-American-British subtypes refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB) and RAEB in transformation. When analyzed per patient year of drug exposure, azacitidine treatment was associated with fewer grade 3–4 cytopenias and shorter hospitalisation time than LDara-C in these higher-risk MDS patients.

No abstract

Background: We reported better PFS and OS in transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) who were treated with bortezomib during induction and maintenance, when compared with standard treatment in the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. (P. Sonneveld et al., J Clin Oncol 30:2946-2955, 2012). Here the long-term follow up data are presented. Methods: 827 eligible patients were randomized to induction therapy with VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) or PAD (bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) followed by high-dose melphalan (once or twice) and autologous stem cell transplant. Maintenance consisted of daily thalidomide (T) 50 mg (VAD arm) or 2-weekly bortezomib (B) 1.3 mg/m2 (PAD arm) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) adjusted for ISS stage. Results: After a median follow up of 91.4 months (maximum 119) 410 patients are alive. Response rates were VAD/HDM/T: CR 25%, ≥VGPR 56%, ≥PR 83%; PAD/HDM/B: CR 37%, ≥VGPR 76%%, ≥PR 91%, The median duration of maintenance therapy was 14 months (thalidomide) and 23 months (bortezomib), respectively. Main reasons for discontinuation were toxicity (T: 31%; B: 11%), disease progression (T: 33%; B: 36%) or normal completion (T: 28%; B: 48%). Of 827 patients in the analysis, 206 are alive without progression/relapse. PFS was significantly better in the bortezomib arm, i.e. median 34 versus 28 months (HR=0.77, 95% CI=0.65-0.90, p=0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 90 months in the bortezomib arm vs 83 months in the control arm, but 42% at 9 years in both arms. We used the restricted mean survival time (RMST) method to compare OS between the two treatment arms In univariate analysis. The difference in RMST8y was 4.8 months (95% CI 0.2-9.5, p=0.04) in favor of the bortezomib arm. A landmark analysis in patients who had received HDM starting at 12 months showed a significant PFS advantage of bortezomib in all patients (p=0.02), in patients in VGPR/PR (p=0.02) but not in CR (p=0.19). For OS there was no advantage for bortezomib in either group. PFS at 60 months in bortezomib treated patients was not different when single vs double HDM/ASCT was administered, i.e. 28% vs 27%. However, OS at 60 months was 71% vs 60% in favor of double HDM/ASCT (p=0.04). Subgroup analysis was performed based on presence/absence of adverse FISH (CA) in 395 patients treated with double HDM/ASCT. PFS at 60 months for each abnormality (CA or no CA) in bortezomib vs standard arm is given in Table 1 Table 1.PFS at 60 months, %OS at 60 months, %FISHnBortezomib armpStandard armBortezomib armpStandard Armt(4;14) yes/no50/29516% vs 27%0.048% vs 24%52% vs 75%0.0133% vs 64%add(1q) yes/no113/23116% vs 32%0.00510% vs 28%57% vs 79%0.00143% vs 70%del(17p) yes/no39/31222% vs 27%0.475% vs 24%65% vs 72%0.4818% vs 66% These data show that bortezomib treatment combined with double HDM/ASCT significantly improves PFS and OS in patients with del(17p) and almost abrogates the negative impact of this CA. In t(4;14) and add(1q) some improvement is observed, however the negative impact remains significant. In high-risk patients presenting with elevated creatinine >2 mg/dL bortezomib significantly improved PFS at 60 months (32% vs 5%) (p=0.001) and OS at 60 months (66% vs 21% months (p<0.001)). OS at 8 years was 46% vs 12%. Finally, OS from progression/relapse was not different between patients treated in the bortezomib vs standard arm (OS at 72 months: 33% vs 35%, p=0.73) Conclusions: We conclude that bortezomib leads to a significant and lasting improvement of PFS and OS. Bortezomib significantly reduces the high-risk impact of del(17p) and renal impairment on survival. This trial was registered as NTR213; EudraCT no. 2004-000944-26.and supported by the Dutch Cancer Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The GMMG group received grants for this trial by Novartis, AMGEN, Chugai and Roche. Disclosures Sonneveld: SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Salwender:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol Meyer Sqibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Blau:MSD: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Honoraria; JAZZ pharm: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; takeda millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; onyx: Honoraria. Weisel:Noxxon: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Broijl:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scheid:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Potamianou:Janssen: Employment. Hose:Takeda: Other: Travel grant; EngMab AG: Research Funding. Kersten:takeda millennium: Research Funding; janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Duehrsen:Alexion: Honoraria; janssen: Honoraria. Lokhorst:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.

BACKGROUNDHighly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has improved the survival of patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome‐related lymphoma (ARL). The German ARL Study Group investigated whether HAART administered concomitantly with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy compromised the course of immune parameters during and after chemotherapy and exerted a positive effect on remission and survival.METHODSFrom 1997 to 2001, 72 patients with ARL were stratified prospectively into a standard‐risk group (n = 48 patients) and a high‐risk group (n = 24 patients) with either 0‐1 or 2‐3 of the following risk factors: CD4 < 50/μL, prior opportunistic infection, and/or a World Health Organization performance status ≥ 3. Patients in the high‐risk group received ≥75% of the CHOP regimen.RESULTSIn the standard‐risk group (CD4 = 223/μL; age‐adjusted International Prognostic Index [aaIPI], 38% ≥ 2), the complete remission (CR) rate was 79%, and median survival was not reached after a median 47 months of follow‐up. CD4 counts did not change from baseline to 4 weeks after the end of chemotherapy (206/μL). In the high‐risk group (CD4 = 34/μL; aaIPI, 88% ≥ 2), the CR rate was 29%, and the median survival was 7.2 months (3 patients survived for > 3 yrs). Toxicity was moderate: Leukopenia Grade 3 or 4 occurred in 100 of 249 chemotherapy cycles (40%) in the standard‐risk group and in 70 of 102 cycles (69%) in the high‐risk group.CONCLUSIONSBased on the aaIPI, the survival of patients in the standard‐risk group was very similar to that achieved by nonhuman immunodeficiency virus‐infected patients who had aggressive lymphomas. Concurrent CHOP plus HAART can be administered in an outpatient setting. Thus, the authors recommend using this modality as first‐line therapy for patients with ARL. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Introduction: The predictive value of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET performed after a few cycles of chemotherapy has been questioned in aggressive lymphomas. Inconsistent study results, however, may be due to procedural differences rather than an inability of the method to predict outcome. Whether changing treatment in pts. with an unfavorable interim PET (iPET) improves outcome, has not been determined in a randomized study. The PETAL trial (EudraCT 2006-001641-33, NCT00554164) was initiated to resolve these issues. Methods: Pts. aged 18 to 80 yrs. with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphomas and a positive baseline PET received 2 cycles of rituximab (R), cyclophosphamide (C), doxorubicin (H), vincristine (O) and prednisone (CHOP) followed by iPET. The conditions of iPET were strictly defined: 3-week interval between the 2nd R-CHOP cycle and iPET to avoid inflammatory reactions (Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:682, 2003), no G-CSF after the 2nd R-CHOP cycle to avoid altered glucose biodistribution (J Nucl Med 47:950, 2006), standardized uptake value (SUV)-based PET interpretation to improve objectivity of evaluation (favorable iPET response: reduction of maximum SUV by > 66 % compared to baseline; J Nucl Med 48:1626, 2007). Pts. with CD20-positive lymphomas and a favorable iPET were randomized to receive 4 additional cycles of R-CHOP or the same treatment plus 2 extra doses of R (Part A of the trial). Pts. with an unfavorable iPET were randomized to continue standard R-CHOP for 6 additional cycles or receive 6 blocks of a more complex and more intensive protocol yielding excellent results in Burkitt and other aggressive lymphomas (Part B). Its main components were hyperfractionated alkylating agents (C, ifosfamide) and high doses of methotrexate and cytarabine, with dose reductions in pts. > 60 yrs. Other constituents were R, H, O, vindesine, etoposide and dexamethasone (Blood 120: abstr 667, 2012). R was omitted in pts. with CD20-negative lymphomas. Sample size was based on the empirically derived assumption that treatment failure after 2 yrs. (TF: progression, relapse, treatment discontinuation due to toxicity, start of alternative therapy, death of any cause) could be improved from 80 % to 90 % in Part A and from 30 % to 45 % in Part B (alpha=0.05, power=0.8). Complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Results: From 2007 to 2012 926 pts. were recruited by 57 participating oncological centers and analyzed by PET in 23 nuclear medicine institutions. With a median follow-up of 33 months 853 pts. are currently evaluable in the intent-to-treat population. 757 pts. had CD20-positive B cell lymphomas (80 % diffuse large B cell [DLBCL], 3 % primary mediastinal B cell, 8 % follicular lymphoma grade 3), 13 had CD20-negative B cell lymphomas and 83 had peripheral T cell lymphomas. Interim PET was favorable in 746 pts. (87 %) and unfavorable in 107 (13 %). It was highly predictive of outcome, time to TF being significantly higher in Part A than Part B (2-year probability: 79 % vs. 47 %; hazard ratio (HR) for B 3.4, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.6 – 4.6, p<0.0001; Figure). On multivariate analysis iPET response, International Prognostic Index and B vs. T cell lineage independently predicted TF. Interim PET was also predictive of OS (HR 3.9, CI 2.7 – 5.7, p<0.0001). In pts. with CD20-positive lymphomas and a favorable iPET, addition of 2 extra doses of R failed to improve TF (HR for 2 extra doses 1.2, CI 0.8 – 2.1) and all secondary endpoints. Likewise, in pts. with an unfavorable iPET response, a switch from R-CHOP to the Burkitt-type regimen showed no beneficial effect on TF (HR for Burkitt 1.6, CI 0.9 – 2.7), CR rate (50 % vs. 31 %, p=0.10) or OS (HR 1.0, CI 0.5 – 2.1). Similar results were obtained, when the analysis was restricted to DLBCL, and for covariate adjusted Cox regression of all survival endpoints. Although treatment related deaths (3 vs. 2 pts.) were comparable in both treatment arms, the Burkitt protocol was associated with more severe grade 3/4 leukopenia (84 % vs. 67 %, p=0.043), thrombocytopenia (63 % vs. 35 %, p=0.007) and mucositis (41 % vs. 12 %, p=0.002). Conclusion: Applying strict rules to the procedure and its interpretation iPET proved highly predictive of outcome in pts. with aggressive lymphomas in this large multicenter trial. Because switching to a more aggressive protocol failed to improve outcome, our results do not support a change in cytotoxic regimen in poor iPET responders. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Duehrsen: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Klapper:Roche: Research Funding. Hoelzer:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Medac: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.