High Complete and Very Good Partial Response Rates with Bortezomib—Dexamethasone as Induction Prior to ASCT in Newly Diagnosed Patients with High-Risk Myeloma: Results of the IFM2005-01 Phase 3 Trial.

Abstract

353 In the setting of high-dose therapy (HDT) plus ASCT for MM, achievement of a complete (CR) or VGPR is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival, and thus represents a major goal of treatment; in the IFM99 trials, achievement of ≥VGPR was significantly correlated to outcome (Harousseau et al, JCO 2009, in press). We have previously reported results from the IFM2005-01 randomized phase 3 study of bortezomib (Velcade®)–dexamethasone (VD) vs VAD as induction therapy prior to HDT-ASCT showing that induction with VD yields significantly higher CR and CR+VGPR rates vs VAD, both before and after HDT-ASCT (Harousseau et al, ASCO 2008). Here we report PFS overall in patients receiving VAD or VD induction, and according to post-induction and post-HDT-ASCT response (≥VGPR vs <VGPR). Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive 4 × 4-week cycles of VAD without (n=121) or with (n=121) 2 × 4-week cycles of DCEP consolidation, or 4 × 3-week cycles of VD without (n=121) or with (n=119) DCEP. Randomization was stratified by baseline β2-microglobulin (β2M, >3 vs ≤3 mg/L) and chromosome 13 abnormalities (del13) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Responses were evaluated post-induction and post-HDT-ASCT according to modified EBMT criteria (incorporating near-CR [nCR] and VGPR). Patients achieving <VGPR post-first HDT-ASCT (HDT-ASCT1) could receive a second HDT-ASCT or an allogeneic stem cell transplant (HDT-ASCT2). Following first or second HDT-ASCT, eligible patients could enroll into the IFM2005-02 randomized trial of consolidation and maintenance with lenalidomide vs placebo. There was no difference with regards to the proportion of VAD and VD patients who received maintenance (66.5% vs 67.4%, p=0.082). Treatment groups were generally well balanced for baseline characteristics. However, fewer VAD (12%) vs VD (17%) patients had t(4;14) and/or del17p. Moreover, more VAD (44%) vs VD (33%) patients received HDT-ASCT2 due to achieving <VGPR after HDT-ASCT1. Despite these differences in favor of the VAD group, with a median follow-up of 32.2 months, PFS appeared longer in the VD vs VAD group (36.0 vs 29.7 months; p=0.0643, or p=0.0567 if comparison adjusted for initial stratification factors). As would be expected, PFS was significantly longer in the 218 VAD+VD patients achieving ≥VGPR after HDT-ASCT1 than in the 188 patients achieving <VGPR (median 41.1 vs 33.5 months, p=0.0257). Importantly, PFS was also significantly longer in the 125 VAD+VD patients achieving ≥VGPR after induction than in the 357 patients achieving <VGPR (median 41.1 vs 29.0 months, p<0.001). Therefore the apparent benefit in PFS in the VD vs VAD group might be related to better initial tumor burden reduction, across all prognostic subgroups including patients with poor-risk characteristics (Table). Furthermore, within the VD group, there was no significant difference in PFS between patients with ISS Stage III (β2M >5.5) vs Stage I/II (median 29.8 vs 36.5 months, p=0.1191), and patients with vs without t(4;14) ± del17p (median 33.5 vs 36.5 months, p=0.1655). These data suggest that induction with VD might partially overcome the poor prognosis associated with ISS Stage III MM, and presence of t(4;14) ± del17p. In conclusion, in this trial achievement of at least VGPR after induction appears to be a major prognostic factor. Apparent improvement in PFS obtained with VD vs VAD induction might be related to higher ≥VGPR rate, across all prognostic subgroups including patients with poor-risk characteristics. Disclosures: Harousseau: Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Attal:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hulin:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Facon:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Webb:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

An Ex Vivo Platform for the Prediction of Clinical Response in Multiple Myeloma

“…The following PK models were used for the patients tested in this study: bortezomib (20), carfilzomib (21), melphalan (22), liposomal doxorubicin (23), selinexor (CRM1i, investigator brochure), dexamethasone (24), lenalidomide (25), and pomalidomide (26).…”

Multiple Myeloma, Venous Thromboembolism, and Treatment-Related Risk of Thrombosis

“…[78][79][80] Data from different clinical trails regarding bortezomib in association with drugs of known thrombogenic potential (e.g., Thal, Len, doxorubicin, corticosteroids) show a very low rate of VTE complications, suggesting that bortezomib may mitigate the thrombogenic potential of other agents. [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM PROPHYLAXIS The optimal prophylaxis for patients receiving antiangiogenetic agents is still a matter of debate. Different studies reported so far have used a variety of prophylactic treatments, including fixed low-dose warfarin (1 mg or 1.25 mg), therapeutic doses of warfarin (international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 3.0), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]).…”

Combination of plasma microRNAs with serum CA19‐9 for early detection of pancreatic cancer

“…The introduction of novel agents had a profound impact on the initial therapy for myeloma 7‐9. Combinations of novel agents with dexamethasone or with other conventional agents result in response rates comparable to those produced in the context of SCT 8, 10, 11.…”