Prospective randomized comparison of vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD) administered as intravenous bolus injection and VAD with liposomal doxorubicin as first-line treatment in multiple myeloma

Abstract

Our multicenter trial, which included an unselected patient population, indicated that both VAD bolus and VAD doxil can be administered to outpatients and can provide an equal opportunity of rapid response in many patients with multiple myeloma.

Modifications to Therapy for Multiple Myeloma: Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Combination With Vincristine, Reduced-Dose Dexamethasone, and Thalidomide

“…A number of preliminary studies have evaluated the incorporation of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin into VAD regimens [16][17][18][19]. Overall, these studies demonstrated that this regimen had activity in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients who had an acceptable tolerability profile [16][17][18][19].…”

“…Overall, these studies demonstrated that this regimen had activity in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients who had an acceptable tolerability profile [16][17][18][19]. These studies, which used a dose and schedule of dexamethasone similar to those of the VAD regimen, have 40 Modifications to Therapy for Multiple Myeloma suggested that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is an acceptable alternative to conventional doxorubicin in combination chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma.…”

“…Preliminary results have been reported from two prospective, randomized, phase III clinical trials of the DVd regimen in the U.S. and Europe [16,21]. Both studies compared DVd (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, 40 mg/m 2 /day i.v.…”

“…Each regimen was administered every 28 days for four cycles. In one study, in which 230 of 272 patients were evaluable for response, DVd was as effective as VAd, with objective responses reported in 55% and 57% of patients, respectively [16]. The tolerability of the regimens was generally similar; DVd was associated with significantly more hand-foot syndrome, whereas VAd was associated with significantly more alopecia [16].…”

“…In one study, in which 230 of 272 patients were evaluable for response, DVd was as effective as VAd, with objective responses reported in 55% and 57% of patients, respectively [16]. The tolerability of the regimens was generally similar; DVd was associated with significantly more hand-foot syndrome, whereas VAd was associated with significantly more alopecia [16]. Although both regimens could be administered in the outpatient setting, the DVd regimen required fewer hospital visits for treatment administration [16].…”