P1573Chemotherapy-induced vasotoxicity in patients undergoing therapy for breast cancer

Background

Cardiotoxicity is a well-known adverse effect of anthracycline and HER-2 monoclonal antibodies, however the vascular effects of these agents remain less-well studied.

Purpose

To explore the effects of breast chemotherapy on vascular function.

Methods

A total of 57 female patients undergoing breast diagnosed with breast cancer and scheduled for anthracycline-based and HER-2 chemotherapy were included in this study. At baseline, at 3, 6 and 12 months, patients underwent assessment of cardiac function by transthoracic echocardiography, endothelial function assessment by brachial flow mediated dilation (FMD) and assessment of arterial stiffness by carotid-radial pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (Aix).

Results

There was a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) overtime compared to baseline (A). This was paralleled by a significant decrease in brachial FMD at 6 months (B) and a significant increase in PWV compared to baseline (C). There was no significant change in Aix compared to baseline levels (D). Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity (expressed by the change in LVEF) was not associated with either the change in FMD or PWV at 6 months.

Conclusions

Breast chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity is paralleled by vasotoxicity, which is manifested as endothelial dysfunction and increased arterial stiffness. Systemic vasotoxicity is not directly related to cardiotoxicity, suggesting that monitoring of both cardiac and vascular function could be useful in identifying early signs of cardiovascular toxicity.

Prevention, monitoring and treatment of cardiovascular adverse events in myeloma patients receiving carfilzomib A consensus paper by the European Myeloma Network and the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The novel proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib alone or in combination with other agents is already one of the standard therapies for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients and produces impressive response rates in newly diagnosed MM as well. However, carfilzomib-related cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) - including hypertension (all grades: 12.2%; grade ≥3: 4.3%), heart failure (all grades: 4.1%; grade ≥3: 2.5%) and ischemic heart disease (all grades: 1.8%; grade ≥3: 0.8%) - may lead to treatment suspensions. At present, there are neither prospective studies nor expert consensus on the prevention, monitoring and treatment of CVAEs in myeloma patients treated with carfilzomib.

METHODS

An expert panel of the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension and with the endorsement of the European Hematology Association aimed to provide recommendations to support health professionals in selecting the best management strategies for patients, considering the impact on outcome and the risk-benefit ratio of diagnostic and therapeutic tools, thereby achieving myeloma response with novel combination approaches whilst preventing CVAEs.

RESULTS

Patients scheduled to receive carfilzomib need a careful cardiovascular evaluation before treatment and an accurate follow-up during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A detailed clinical assessment before starting carfilzomib treatment is essential to identify patients at risk for CVAEs, and accurate monitoring of blood pressure and of early signs and symptoms suggestive of cardiac dysfunction remains pivotal to safely administer carfilzomib without treatment interruptions or dose reductions.

Bevacizumab with or after chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: exploratory analyses of the AURELIA trial

Background

In the open-label randomized phase III AURELIA trial, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) significantly improved progression-free survival and response rate versus chemotherapy alone, but not overall survival (OS). We explored the effect of bevacizumab use after disease progression (PD) in patients randomized to chemotherapy alone.

Patients and methods

In AURELIA, 361 women with PROC were randomized to chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Patients initially randomized to chemotherapy were offered bevacizumab after PD. Post hoc analyses assessed efficacy and safety in three subgroups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy followed by bevacizumab after PD, and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab at randomization.

Results

Of the 182 patients randomized to chemotherapy alone, 72 (40%) received bevacizumab after PD and 110 (60%) never received bevacizumab. There were no significant differences in patient and disease characteristics between these subgroups at baseline or the time of PD. Compared with patients never receiving bevacizumab, the risk of death was significantly reduced in patients receiving bevacizumab either upfront with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.90] or after PD (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.86). The tolerability of bevacizumab was similar with administration upfront or after PD.

Conclusions

Post-PD bevacizumab use may have confounded OS results in AURELIA. In these exploratory analyses of non-randomized subgroups, bevacizumab use, either with chemotherapy or after PD on chemotherapy alone, improved OS compared with no bevacizumab. Combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy at first appearance of platinum resistance maximises the likelihood of patients receiving this active treatment for PROC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00976911.

Prevention and management of adverse events of Novel agents in multiple myeloma: A consensus of the european myeloma network

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drugs classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events.Leukemia accepted article preview online, 18 December 2017. doi:10.1038/leu.2017.353.

Mechanisms of bone destruction in multiple myeloma

Osteolytic bone disease is a frequent complication of multiple myeloma, resulting in skeletal complications that are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the result of an increased activity of osteoclasts, which is not followed by reactive bone formation by osteoblasts. Recent studies have revealed novel molecules and pathways that are implicated in osteoclast activation and osteoblast inhibition. Among them, the most important include the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand/osteoprotegerin pathway, the macrophage inflammatory proteins and the activin-A that play a crucial role in osteoclast stimulation in myeloma, while the wingless-type (Wnt) signalling inhibitors (sclerostin and dickkopf-1) along with the growth factor independence-1 are considered the most important factors for the osteoblast dysfunction of myeloma patients. Finally, the role of osteocytes, which is the key cell for normal bone remodelling, has also revealed during the last years through their interaction with myeloma cells that leads to their apoptosis and the release of RANKL and sclerostin maintaining bone loss in these patients. This review focuses on the latest available data for the mechanisms of bone destruction in multiple myeloma.

Addition of cyclophosphamide and higher doses of dexamethasone do not improve outcomes of patients with AL amyloidosis treated with bortezomib

Bortezomib, in combination with dexamethasone (VD) or with the addition of cyclophosphamide (VCD), is highly effective in patients with amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. Currently, VCD is considered as a primary regimen for patients with AL, but it is not clear whether the addition of cyclophosphamide to VD further and significantly improves efficacy, given the substantial activity of bortezomib itself. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of 101 patients with AL amyloidosis who received VD (n=59) or VCD (n=42) in two consecutive periods. Early mortality after adjustment for Mayo stage was similar. On intent to treat, a hematologic response rate was 68% for patients treated with VD and 78% for VCD (P=0.26), while complete response+very good partial response (CR+VGPR) rate was 47.5% and 35%, respectively. Higher doses of dexamethasone or twice-weekly bortezomib were not associated with significantly higher CR+VGPR rates. Organ responses occurred in similar rates between the two groups. Median survival was similar (33 vs 36 months, P=0.45) even after adjustment for Mayo stage and dose and schedule of bortezomib and dexamethasone. In conclusion, bortezomib even with low doses of dexamethasone is effective for the treatment of AL amyloidosis; higher doses of dexamethasone and addition of cyclophosphamide do not seem to have a profound effect on efficacy and survival.

Impact of prior treatment on patients with relapsed multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib and dexamethasone vs bortezomib and dexamethasone in the phase 3 ENDEAVOR study

The randomized phase 3 ENDEAVOR study (N=929) compared carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). We performed a subgroup analysis from ENDEAVOR in patients categorized by number of prior lines of therapy or by prior treatment. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with one prior line was 22.2 months for Kd vs 10.1 months for Vd, and median PFS for patients with ⩾2 prior lines was 14.9 months for Kd vs 8.4 months for Vd. For patients with prior bortezomib exposure, the median PFS was 15.6 months for Kd vs 8.1 months for Vd, and for patients with prior lenalidomide exposure the median PFS was 12.9 months for Kd vs 7.3 months for Vd. Overall response rates (Kd vs Vd) were 81.9 vs 65.5% (one prior line), 72.0 vs 59.7% (⩾2 prior lines), 71.2 vs 60.3% (prior bortezomib) and 70.1 vs 59.3% (prior lenalidomide). The safety profile in the prior lines subgroups was qualitatively similar to that in the broader ENDEAVOR population. In RMM, outcomes are improved when receiving treatment with carfilzomib compared with bortezomib, regardless of the number of prior therapy lines or prior exposure to bortezomib or lenalidomide.

A randomized phase III study of carfilzomib vs low-dose corticosteroids with optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (FOCUS)

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m² thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib (n=157) or control (n=158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4-14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7-12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760-1.249; P=0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ⩾3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients.

Waldenström's macroglobulinemia: a clinical perspective in the era of novel therapeutics

Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare, low-grade malignancy with no established standard of care. Rituximab regimens are most commonly used, supported by their efficacy in hematologic malignancies, including WM. A growing number of investigational regimens for WM have been evaluated in phase II clinical trials, including single-agent and combination strategies that include newer-generation monoclonal antibodies (ofatumumab and alemtuzumab), proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib and carfilzomib), immunomodulatory agents (thalidomide and lenalidomide), phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B (Akt)/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway inhibitors (everolimus and perifosene), a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib), and a histone deacetylase inhibitor (panobinostat). Other novel agents are in early-stage development for WM. International treatment guidelines for WM suggest suitable regimens in the newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory settings, in accordance with patient age, disease presentation, and efficacy and safety profiles of particular drugs. These factors must be considered when choosing appropriate therapy for individual patients with WM, to maximize response and prolong survival, while minimizing the risk of adverse events. This review article provides a clinical perspective of the modern management of patients with WM, in the context of available trial data for novel regimens and recently updated treatment guidelines.

Carfilzomib and pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with baseline risk factors

While survival times have increased over the last decade, most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) eventually relapse and become refractory to therapy. The treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM is frequently further complicated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidities that arise from an advanced disease state and of toxicities stemming from prior antimyeloma treatment. Carfilzomib and pomalidomide have recently been approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory MM. While these agents represent important additions to the available treatment options, the identification of patients who may best benefit from the use of each of therapy is still being investigated. A number of patient-related and disease-related factors may impact treatment efficacy and/or tolerability, and the clinical presentation and medical history of each patient must be carefully considered to optimize treatment. Here, we review results from carfilzomib and pomalidomide clinical trials in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM who also have baseline comorbidities or treatment-induced or disease-induced complications (including the presence of renal impairment, cardiac risk factors, peripheral neuropathy, or high-risk chromosomal abnormalities) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the two agents in these difficult-to-treat patients and to provide treatment recommendations specific to each scenario.

Efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Data from two randomized pivotal, phase 3 trials evaluating the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) were pooled to characterize the subset of patients who achieved long-term benefit of therapy (progression-free survival ⩾ 3 years). Patients with long-term benefit of therapy (n = 45) had a median duration of treatment of 48.1 months and a response rate of 100%. Humoral improvement (uninvolved immunoglobulin A) was more common in patients with long-term benefit of therapy (79% vs 55%; P = 0.002). Significant predictors of long-term benefit of therapy in multivariate analysis were age < 65 years (P = 0.03), β2-microglobulin <2.5 mg/l (P = 0.002) and fewer prior therapies (P = 0.002). The exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of grade 3-4 neutropenia was lower in patients with long-term benefit of therapy (13.9 vs 38.2 per 100 patient-years). The EAIR for invasive second primary malignancy was the same in patients with long-term benefit of therapy and other patients (1.7 per 100 patient-years). These findings indicate that patients with RRMM can experience long-term benefit with lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment with manageable side effects.