Bortezomib in combination with thalidomide-dexamethasone for previously untreated multiple myeloma

Potential Use of Thalidomide in Glioblastoma Treatment: An Updated Brief Overview

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults. Thalidomide is a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor that demonstrates antiangiogenic activity, and may provide additive or synergistic anti-tumor effects when co-administered with other antiangiogenic medications. This study is a comprehensive review that highlights the potential benefits of using thalidomide, in combination with other medications, to treat glioblastoma and its associated inflammatory conditions. Additionally, the review examines the mechanism of action of thalidomide in different types of tumors, which may be beneficial in treating glioblastoma. To our knowledge, a similar study has not been conducted. We found that thalidomide, when used in combination with other medications, has been shown to produce better outcomes in several conditions or symptoms, such as myelodysplastic syndromes, multiple myeloma, Crohn's disease, colorectal cancer, renal failure carcinoma, breast cancer, glioblastoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. However, challenges may persist for newly diagnosed or previously treated patients, with moderate side effects being reported, particularly with the various mechanisms of action observed for thalidomide. Therefore, thalidomide, used alone, may not receive significant attention for use in treating glioblastoma in the future. Conducting further research by replicating current studies that show improved outcomes when thalidomide is combined with other medications, using larger sample sizes, different demographic groups and ethnicities, and implementing enhanced therapeutic protocol management, may benefit these patients. A meta-analysis of the combinations of thalidomide with other medications in treating glioblastoma is also needed to investigate its potential benefits further.

Adding bendamustine to melphalan before ASCT improves CR rate in myeloma vs. melphalan alone: A randomized phase-2 trial

Definite cure remains exceptional in myeloma patients even after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with melphalan (Mel) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Thus, improving efficacy of HDCT in MM remains an unresolved issue. This randomized phase II trial compared standard 200 mg/m² Mel HDCT to experimental HDCT with 200 mg/m² bendamustine, given both at days −4 and −3, combined with 100 mg/m² melphalan at days −2 and −1 (BenMel) before ASCT as first-line consolidation in myeloma patients. The primary endpoint aimed to identify at least a 15% improvement in the complete remission rate (stringent CR + CR) after HDCT with BenMel compared with Mel alone. A total of 120 MM patients were 1:1 randomized. The rate of sCR/CR after ASCT was higher in BenMel than in Mel treated patients (70.0% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.039). Three patients in the BenMel group (5.0%) had reversible acute renal insufficiency compared with none in Mel patients. Minimal residual disease negativity (<10-5) by flow cytometry was observed in 26 (45.6%) BenMel patients and 22 (37.9%) in the Mel group (p = 0.375). Our data suggest that BenMel HDCT is safe and improves the sCR/CR rate compared with standard Mel alone.

Lessons Learned Treating Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Resource-Constrained Settings

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Based on personal experiences, recommendations for physicians treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are proposed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Implement strategies to keep the patient in the best possible condition for the longest time, in addition to focusing on ways to avoid financial toxicity; (2) if lenalidomide is unavailable, start treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone, include, if possible, bortezomib; (3) conduct an outpatient-based autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in all eligible patients; (4) use thalidomide as post-ASCT maintenance treatment if lenalidomide is unavailable for the standard risk patients; (5) monitor monoclonal proteins with serum protein electrophoresis and free light chain measurements; (6) employ novel drugs in cases of relapsed or refractory disease; and (7) do not forget supportive therapy. The therapeutic recommendations to treat patients with MM are somewhat different for physicians working in LMICs, compared with those treating patients in high-income countries. These are relevant since more than 50% of the inhabitants of the world live in LMICs, thus indicating that the vast majority of patients with MM are being treated in resource-constrained settings. As time goes by, physicians may acquire the ability to analyze and express their feelings and experiences about topics in the practice of medicine in which they could have learned lessons (1). Since 1980, we have been treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM); to date, we have been personally involved in the study and treatment of more than 300 patients with this disease (2). Having gained experience dealing with MM patients in underprivileged circumstances, such as those prevailing in our country: México, having explored different ideas, treatments, and methods, and being aware of the financial implications which may impact our selection of therapeutic strategies and recommendations, we felt that it was appropriate to share in this article some of these ideas with practitioners around the world who are involved in the treatment of patients with MM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Prognostic impact of early-versus-late responses to different induction regimens in patients with myeloma undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: Results from the CALM study by the CMWP of the EBMT

BACKGROUND

In autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible myeloma patients, prolonged induction does not necessarily improve the depth of response.

METHOD

We analyzed 1222 ASCT patients who were classified based on (a) the interval between induction and stem cell collection, (b) the type of induction regimen: BID (Bortezomib, IMiDs, and Dexamethasone), Bortezomib-based, or CTD (Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide, and Dexamethasone), and (c) the time to best response (Early ie, best response within 4 or 5 months, depending on the regimen vs Late; Good ie, VGPR or better vs Poor).

RESULTS

The length of induction treatment required to achieve a Good response did not affect PFS (P = .65) or OS (P = .61) post-ASCT. The three types of regimen resulted in similar outcomes: median PFS 31, 27.7 and 30.8 months (P = .31), and median OS 81.7, 92.7, and 77.4 months, respectively (P = .83). On multivariate analysis, neither the type nor the duration of the induction regimen affected OS and PFS, except for Early Good Responders who had a better PFS compared to Early Poor Responders (HR = 1.21, P-value = .02). However, achieving a Good response at induction was associated with a better response (≥VGPR) post-transplant.

CONCLUSION

The kinetics of response did not affect outcomes.

Exploratory analysis of intensified conditioning as first line treatment for patients with high risk multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma has extremely heterogeneous outcomes. Among prognostic factors, t(4;14) and del(17p) are rare oncogenic events associated with very poor prognosis. In an exploratory case-control study, we compared the combination of Busulfan-Melphalan or TBI-Melphalan with high dose Melphalan as a conditioning regimen in a series of 48 patients with del(17p) or t(4;14). These regimens were preceded by a Bortezomib-containing induction. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint whereas overall survival (OS) and complete response (CR) rate were the secondary endpoints. Twenty consecutive cases of high-risk myeloma received a reinforced conditioning regimen of Busulfan 0.8 mg/kg x4/j IV from day-6 to day-3 pre- graft (BuMel) or total body irradiation (TBI) 12 Gy (TbiMel), having received Melphalan 140 mg/m² at day-2 pre-graft. These cases were matched to 28 controls treated with Melphalan 200 mg/m² at day-2 (Mel200). After intensification ± consolidation, with a median follow-up of 6.3 years, the CR rate was higher in the BuMel/TbiMel group (65% vs 50%, P = .006). No differences were observed between both groups in terms of PFS and OS (P = .96). PFS in patients with a del(17p) mutation tended to be superior in the BuMel/TbiMel group. Our exploratory study shows that reinforcing the intensification regimen with Busulfan or TBI does not seem to improve the prognosis associated to t(4;14) and del(17p) abnormalities.

Anti-VEGF Drugs in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma Patients

The interaction between the bone marrow microenvironment and plasma cells plays an essential role in multiple myeloma progression and drug resistance. The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR) pathway in vascular endothelial cells activates and promotes angiogenesis. Moreover, VEGF activates and promotes vasculogenesis and vasculogenic mimicry when it interacts with VEGF receptors expressed in precursor cells and inflammatory cells, respectively. In myeloma bone marrow, VEGF and VEGF receptor expression are upregulated and hyperactive in the stromal and tumor cells. It has been demonstrated that several antiangiogenic agents can effectively target VEGF-related pathways in the preclinical phase. However, they are not successful in treating multiple myeloma, probably due to the vicarious action of other cytokines and signaling pathways. Thus, the simultaneous blocking of multiple cytokine pathways, including the VEGF/VEGFR pathway, may represent a valid strategy to treat multiple myeloma. This review aims to summarize recent advances in understanding the role of the VEGF/VEGFR pathway in multiple myeloma, and mainly focuses on the transcription pathway and on strategies that target this pathway.

Optimizing Immunomodulatory Drug With Proteasome Inhibitor Combinations in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

In the modern era of multiple myeloma therapeutics, proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have replaced chemotherapy regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Treatment combinations that comprise both first- and next-generation PIs, including bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib and IMiDs, including thalidomide and lenalidomide, have been evaluated in phases II and III clinical trials and have shown significant efficacy with manageable toxicity profiles. Bortezomib or carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD and KRD) are the most promising regimens resulting in significant survival improvement. Disease and patient characteristics should lead the individualization of treatment, with the eligibility for autologous transplant being of principal importance. The addition of a monoclonal antibody to PI with IMiD combinations is currently under clinical investigation and may lead to further treatment optimization.

Immunomodulatory drugs and the risk of serious infection in multiple myeloma: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

The effect of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) on serious infection remains uncertain. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the possible impact of IMiDs on serious infection in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from databases that addressed the effect of IMiDs on serious infection in patients with MM. We pooled data from RCTs and observational studies separately and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. Rates in patients with individual IMiDs at different treatment status ranged from 7.00 to 23.00%. The use of thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based regimen induction therapy for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)-ineligible patients suggests increase in serious infection (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.31-1.93, p < 0.01). Compared to conventional therapy, IMiDs' induction in ASCT-eligible patients significantly decreases the risk of serious infection (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94, p < 0.01). Lenalidomide-based therapy was associated with a significant increase in risk of serious infection in patients treated compared with conventional therapy (RR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.57-3.83, p < 0.01). The current evidence suggests that patients with MM treated with IMiDs are at a high risk of serious infection.

Immunomodulatory Drugs in Multiple Myeloma: Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Experience

Over the last two decades, the outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, a plasma cell malignancy, have dramatically improved. The development of the immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), which include thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide, has contributed significantly to these improved outcomes. While thalidomide is now less commonly prescribed, lenalidomide is widely used in the treatment of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients, in the maintenance setting post-transplant and in the relapsed/refractory setting, while pomalidomide is currently utilized in the relapsed/refractory setting. The IMiDs have been reported to have a multitude of activities, including anti-angiogenic, cytotoxic, and immunomodulatory. However, the more recent discoveries that the IMiDs bind to cereblon and thus regulate the ubiquitination of key transcription factors including IKZF1 and IKZF3 have provided greater insight into their mechanism of action. Here, the clinical efficacy of these agents in myeloma is reviewed and the structure-function relationship, the molecular mechanisms of action, and the association of IMiDs with second primary malignancies and thrombosis are discussed.

Choosing treatment options for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell disorder that is still incurable using conventional treatments. Over the last decade, advances in front-line therapy have led to an increase in survival, but there are still some doubts in the case of relapsed/refractory disease. We searched the PubMed database for articles on treatment options for patients with relapsed/refractory MM published between 1996 and 2013. These treatments included hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), rechallenges using previous chemotherapy regimens, and trials of new regimens. The introduction of new agents such as the immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs) thalidomide and lenalidomide, and the first-in-its-class proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, has greatly improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, but not all patients respond and those that do may eventually relapse or become refractory to treatment. The challenge is therefore to select the optimal treatment for each patient by balancing efficacy and toxicity. To do this, it is necessary to consider disease-related factors, such as the quality and duration of responses to previous therapies, and the aggressiveness of the relapse, and patient-related factors such as age, comorbidities, performance status, pre-existing toxicities and cytogenetic patterns. The message from the trials reviewed in this article is that the new agents may be used to re-treat relapsed/refractory disease, and that the sequencing of their administration should be modulated on the basis of the various disease and patient-related factors. Moreover, our understanding of the pharmacology and molecular action of the new drugs will contribute to the possibility of developing tailored treatment.

Value of novel agents and intensive therapy for patients with multiple myeloma

We conducted a retrospective evaluation of response and survival for 293 patients with multiple myeloma treated since June 2000 with primary thalidomide- or bortezomib-based combinations, of whom 207 patients received intensive therapy supported by autologous blood stem cells within the first year. Survival times were calculated after a landmark of 1 year from start of therapy, so that subsequent median survival was 8.9 years for patients with CR, 4.9 years for those with PR and 0.6 year for patients with NR (P<0.001). Multivariate analyses confirmed CR or PR as the major favorable factors with less impact on prognosis for age or disease stage. Both novel agents and high-dose therapy (HDT) resulted in high frequencies of PR or CR, with early HDT useful for many patients with NR or PR in improving response status and subsequent survival.

Bortezomib for the treatment of previously untreated multiple myeloma

Management of multiple myeloma (MM) has been drastically changed in the last 10 years thanks to the introduction of novel agents, which, combined with the backbone of classical chemotherapy, have led to a significant improvement in disease control. Bortezomib is the first reversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of MM, with wide synergism in vitro and in vivo with a plethora of drugs active for MM. In patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the achievement of complete response or very good partial response before ASCT is associated with prolonged progression-free and overall survival. Thus, the goal of induction regimens should include, at least for younger patients, a continued improvement of the quality and depth of the achieved response. This article is focused on reviewing the major efforts in frontline therapy for MM, including bortezomib-containing induction regimens in patients either eligible or ineligible for ASCT.

Optimizing outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation

High-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) has been considered to be the standard frontline treatment for younger, fit patients with multiple myeloma (MM) since the 1990s. Efforts continue to optimize the use of HDT-ASCT with the aim of improving outcomes. One strategy has been the incorporation of novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib) in the pre-transplantation setting as an induction therapy or in the post-transplantation setting as a consolidation or maintenance therapy. Given their high response rates, three-drug induction therapy regimens (for example, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone) are now the standard of care. Thalidomide and bortezomib are well suited for consolidation therapy, and regimens using these agents can improve the depth of response following HDT-ASCT. Lenalidomide is particularly well suited for long-term maintenance therapy following HDT-ASCT, and initial results are promising and have shown improvements in disease outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival in some cases, although a low incidence of second primary malignancies have been observed. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal regimen and duration of induction therapy, the impact of maintenance on overall survival and the safety of long-term treatment. Many of the studies currently underway in MM will help address these aspects.

Efficacy of bortezomib as first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma

Recent years have seen a dramatic change in the approach towards diagnosing and treating Multiple Myeloma. Newer and more target specific approach to treatment has prolonged the survival for patients with multiple myeloma. The proteasome inhibitors make an important class of anti-myeloma drugs that disrupts the proteolytic machinery of the tumor cells preferentially, enhancing their susceptibility to apoptosis. Bortezomib, in particular has shown significant clinical efficacy in myeloma treatment. It is the most commonly used proteasome inhibitor and has been tested to be effective in prolonging the overall survival in several trials. Its combinations with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone are the treatment of choice for standard risk patients following the mSMART guidelines. The success with its lower dosage in elderly and its proven efficacious subcutaneous usage makes Bortezomib a useful agent for maximizing patient compliance and minimizing therapy related toxicity and costs. This review discusses several trials where Bortezomib has been used as a single/combination agent for front-line treatment of multiple myeloma.

Bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone for relapsing multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In vitro studies have shown synergistic antimyeloma effects with the combination of bortezomib and alkylating agents. Combinations of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone are rational with the prospect of superior antitumor activity with independent toxicity.

METHODS

Between December 2004 and April 2007, we treated 44 patients with relapsing multiple myeloma with the combination of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone 20 mg/m orally daily for 4 days beginning on days 1, 9 and 17; and cyclophosphamide 70 mg/m orally twice daily for 4 days. A second course was given 1 month later.

RESULTS

Clinical response was observed in 32 patients (73%) including 26 with disease in partial remission (59%), and 6 with disease in complete remission (14%). Side effects were uncommon and mild, except for grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 15%, infection in 5% and constipation in 2% of patients. The median remission time of responding patients was 10 months that contributed to significantly longer median survival for patients with responsive disease (33 mo) than for those with unresponsive disease (12 mo) (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone was an effective, well-tolerated combination for the treatment of relapsing multiple myeloma.

High frequencies of response after limited primary therapy for multiple myeloma

In an effort to maintain high primary response rates against multiple myeloma and without serious toxicity, we assessed 3 different bortezomib combinations in small numbers of patients, with combinations that included cyclophosphamide and lenalidomide in modest doses and for short courses. Remissions occurred in approximately 90% of patients, with rare episodes of serious drug-related adverse effects.

BACKGROUND

Recent bortezomib combinations have induced remission in approximately 90% of patients newly diagnosed, with moderate frequency of adverse effects.

PATIENTS

In an attempt to reduce adverse effects, and to prepare qualified patients for early intensification, we assessed the antimyeloma effect and toxicity of 3 different bortezomib combinations in small numbers of patients.

METHODS

With reduced doses and short durations of exposure, we combined bortezomib with (a) cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, (b) lenalidomide/dexamethasone/liposomal doxorubicin, and (c) cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone/lenalidomide.

RESULTS

Response rates were high, with rare episodes of severe drug-related toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Further study of similar combinations of effective drugs given in limited doses and for short durations would be useful.

Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus doxorubicin and dexamethasone as induction therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients

We conducted a retrospective study to compare thalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (VTD) with thalidomide plus doxorubicin and dexamethasone (TAD). Until now, first-line treatment with these combinations has not been reported in any comparative study. The principal objective of this study was to determine whether VTD would improve the complete response (CR) and CR plus very good partial response rates compared with TAD. Second, using additional methods, such as flow cytometric assays and polymerase chain reaction technology, we evaluated the molecular residual disease in the subgroup of patients that obtained CR. Our study shows that VTD is a superior induction regimen compared with TAD, with a higher response rate after induction, translating into greater CR plus very good partial response.

Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study

The Spanish Myeloma Group conducted a trial to compare bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide/dexamethasone (TD) versus vincristine, BCNU, melphalan, cyclophosphamide, prednisone/vincristine, BCNU, doxorubicin, dexamethasone/bortezomib (VBMCP/VBAD/B) in patients aged 65 years or younger with multiple myeloma. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate postinduction and post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Three hundred eighty-six patients were allocated to VTD (130), TD (127), or VBMCP/VBAD/B (129). The CR rate was significantly higher with VTD than with TD (35% vs 14%, P = .001) or with VBMCP/VBAD/B (35% vs 21%, P = .01). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer with VTD (56.2 vs 28.2 vs 35.5 months, P = .01). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the post-ASCT CR rate was higher with VTD than with TD (46% vs 24%, P = .004) or with VBMCP/VBAD/B (46% vs 38%, P = .1). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a shorter PFS and overall survival in the overall series and in all treatment groups. In conclusion, VTD resulted in a higher pre- and posttransplantation CR rate and in a significantly longer PFS although it was not able to overcome the poor prognosis of high-risk cytogenetics. Our results support the use of VTD as a highly effective induction regimen prior to ASCT. The study was registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00461747) and Eudra CT (no. 2005-001110-41).

Proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma: 10 years later

Proteasome inhibition has emerged as an important therapeutic strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). Since the publication of the first phase 1 trials of bortezomib 10 years ago, this first-in-class proteasome inhibitor (PI) has contributed substantially to the observed improvement in survival in MM patients over the past decade. Although first approved as a single agent in the relapsed setting, bortezomib is now predominantly used in combination regimens. Furthermore, the standard twice-weekly schedule may be replaced by weekly infusion, especially when bortezomib is used as part of combination regimens in frontline therapy. Indeed, bortezomib is an established component of induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Bortezomib has also been incorporated into conditioning regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation, as well as into post-ASCT consolidation therapy, and in the maintenance setting. In addition, a new route of bortezomib administration, subcutaneous infusion, has recently been approved. Recently, several new agents have been introduced into the clinic, including carfilzomib, marizomib, and MLN9708, and trials investigating these "second-generation" PIs in patients with relapsed/refractory MMs have demonstrated positive results. This review provides an overview of the role of PIs in the treatment of MM, focusing on developments over the past decade.

Curability of multiple myeloma

Among 792 patients with multiple myeloma treated from 1987 to 2010 and assessed after 18 months, there were 167 patients with complete remission. For those 60 patients treated between 1987–1998 and with long followup, the latest relapse occurred after 11.8 years, so that 13 patients have remained in sustained complete remission for longer than 12 years (range 12–22 years). These results suggest that 3% of all patients treated during that period may be cured of multiple myeloma. In addition to immunofixation, more sensitive techniques for the detection of residual disease should be applied more consistently in patients with apparent complete remission in order to identify those with potential cure.

Proteasome inhibitors

In May 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for the use of the first-in-class proteasome inhibitor bortezomib as a third-line therapy in multiple myeloma, and the European Union followed suit a year later. Bortezomib has subsequently been approved for multiple myeloma as a second-line treatment on its own and as a first-line therapy in combination with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid. Furthermore, bortezomib has also been approved as a second-line therapy for mantle cell lymphoma. In this chapter, the focus is on the current clinical research on bortezomib, its adverse effects, and the resistance of multiple myeloma patients to bortezomib-based therapy. The various applications of bortezomib in different diseases and recent advances in the development of a new generation of inhibitors that target the proteasome or other parts of the ubiquitin-proteasome system are also reviewed.

Bortezomib plus dexamethasone versus reduced-dose bortezomib, thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction treatment before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome conducted a randomized trial to compare bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD) as induction before high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) to a combination consisting of reduced doses of bortezomib and thalidomide plus dexamethasone (vtD) in patients with multiple myeloma. Overall, a total of 199 patients were centrally randomly assigned to receive VD or vtD. After 4 cycles, the complete response (CR) rate was the same in both groups (13% in the vtD arm, 12% in the VD arm, P = .74). However, the CR plus very good partial response (VGPR) rate was significantly higher in the vtD arm (49% vs 36%, P = .05). After ASCT, the CR plus VGPR rate was significantly higher in the vtD arm (74% vs 58%, P = .02). The reduced doses of bortezomib and thalidomide translated into a reduced incidence of peripheral neuropathy (PN): grade ≥ 2 PN were reported in 34% in the VD arm versus 14% in the vtD arm (P = .001). vtD, including reduced doses of bortezomib and thalidomide, yields higher VGPR rates compared with VD and can be considered a new effective triplet combination before HDT/ASCT.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase 1/2 Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium trial

This phase 1/2 trial evaluated combination lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (RVDD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients received RVDD at 4 dose levels, including the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Patients with a very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) after cycle 4 proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation or continued treatment. The primary objectives were MTD evaluation and response to RVDD after 4 and 8 cycles. Seventy-two patients received a median of 4.5 cycles. The MTDs were lenalidomide 25 mg, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2), and dexamethasone 20/10 mg, as established with 3-week cycles. The most common adverse events were fatigue, constipation, sensory neuropathy, and infection; there was no treatment-related mortality. Response rates after 4 and 8 cycles were 96% and 95% partial response or better, 57% and 65% ≥ VGPR, and 29% and 35% complete or near-complete response, respectively. After a median follow-up of 15.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The estimated 18-month PFS and OS were 80.8% and 98.6%, respectively. RVDD was generally well tolerated and highly active, warranting further study in newly diagnosed MM patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00724568.

International Myeloma Working Group consensus approach to the treatment of multiple myeloma patients who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation

The role of high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve in the novel agent era. The choice of induction therapy has moved from conventional chemotherapy to newer regimens incorporating the immunomodulatory derivatives thalidomide or lenalidomide and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. These drugs combine well with traditional therapies and with one another to form various doublet, triplet, and quadruplet regimens. Up-front use of these induction treatments, in particular 3-drug combinations, has affected unprecedented rates of complete response that rival those previously seen with conventional chemotherapy and subsequent ASCT. Autotransplantation applied after novel-agent-based induction regimens provides further improvement in the depth of response, a gain that translates into extended progression-free survival and, potentially, overall survival. High activity shown by immunomodulatory derivatives and bortezomib before ASCT has recently led to their use as consolidation and maintenance therapies after autotransplantation. Novel agents and ASCT are complementary treatment strategies for MM. This article reviews the current literature and provides important perspectives and guidance on the major issues surrounding the optimal current management of younger, transplantation-eligible MM patients.

Current trends in autologous stem-cell transplantation for myeloma in the era of novel therapies

Since the mid 1990s, high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) has been considered the standard of care for frontline therapy in younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM). During the past 10 years, thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide have been widely incorporated to the therapeutic armamentarium for the treatment of this disease. These agents show promise for improving the rate of complete remission both before and after ASCT without increasing toxicity. However, it is not clear whether such therapies are superior if they are used as an alternative to transplantation or whether they may reduce the need for and use of transplantation in patients in whom treatment is indicated. Therefore, the role of ASCT itself is a matter of debate: Should it be used upfront or as salvage treatment at the time of progression in patients initially treated with novel agents? This review presents current trends in ASCT for MM in the era of novel therapies.

Rates of venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma patients undergoing immunomodulatory therapy with thalidomide or lenalidomide: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with thalidomide- and lenalidomide-based regimens is high. Recent observational studies have suggested that thromboprophylaxis might be efficacious in decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.

PURPOSE

To determine the absolute rates of VTE with and without different thromboprophylactic agents in patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based regimens.

RESULTS

Patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with thalidomide in combination with dexamethasone have a VTE risk of 4.1 (95% CI, 2.8-5.9) per 100 patient-cycles. Therapeutic doses of anticoagulants seem to provide the largest absolute risk reduction of VTE. The rate of VTE in patients with previously treated MM receiving thalidomide in combination with dexamethasone is 0.8 (95% CI, 0.1-2.1) per 100 patient-months. A combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone is associated with of risk of VTE of 0.8 (95% CI, 0.07-2.0) per 100 patient-cycles and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.4-0.9) per 100 patient-cycles in patients with newly diagnosed and previously treated MM, respectively. Similarly, the rates of VTE in patients also receiving thromboprophylaxis with aspirin were 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5-1.5) and 0.6 (95% CI, 0.01-2.1), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based regimens in combination with dexamethasone are at high risk of VTE. The benefit of various types of thromboprophylaxis is difficult to quantify in patients with MM receiving immunomodulatory therapy, especially in those receiving lenalidomide-based therapy or who have previously treated MM. Randomized controlled trials are needed to address this important clinical need.

Bortezomib and thalidomide, a steroid free regimen in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma

Despite their efficacy in myeloma, corticosteroids have acute and chronic toxicities. Newer agents with significant anti-myeloma activity permit the development of steroid-free regimens. We designed a Phase II clinical trial to study the toxicity and efficacy of a steroid-free combination of bortezomib and thalidomide as a first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic myeloma. Patients received bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 every 21 d and thalidomide 150 mg/d for a maximum of eight cycles. Amongst 27 evaluable patients, the overall response was 81·5% with 25·8% near complete response or greater. The response rate was comparable to most other two drug combinations for upfront therapy but lower than that obtained with the use of three drugs. The most common grade 3 toxicities were peripheral neuropathy (22%), pneumonia (15%), fatigue (7%) and anaemia (7%). Peripheral neuropathy completely resolved in 80% of the patients upon completion of therapy, but not in the remaining 20% of patients. No venous thromboembolic events were observed even in the absence of prophylactic anticoagulation. The median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% confidence interval 8·7-21·6 months). Median overall survival has not yet been reached at a median follow up of 39 months. The 3-year overall survival was 74%. This study demonstrates: (i) the efficacy of a steroid-free regimen; (ii) mostly reversible treatment-related peripheral neuropathy; and (iii) the absence of venous thrombotic events.

Outcome and toxicity in the modern era of new drugs for multiple myeloma: a reappraisal for comparison with future investigational trials

The introduction of new drugs such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib has led to novel treatment strategies and significantly improved the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The enhanced knowledge of myeloma pathogenesis has allowed the identification of new therapeutic targets and many clinical trials are either planned or in progress to evaluate these more selective drugs in the near future. The results of these studies, however, will have to be compared with the results of existing novel therapies for the treatment of MM in order to define whether new protocols do not duplicate current new standards and constitute a real improvement. We reviewed the results of a series of phase I, II, III studies with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib combinations for newly diagnosed MM in order to define a reasonable standard in terms of activity, efficacy, and toxicity and to have a potentially useful starting point for comparisons with future investigational trials. Three-drug regimens appear to double the complete remission (CR) rate (20%), though regimens containing 4 drugs triple the CR rate (30%), compared with those containing only 2 agents (10%). These improvements in the depth and quality of response translate into a progressive increase in the progression-free survival rate at 2 years (from approximately 54%-62% to 75%, respectively). Conversely, by using additional agents, a marked increase in hematologic toxicity has been described (8%, 28%, and 28% respectively), whereas nonhematologic toxicity appears to be similar (26%, 24%, and 27%, respectively). These results suggest that new trials in the future will constitute significant progress if they can improve on the current relatively favorable efficacy/toxicity ratio. Nonetheless, exciting new combinations in development do hold promise and results from these studies are eagerly awaited.

Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (TD) is a standard induction therapy for myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of addition of bortezomib to TD (VTD) versus TD alone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Patients (aged 18-65 years) with previously untreated symptomatic myeloma were enrolled from 73 sites in Italy between May, 2006, and April, 2008, and data collection continued until June 30, 2010. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (40 mg daily on 8 of the first 12 days, but not consecutively; total of 320 mg per cycle), either alone or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The randomisation sequence was computer generated by the study coordinating team and was stratified by disease stage. After double autologous stem-cell transplantation, patients received two 35-day cycles of their assigned drug regimen, VTD or TD, as consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to induction therapy. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. This study is still underway but is not recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01134484, and with EudraCT, number 2005-003723-39.

FINDINGS

480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (n=241 patients) or TD (n=239). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment, and 236 on VTD and 238 on TD were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After induction therapy, complete or near complete response was achieved in 73 patients (31%, 95% CI 25·0-36·8) receiving VTD, and 27 (11%, 7·3-15·4) on TD (p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in a significantly higher number of patients on VTD (n=132, 56%) than in those on TD (n=79, 33%; p<0·0001), with a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy in patients on VTD (n=23, 10%) than in those on TD (n=5, 2%; p=0·0004). Resolution or improvement of severe peripheral neuropathy was recorded in 18 of 23 patients on VTD, and in three of five patients on TD.

INTERPRETATION

VTD induction therapy before double autologous stem-cell transplantation significantly improves rate of complete or near complete response, and represents a new standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for transplant.

FUNDING

Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology at the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Successful treatment with a modified bortezomib schedule of weekly and longer intervals for patients with refractory/resistance multiple myeloma

Bortezomib is a potent agent for multiple myeloma (MM); however, severe treatment-related toxicities such as peripheral neuropathy have been observed in conjunction with its use. In this study, we present the cases of 9 patients with refractory MM whose administration schedule was modified from twice weekly to an interval of once weekly or longer mainly due to adverse events. The average duration from diagnosis to the time of bortezomib induction was 56 months. The schedule was changed to the modified administration according to the physician's discretion. The average duration of modified treatment was 16 months. Six patients with IgG or IgA subtype showed more than a minor response. One patient with BJP had stable disease for 3 years, and the other BJP-type patient with extramedullary plasmacytomas showed remarkable tumor regression. The treatment-related toxicities of this strategy were mild and tolerable. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the administration of bortezomib at intervals longer than once weekly.

Anti-tumour effects of transcatheter arterial embolisation administered in combination with thalidomide in a rabbit VX2 liver tumour model

OBJECTIVE

Using a liver tumour model we investigated whether thalidomide enhances the anti-tumour effect of transcatheter arterial embolisation (TAE).

METHOD

First, the viability of VX2 tumour cells co-cultured with thalidomide in a 21% and 1% O(2) atmosphere was assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Second, we randomly assigned 20 rabbits bearing VX2 liver tumours to 4 groups: Group 1 (thalidomide plus TAE), Group 2 (TAE only), Group 3 (thalidomide only) and Group 4 (control). Thalidomide was orally administered for 5 days. The anti-tumour effects were assessed by the tumour proliferation rate using MRI and by immunohistochemical analysis of the area of intratumoural vessels. Analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The viability of cells grown under hypoxic and normal conditions was not significantly different, nor was there a difference among the four groups. The tumour size increased by 55.9±29.3% in Group 1, 250.6±73.3% in Group 2, 355.2±51.7% in Group 3 and 424.7±110.7% in Group 4; the difference between Group 1 and the other three groups was significant. The area of intratumour vessels in specimens was 0.22±0.28% in Group 1, 0.42±0.29% in Group 2, 1.44±1.00% in Group 3 and 6.00±2.17% in Group 4; the difference between Group 1 and the other groups was statistically significant, as was the difference between Groups 3 and 4.

CONCLUSION

Thalidomide used in combination with TAE enhanced anti-tumour effects in rabbits bearing VX2 liver tumours.

Proteasome inhibition and its therapeutic potential in multiple myeloma

Due to an unmet clinical need for treatment, the first in class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, moved from drug discovery to FDA approval in multiple myeloma in an unprecedented eight years. In the wake of this rapid approval arose a large number of questions about its mechanism of action and toxicity as well as its ultimate role in the treatment of this disease. In this article, we briefly review the preclinical and clinical development of the drug as the underpinning for a systematic review of the large number of clinical trials that are beginning to shed some light on the full therapeutic potential of bortezomib in myeloma. We conclude with our current understanding of the mechanism of action of this agent and a discussion of the novel proteasome inhibitors under development, as it will be progress in these areas that will ultimately determine the true potential of proteasome inhibition in myeloma.

Coagulation profiles and thromboembolic events of bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are at relatively high risk of developing thromboembolic event (TEE), especially during treatment with immunomodulatory agents. We characterized coagulation profiles and evaluate the incidence of TEE associated with the combination therapy of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed MM. The results indicated that the platelet count and platelet aggregation induced by the agonists were decreased after a short exposure to bortezomib in vivo. The incidence of TEE was low in VTD therapy for an overall rate of 3%. We do not recommend routine thromboprophylaxis for VTD therapy in Chinese patients with MM.

Rapid control of previously untreated multiple myeloma with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (BLD)

Between April 2006 and June 2009, 34 newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma received one to three courses of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) i.v. four times, lenalidomide 25 mg p.o. daily for 21 days and dexamethasone 20 mg/m(2) p.o. for 4 days beginning on days 1, 9 and 17 (BLD). There was rapid onset of remission in 30 patients (88%) similar to the frequency of 87% induced by a previous combination of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (BTD). After a median of 3.6 months, 28 patients received intensive therapy with high-dose melphalan supported by autologous blood stem cells, so that the overall frequency of complete remission (CR) was 44%, similar to the frequency of 37% observed previously. Side effects due to thalidomide with previous BTD were less frequent and severe with BLD. The combination of BLD given for one or two courses was an effective primary treatment for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma.

Union of forces advances myeloma care

In this issue of Blood, Richardson et al report on a landmark treatment regimen for newly diagnosed myeloma patients that for the first time combines lenalidomide and bortezomib. This effort required a team approach comprising 2 competing pharmaceutical companies (joining forces to study this promising regimen) and multiple academic medical centers.1

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This single-center retrospective study determined the efficacy of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (BTD) as induction for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT).

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic MM who had received BTD induction before stem cell collection at Winship Cancer Institute were included. BTD induction comprised up to 8 3-week cycles of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11; thalidomide 100 mg daily; and dexamethasone 40 mg on Days 1 through 4 and Days 9 through 12. Stem cell mobilization involved granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and/or cyclophosphamide. Response was assessed according to European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria.

RESULTS

Review of medical records identified 44 eligible patients (34 patients who were treated in the front-line setting and 10 patients who were treated for recurrent disease) who received a median of 4 BTD cycles. The overall response rate (ORR) was 91%, which included a greater than or equal to very good partial response (> or = VGPR) rate of 57% (including 20% stringent complete responses/complete response [sCR/CR] rate). In front-line patients, the ORR was 94%, which included a 56% > or = VGPR rate (24% sCR/CR). The median CD34-positive stem cell collection was 10.67 x 10(6)/kg. The ORR after ASCT in 34 patients who were evaluable for response was 100%, including a 76% > or = VGPR rate (53% sCR/CR). Among all 44 patients, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.4 months. The median overall survival (OS) was not reached after a median follow-up of 25 months, and the 2-year OS rate was 82%. There were no significant differences in PFS (27.4 months vs 23.5 months) or in 2-year survival (80% vs 90%) between patients who did and did not undergo ASCT, respectively. Twenty patients (45%) developed neuropathy, including 4 (9%) with grade 3 neuropathy episodes, and 1 patient developed deep vein thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

BTD was highly effective and well tolerated as induction for MM patients who were eligible for ASCT. Long-term outcomes appeared to be similar with or without ASCT consolidation.

Bortezomib plus intermediate-dose dexamethasone and thalidomide in elderly untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a Chinese experience

Bortezomib has proven to be active in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), including elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib in combination with intermediate-dose dexamethasone (Dex) and thalidomide in untreated MM patients aged > or =65 years in a Chinese single center. In this study, 18 patients were treated with bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m(2) IV on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 and Dex at 20 mg/day IV on Days 1-4 and 8-11 simultaneously. Thalidomide at dose of 100 mg/day was given everyday. The mean number of cycles of bortezomib treatment was 2.06. Three patients (17%) achieved a complete response (CR), four (22%) a very good partial response (VGPR), and nine (50%) a PR, resulting in an overall response rate of 89%. The median time to response was 22 days (range 14-50 days). The duration of response was significantly longer in patients achieving a CR/VGPR with respect to those achieving only a PR (8.5 vs. 4.2 months, P = 0.03). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurring in patients comprised weakness, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, infection, and neuropathy. Only one patient suffered from deep vein thrombosis. This preliminary experience in Chinese patients indicated that bortezomib-Dex-thalidomide is highly effective in elderly untreated patients with MM, even in patients with poor prognostic features.

How best to use new therapies in multiple myeloma

Advances in the molecular understanding of myeloma have led to the development of novel agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib). When used alone, these agents have significant activity against myeloma and responses increase significantly when they are combined with additional agents including glucocorticosteroids and chemotherapeutic agents such as alkylators. There is a drive to use these novel agents in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, where they lead to impressive response rates with increasing duration of responses. In addition, novel agents are now the mainstays of therapy for relapsed disease. In the following paper, we summarize the key observations from recent completed and ongoing studies that determined the effect of these novel therapies both in the setting of newly diagnosed myeloma and for relapsed disease. We also discuss our approach to the use of these agents in specific myeloma settings.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma beyond 2010

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is considered the gold standard in the frontline therapy of younger patients with multiple myeloma because it results in higher complete remission (CR) rates and longer event-free survival than conventional chemotherapy. The greatest benefit from ASCT is obtained in patients achieving CR after transplantation, the likelihood of CR being associated with the M-protein size at the time of transplantation. The incorporation of novel agents results in higher pre- and posttransplantation CR rates. Induction with bortezomib-containing regimens is encouraging in patients with poor-risk cytogenetics. However, longer follow-up is required to assess the impact of this increased CR on long-term survival. The results of posttransplantation consolidation/maintenance with new drugs are encouraging. All this indicates that, in the era of novel agents, high-dose therapy should be optimized rather than replaced. Because of its high transplantation-related mortality, myeloablative allografting has been generally replaced by reduced-intensity conditioning (reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation). The best results are achieved after a debulky ASCT, with a progression-free survival plateau of 25% to 30% beyond 6 years from reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation. The development of novel reduced-intensity preparative regimens and peri- and posttransplantation strategies aimed at minimizing graft-versus-host disease, and enhancing the graft-versus-myeloma effect are key issues.