Bortezomib-based therapy for transplant-ineligible East Asian patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma

Introduction

This subgroup analysis of the LYM-3002 Phase III study (NCT00722137) investigated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) therapy could improve outcomes in East Asian patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL).

Materials and methods

A total of 121 East Asian patients from China, Taiwan, Japan, and the Republic of Korea with stage II–IV MCL who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantation were enrolled to six to eight 21-day cycles of R-CHOP or VR-CAP (R-CHOP with bortezomib replacing vincristine).

Results

The primary end point was progression-free survival. After a median follow-up of 42.4 months, median progression-free survival in East Asian patients was 13.9 (R-CHOP) versus 28.6 (VR-CAP) months (HR 0.7, P=0.157; 43% improvement with VR-CAP). Secondary end points (R-CHOP vs VR-CAP), including complete response rate (47% vs 63%), duration of complete response (median 16.6 vs 46.7 months), and treatment-free interval (median 21 vs 46.5 months), were improved with VR-CAP. VR-CAP was associated with increased but manageable toxicity. The most frequent adverse events were hematologic toxicities.

Conclusion

VR-CAP was effective in East Asian patients with newly diagnosed MCL, and could be considered for patients in whom stem-cell transplantation is not an option.

Association between bortezomib dose intensity and overall survival in mantle cell lymphoma patients on frontline VR-CAP in the phase 3 LYM-3002 study

The pivotal LYM-3002 study compared frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) with bortezomib, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (VR-CAP) in newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients for whom stem cell transplantation was not an option. This post hoc subanalysis of the VR-CAP data from LYM-3002 evaluated the effect of bortezomib dose intensity on OS in patients who completed ≥6 cycles of treatment. From the end of cycle 6, patients receiving ≥4.6 mg/m²/cycle of bortezomib had significantly longer OS (but not PFS) compared with those receiving <4.6 mg/m²/cycle by univariate analysis (HR 0.43 [95% CI: 0.23-0.80]; p = .0059). This association remained significant in multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics (HR 0.40 [95% CI: 0.20-0.79]; p = .008]. Higher bortezomib dose intensity was the strongest predictor of OS in newly diagnosed MCL patients receiving VR-CAP. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00722137.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bortezomib in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (VR-CAP) in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bortezomib is the first product to be approved for the treatment of patients with previously untreated MCL, for whom haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is unsuitable, and is used in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (VR-CAP). The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recently recommended the use of VR-CAP in the UK following a technology appraisal. We present the cost effectiveness analysis performed as part of that assessment: VR-CAP versus the current standard of care regimen of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) in a UK setting.

METHODS

A lifetime economic model was developed with health states based upon line of treatment and progression status. Baseline patient characteristics, dosing, safety and efficacy were based on the LYM-3002 trial. As overall survival data were immature, survival was modelled by progression status, and post-progression survival was assumed equal across arms. Utilities were derived from LYM-3002 and literature, and standard UK cost sources were used.

RESULTS

Treatment with VR-CAP compared to R-CHOP gave an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.81 at an additional cost of £16,212, resulting in a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20,043. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that treatment with VR-CAP was cost effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

VR-CAP is a cost-effective option for previously untreated patients with MCL in the UK.