Preclinical evaluation of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in cancer therapy

Bortezomib is a highly selective, reversible inhibitor of the 26S proteasome that is indicated for single-agent use in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least 2 prior therapies and are progressing on their most recent therapy. Clinical investigations have been completed or are under way to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bortezomib alone or in combination with chemotherapy in multiple myeloma, both at relapse and presentation, as well as in other cancer types. The antiproliferative, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic, and antitumor activities of bortezomib result from proteasome inhibition and depend on the altered degradation of a host of regulatory proteins. Exposure to bortezomib has been shown to stabilize p21, p27, and p53, as well as the proapoptotic Bid and Bax proteins, caveolin-1, and inhibitor κB-α, which prevents activation of nuclear factor κB-induced cell survival pathways. Bortezomib also promoted the activation of the proapoptotic c-Jun-NH(2 )terminal kinase, as well as the endoplasmic reticulum stress response. The anticancer effects of bortezomib as a single agent have been demonstrated in xenograft models of multiple myeloma, adult T-cell leukemia, lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, head and neck, and colon cancer, and in melanoma. In these preclinical in vivo studies, bortezomib treatment resulted in decreased tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis, as well as increased survival and tumor apoptosis. In several in vitro and/or in vivo cancer models, bortezomib has also been shown to enhance the antitumor properties of several antineoplastic treatments. Importantly, bortezomib was generally well tolerated and did not appear to produce additive toxicities when combined with other therapies in the dosing regimens used in these preclinical in vivo investigations. These findings provide a rationale for further clinical trials using bortezomib alone or in combination regimens with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, or novel agents in patients with hematologic malignancies or solid tumors

Use of medical services by older Australian women with dementia : a longitudinal cohort study

Objective: To assess the use of Medicare-subsidised health services by women with and without dementia. Methods: Data from women of the 1921–26 birth cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health were linked to various administrative datasets to ascertain dementia diagnosis. The use of subsidised general practitioner (GP) services (75+ health assessments [HAs], chronic disease management meetings [CDMs], multidisciplinary case conferences [MCCs]) and specialist and allied health services between 2000 and 2013 for these women was analysed using longitudinal GEE models. Results: A total of 9,683 women were included with 1,444 (15%) women identified as having dementia. Compared to women with no dementia indication, women with dementia had more yearly non-emergency GP attendances (short [30 minutes] IRR=1.11 [1.04, 1.19]) and fewer specialist attendances (IRR=0.91 [0.85, 0.97]) and were more likely to have an emergency GP attendance (OR=2.29 [2.05, 2.57]). There were no significant differences in the odds of having either a HA or CDM or using allied health services for women with and without dementia indicators. Conclusions: The overall use of services designed to improve the prevention and coordination of the care of older people with chronic conditions was low. Women with dementia were no more likely to access these services. Implications for public health: There is underuse of some primary and allied healthcare services designed for people with complex chronic conditions. These could be better used by women with dementia to improve the management of complex comorbidities (e.g. CDMs), to prevent the onset of disability (e.g. physiotherapy), and enhance needs assessment and service access (e.g. HAs). © 2021 The Authors. **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Colette Browning” is provided in this record*

Defining The Dose Of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin In Combination With Induction Chemotherapy In Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Comparison Of 3 Mg/M2 With 6 Mg/M2 In The NCRI AML17 Trial

Arecent source data meta-analysis of randomized trials in adults assessing the immunoconjugate gemtuzumab ozogamicin combined with standard chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia showed a significant survival benefit in patients without an adverse karyotype. It is not clear whether the optimal dose should be 3 mg/m2 or 6 mg/m2. In this study, we randomized 788 patients to a single dose of gemtuzumab ozogamicin 3 mg/m2 or 6 mg/m2 with the first course of induction therapy. We found that the rate of complete remission was higher with 3 mg/m2 [82% vs. 76%; odds ratio 1.46 (1.04–2.06); P=0.03], but this was balanced by a higher rate of complete remission with incomplete peripheral blood count recovery in the 6 mg/m2 treatment (10% vs. 7%) resulting in similar overall response rate [89% vs. 86%; hazard ratio 1.34 (0.88–2.04); P=0.17]. There was no overall difference in relapse or survival at four years between the arms: 46% vs. 54%; hazard ratio 1.17 (0.94–1.45), P=0.5, and 50% versus 47%; hazard ratio 1.10 (0.90–1.34), P=0.3, respectively. The 30- and 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the 6 mg/m2 recipients: 7% versus 3%; hazard ratio 2.07 (1.11–3.87), P=0.02, and 9% versus 5%; hazard ratio 1.99 (1.17–3.39), P=0.01, respectively, which in addition was associated with a higher rate of veno-occlusive disease (5.6% vs. 0.5%; P<0.0001). Our conclusion from this trial is that there is no advantage in using a single dose of 6 mg/m2 of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in combination with induction chemotherapy when compared with a 3 mg/m2 dose, with respect to response, disease-free and overall survival, either overall, or in any disease subgroup. (AML17 was registered as ISRCTN55675535.

Current Multiple Myeloma Treatment Strategies with Novel Agents: A European Perspective

This review presents an overview of the most recent data using the novel agents thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide in the treatment of multiple myeloma and summarizes European treatment practices incorporating these novel agents

RNA-seq of newly diagnosed patients in the PADIMAC study leads to a bortezomib/lenalidomide decision signature.

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma will involve not only development of new therapies but also better use of existing treatments. We performed RNA sequencing on samples from newly diagnosed patients enrolled in the phase 2 PADIMAC (Bortezomib, Adriamycin, and Dexamethasone Therapy for Previously Untreated Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Impact of Minimal Residual Disease in Patients with Deferred ASCT) study. Using synthetic annealing and the large margin nearest neighbor algorithm, we developed and trained a 7-gene signature to predict treatment outcome. We tested the signature in independent cohorts treated with bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based therapies. The signature was capable of distinguishing which patients would respond better to which regimen. In the CoMMpass data set, patients who were treated correctly according to the signature had a better progression-free survival (median, 20.1 months vs not reached; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.72; P = .0012) and overall survival (median, 30.7 months vs not reached; HR, 0.41; CI, 0.21-0.80; P = .0049) than those who were not. Indeed, the outcome for these correctly treated patients was noninferior to that for those treated with combined bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, arguably the standard of care in the United States but not widely available elsewhere. The small size of the signature will facilitate clinical translation, thus enabling more targeted drug regimens to be delivered in myeloma.Wellcome Trust, Bloodwise, Cancer Research UK

The role of ixazomib as an augmented conditioning therapy in salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and as a post-ASCT consolidation and maintenance strategy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (ACCoRd [UK-MRA Myeloma XII] trial): study protocol for a Phase III randomised controlled trial

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell tumour with an approximate annual incidence of 4500 in the UK. Therapeutic options for patients with MM have changed in the last decade with the arrival of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. Despite these options, almost all patients will relapse post first-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). First relapse management (second-line treatment) has evolved in recent years with an expanding portfolio of novel agents, driving response rates influencing the durability of response. A second ASCT, as part of relapsed disease management (salvage ASCT), has been shown to prolong the progression-free survival and overall survival following a proteasome inhibitor-containing re-induction regimen, in the Cancer Research UK-funded National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma X (Intensive) study. It is now recommended that salvage ASCT be considered for suitable patients by the International Myeloma Working Group and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG35 guidance. Methods/design: ACCoRd (Myeloma XII) is a UK-nationwide, individually randomised, multi-centre, multiple randomisation, open-label phase III trial with an initial single intervention registration phase aimed at relapsing MM patients who have received ASCT in first-line treatment. We will register 406 participants into the trial to allow 284 and 248 participants to be randomised at the first and second randomisations, respectively. All participants will receive re-induction therapy until maximal response (four to six cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone). Participants who achieve at least stable disease will be randomised (1:1) to receive either ASCTCon, using high-dose melphalan, or ASCTAug, using high-dose melphalan with ixazomib. All participants achieving or maintaining a minimal response or better, following salvage ASCT, will undergo a second randomisation (1:1) to consolidation and maintenance or observation. Participants randomised to consolidation and maintenance will receive consolidation with two cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone, and maintenance with ixazomib until disease progression. Discussion: The question of how best to maximise the durability of response to salvage ASCT warrants clinical investigation. Given the expanding scope of oral therapeutic agents, patient engagement with long-term maintenance strategies is a real opportunity. This study will provide evidence to better define post-relapse treatment in MM

A randomised comparison of CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida in adverse karyotype AML and high-risk MDS: the UK NCRI AML19 trial

Liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine (CPX-351) improves overall survival (OS) compared to 7+3 chemotherapy in older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukaemia (AML); to date there have been no randomized studies in younger patients. The high-risk cohort of the UK NCRI AML19 trial (ISRCTN78449203) compared CPX-351 with FLAG-Ida in younger adults with newly-diagnosed adverse cytogenetic AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). 189 patients were randomized (median age 56y). By clinical criteria 49% had de novo AML, 20% secondary AML and 30% high risk MDS. MDS-related cytogenetics were present in 73% of patients, with complex karyotype in 49%. TP53 was the most commonly mutated gene, in 43%. Myelodysplasia-related gene mutations were present in 75 patients (44%). The overall response rate (CR + CRi) after course two was 64% and 76% for CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida (OR:0.54, 95%CI 0.28-1.04, p=0.06). There was no difference in OS (13.3 months vs 11.4 months, HR:0.78, 95%CI 0.55-1.12, p=0.17) or event-free survival (HR:0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.27, p=0.55) in multivariable analyses. However, relapse-free survival was significantly longer with CPX-351 (median 22.1 vs 8.35 months, HR:0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95, p=0.03). There was no difference between the treatment arms in patients with clinically defined secondary AML (HR:1.1, 95%CI 0.52-2.30) or those with MDS-related cytogenetic abnormalities (HR:0.94, 95%CI 0.63-1.40), however an exploratory sub-group of patients with MDS-related gene mutations had significantly longer OS with CPX-351 (median 38.4 vs 16.3 months, HR:0.42, 95%CI 0.21-0.84, heterogeneity p=0.05). In conclusion, OS in younger patients with adverse risk AML/MDS was not significantly different between CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida