Solitary (extramedullary) plasmocytoma. Clinical recommendations

Solitary (extramedullary) plasmocytoma. Clinical recommendation

Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma

Background: the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma. We investigated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) could improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. Methods: in this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 487 adults with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantation to receive six to eight 21-day cycles of R-CHOP intravenously on day 1 (with prednisone administered orally on days 1 to 5) or VR-CAP (R-CHOP regimen, but replacing vincristine with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results: after a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (according to independent radiologic review) was 14.4 months in the R-CHOP group versus 24.7 months in the VR-CAP group (hazard ratio favoring the VR-CAP group, 0.63; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 59%. On the basis of investigator assessment, the median durations of progression-free survival were 16.1 months and 30.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.51; P<0.001), a relative improvement of 96%. Secondary end points were consistently improved in the VR-CAP group, including the complete response rate (42% vs. 53%), the median duration of complete response (18.0 months vs. 42.1 months), the median treatment-free interval (20.5 months vs. 40.6 months), and the 4-year overall survival rate (54% vs. 64%). Rates of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were higher in the VR-CAP group. Conclusions: VR-CAP was more effective than R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma but at the cost of increased hematologic toxicity. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals; LYM-3002 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00722137)

Frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) for non-GCB DLBCL

This phase 2 study evaluated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy could improve efficacy in non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (non-GCB DLBCL), centrally confirmed by immunohistochemistry (Hans method). In total, 164 patients were randomized 1: 1 to receive six 21-day cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), and doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), all IV day 1, prednisone 100 mg/m(2) orally days 1-5, plus either bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib [VR-CAP]; n = 84) or vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) (maximum 2 mg) IV day 1 (R-CHOP; n = 80). There were no significant differences between VR-CAP and R-CHOP in complete response rate (64.5%, 66.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.91; P = .80), overall response rate (93.4%, 98.6%; OR, 0.21; P = .11), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P = .76), or overall survival (HR, 0.89; P = .75). Rates of grade >= 3 adverse events (AEs; 88%, 89%), serious AEs (38%, 34%), discontinuations due to AEs (7%, 3%), and deaths due to AEs (2%, 5%) were similar with VR-CAP and R-CHOP. Grade >= 3 peripheral neuropathy rates were 6% and 3%, respectively. VR-CAP did not improve efficacy vs R-CHOP in non-GCB DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01040871

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, follicular lymphoma: a randomised phase 3 trial.

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc

Prespecified candidate biomarkers identify follicular lymphoma patients who achieved longer progression-free survival with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab

Abstract Purpose: Identify subgroups of patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma deriving substantial progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with bortezomib–rituximab versus rituximab in the phase III LYM-3001 study. Experimental Design: A total of 676 patients were randomized to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib–rituximab or rituximab. The primary end point was PFS; this prespecified analysis of candidate protein biomarkers and genes was an exploratory objective. Archived tumor tissue and whole blood samples were collected at baseline. Immunohistochemistry and genetic analyses were completed for 4 proteins and 8 genes. Results: In initial pairwise analyses, using individual single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes, one biomarker pair (PSMB1 P11A C/G heterozygote, low CD68 expression) was associated with a significant PFS benefit with bortezomib–rituximab versus rituximab, controlling for multiple comparison corrections. The pair was analyzed under dominant, recessive, and additive genetic models, with significant association with PFS seen under the dominant model (G/G+C/G). In patients carrying this biomarker pair [PSMB1 P11A G allele, low CD68 expression (≤50 CD68-positive cells), population frequency: 43.6%], median PFS was 14.2 months with bortezomib–rituximab versus 9.1 months with rituximab (HR 0.47, P &amp;lt; 0.0001), and there was a significant overall survival benefit (HR 0.49, P = 0.0461). Response rates were higher and time to next antilymphoma therapy was longer in the bortezomib–rituximab group. In biomarker-negative patients, no significant efficacy differences were seen between treatment groups. Similar proportions of patients had high-risk features in the biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subsets. Conclusions: Patients with PSMB1 P11A (G allele) and low CD68 expression seemed to have significantly longer PFS and greater clinical benefit with bortezomib–rituximab versus rituximab. Clin Cancer Res; 19(9); 2551–61. ©2013 AACR.</jats:p