Bortezomib maintenance after R-CHOP, cytarabine and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with mantle cell lymphoma, results of a randomised phase II HOVON trial

Rituximab-containing induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard first-line treatment for young mantle cell lymphoma patients. However, most patients relapse after ASCT. We investigated in a randomised phase II study the outcome of a chemo-immuno regimen and ASCT with or without maintenance therapy with bortezomib. Induction consisted of three cycles R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), two cycles high-dose cytarabine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT. Patients responding were randomised between bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously once every 2 weeks, for 2 years) and observation. Of 135 eligible patients, 115 (85%) proceeded to ASCT, 60 (44%) were randomised. With a median follow-up of 77·5 months for patients still alive, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 51% (95% CI 42–59%); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI 65–80%). The median follow-up of randomised patients still alive was 71·5 months. Patients with bortezomib maintenance had a 5-year EFS of 63% (95% CI 44–78%) and 5-year OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). The patients randomised to observation had 5-year PFS of 60% (95% CI, 40–75%) and OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). In conclusion, in this phase II study we found no indication of a positive effect of bortezomib maintenance after ASCT

Bortezomib maintenance after R-CHOP, cytarabine and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with mantle cell lymphoma, results of a randomised phase II HOVON trial

Rituximab-containing induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard first-line treatment for young mantle cell lymphoma patients. However, most patients relapse after ASCT. We investigated in a randomised phase II study the outcome of a chemo-immuno regimen and ASCT with or without maintenance therapy with bortezomib. Induction consisted of three cycles R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), two cycles high-dose cytarabine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT. Patients responding were randomised between bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously once every 2 weeks, for 2 years) and observation. Of 135 eligible patients, 115 (85%) proceeded to ASCT, 60 (44%) were randomised. With a median follow-up of 77·5 months for patients still alive, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 51% (95% CI 42–59%); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI 65–80%). The median follow-up of randomised patients still alive was 71·5 months. Patients with bortezomib maintenance had a 5-year EFS of 63% (95% CI 44–78%) and 5-year OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). The patients randomised to observation had 5-year PFS of 60% (95% CI, 40–75%) and OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). In conclusion, in this phase II study we found no indication of a positive effect of bortezomib maintenance after ASCT

Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma

The combination of melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. Long term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy showed promising results, without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 NDMM patients, ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, between nine 4-weekly cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken by HOVON and the NMSG. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The accrual for the study was completed in October 19, 2012. 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T and 319 MPR-R. After a median follow up of 36 months PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% CI 18-23 months) versus 23 months (95% CI 19-27 months) with MPR-R (HR 0.87 [0.72-1.04], p=0.12). Response rates were similar, with ≥VGPR 47% and 45% respectively. Hematological toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grade 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64 versus 27%. Neuropathy ≥ grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm; 16% versus 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 versus 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance versus myelosuppression with MPR

Ixazomib-Thalidomide-low dose dexamethasone induction followed by maintenance therapy with ixazomib or placebo in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation; results from the randomized phase II HOVON-126/NMSG 21.13 trial

Contains fulltext : 229254.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access