Downregulation of Mir-31, Mir-155, and Mir-564 in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Cells

BACKGROUND/AIMS: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short non-coding regulatory RNAs that control gene expression and play an important role in cancer development and progression. However, little is known about the role of miRNAs in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Our objective is to decipher a miRNA expression signature associated with CML and to determine potential target genes and signaling pathways affected by these signature miRNAs. RESULTS: Using miRNA microarrays and miRNA real-time PCR we characterized the miRNAs expression profile of CML cell lines and patients in reference to non-CML cell lines and healthy blood. Of all miRNAs tested, miR-31, miR-155, and miR-564 were down-regulated in CML cells. Down-regulation of these miRNAs was dependent on BCR-ABL activity. We next analyzed predicted targets and affected pathways of the deregulated miRNAs. As expected, in K562 cells, the expression of several of these targets was inverted to that of the miRNA putatively regulating them. Reassuringly, the analysis identified CML as the main disease associated with these miRNAs. MAPK, ErbB, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were the main molecular pathways related with these expression patterns. Utilizing Venn diagrams we found appreciable overlap between the CML-related miRNAs and the signaling pathways-related miRNAs. CONCLUSIONS: The miRNAs identified in this study might offer a pivotal role in CML. Nevertheless, while these data point to a central disease, the precise molecular pathway/s targeted by these miRNAs is variable implying a high level of complexity of miRNA target selection and regulation. These deregulated miRNAs highlight new candidate gene targets allowing for a better understanding of the molecular mechanism underlying the development of CML, and propose possible new avenues for therapeutic treatment

Rituximab Maintenance for the Treatment of Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Background Follicular lymphoma is characterized by slow growth and an initially high rate of response to treatment, but patients typically relapse and experience progressive disease. Rituximab in combination with chemotherapy has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with follicular lymphoma compared with chemotherapy alone, but data from randomized clinical trials evaluating rituximab maintenance treatment in these patients are limited. We aimed to evaluate the effect of maintenance treatment with rituximab on the overall survival of patients with follicular lymphoma. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared rituximab maintenance therapy with observation or treatment at relapse (no maintenance therapy). We searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, conference proceedings, databases of ongoing trials, and references of published trials. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. Hazard ratios for time-to-event data were estimated and pooled. Results Five trials including 1143 adult patients were included in this meta-analysis. Data for 985 patients with follicular lymphoma were available for the meta-analysis of overall survival. Patients treated with maintenance rituximab had statistically significantly better overall survival than patients in the observation arm or patients treated at relapse (hazard ratio [HR] for death = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45 to 0.79). The rate of infection-related adverse events was higher with rituximab maintenance treatment (HR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.21 to 3.27). Patients with refractory or relapsed (ie, previously treated) follicular lymphoma had a survival benefit with maintenance rituximab therapy (HR for death = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.79), whereas previously untreated patients did not (HR for death = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.37 to 1.25). Conclusions These results suggest that maintenance therapy with rituximab, either as four weekly infusions every 6 months or as a single infusion every 2-3 months, should be added to standard therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory (ie, previously treated) follicular lymphoma after successful induction therapy. The higher rate of infections with rituximab therapy should be taken into consideration when making treatment decision

Rituximab Maintenance for the Treatment of Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

In a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials comparing rituximab maintenance with no maintenance (observation or rituximab at progression) for patients with follicular lymphoma, we reported that rituximab maintenance treatment improved the overall survival of patients. In this study, we did a similar search of the electronic databases updated through December 31, 2010, and included nine trials and 2586 follicular lymphoma patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data were estimated and pooled using the inverse variance method. Risk ratios for dichotomous data were pooled using a fixed effect model. Patients treated with rituximab maintenance had improved overall survival (pooled HR of death = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.92) compared with patients in the no maintenance group. Patients with refractory or relapsed (ie, previously treated) follicular lymphoma treated with rituximab maintenance had improved overall survival (pooled HR of death = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.91), whereas previously untreated patients had no survival benefit (pooled HR of death = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.25). The rate of infection-related adverse events was higher in the rituximab maintenance group (pooled risk ratio = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.00). These results further support the use of rituximab maintenance in the standard of care for refractory or relapsed follicular lymphom

Elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in RRMM: final overall survival results from the phase 3 randomized ELOQUENT-2 study

Prolonging overall survival (OS) remains an unmet need in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In ELOQUENT-2 (NCT01239797), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ERd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). We report results from the pre-planned final OS analysis after a minimum follow-up of 70.6 months, the longest reported for an antibody-based triplet in RRMM. Overall, 646 patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs were randomized 1:1 to ERd or Rd. PFS and overall response rate were co-primary endpoints. OS was a key secondary endpoint, with the final analysis planned after 427 deaths. ERd demonstrated a statistically significant 8.7-month improvement in OS versus Rd (median, 48.3 vs 39.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95.4% Cl, 0.68–1.00]; P = 0.0408 [less than allotted α of 0.046]), which was consistently observed across key predefined subgroups. No additional safety signals with ERd at extended follow-up were reported. ERd is the first antibody-based triplet regimen shown to significantly prolong OS in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs. The magnitude of OS benefit was greatest among patients with adverse prognostic factors, including older age, ISS stage III, IMWG high-risk disease, and 2–3 prior LoTs

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

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial

[EN]The purpose of this study was to confirm overall survival (OS) and other clinical benefits with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan and prednisone (MP) in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma) trial after prolonged follow-up, and evaluate the impact of subsequent therapies. Previously untreated symptomatic patients with myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (n = 344) or MP (n = 338). With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio, 0.653; P < .001); median OS was not reached with VMP versus 43 months with MP; 3-year OS rates were 68.5% versus 54.0%. Response rates to subsequent thalidomide- (41% v 53%) and lenalidomide-based therapies (59% v 52%) appeared similar after VMP or MP; response rates to subsequent bortezomib-based therapy were 47% versus 59%. Among patients treated with VMP (n = 178) and MP (n = 233), median survival from start of subsequent therapy was 30.2 and 21.9 months, respectively, and there was no difference in survival from salvage among patients who received subsequent bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide. Rates of adverse events were higher with VMP versus MP during cycles 1 to 4, but similar during cycles 5 to 9. With VMP, 79% of peripheral neuropathy events improved within a median of 1.9 months; 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months. VMP significantly prolongs OS versus MP after lengthy follow-up and extensive subsequent antimyeloma therapy. First-line bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapse. VMP used upfront appears more beneficial than first treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel agent-based treatment until relapse

Ibrutinib combined with immunochemotherapy with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation versus immunochemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma (TRIANGLE):a three-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT. Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II–IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18–65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1–19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258. Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84–92) versus 72% (67–79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67–79) versus 86% (82–91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3–5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3–5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238). Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined. Funding: Janssen and Leukemia &amp; Lymphoma Society.</p

Ibrutinib combined with immunochemotherapy with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation versus immunochemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma (TRIANGLE):a three-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT. Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II–IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18–65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1–19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258. Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84–92) versus 72% (67–79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67–79) versus 86% (82–91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3–5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3–5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238). Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined. Funding: Janssen and Leukemia &amp; Lymphoma Society.</p