Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): And randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study

Background: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m2 thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2; intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. Findings: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). Interpretation: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. Funding: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary

MUCORMYCOSIS IN ONCOHEMATOLOGY PATIENTS (results of the prospective study)

In 2004–2016 we prospectively observed 59 oncohematology patients with mucormycosis; 21 children and 38 adults. The most frequent underlying diseases were acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (64 %); and main risk factors were сytostatic chemotherapy and allogeneic HSCT with prolonged (median – 30 days) neutropenia and lymphocytopenia. The etiology agents were Rhizopus spp. (47 %); Rhizomucor spp. (28 %); Lichtheimia corуmbifera (17 %) and Mucor spp. (8 %). Lichtheimia corуmbifera was found more often in children; Rhizopus and Mucor spp. in adults. Pulmonary mucormycosis was main clinical form (73 %); and ≥2 organs involvement was noted in 44 % patients. Antifungal therapy was used in 78 % patients; surgery – in 47 %. In treated with antifungals patients 12 weeks overall survival was 59 %. The positive prognostic factors were remission of underlying disease and combination antifungal therapy

Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Drug treatments for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes provide no survival advantage. In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of azacitidine on overall survival compared with the three commonest conventional care regimens. METHODS: In a phase III, international, multicentre, controlled, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes were randomly assigned one-to-one to receive azacitidine (75 mg/m(2) per day for 7 days every 28 days) or conventional care (best supportive care, low-dose cytarabine, or intensive chemotherapy as selected by investigators before randomisation). Patients were stratified by French-American-British and international prognostic scoring system classifications; randomisation was done with a block size of four. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat for all patients assigned to receive treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00071799. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2004, and Aug 7, 2006, 358 patients were randomly assigned to receive azacitidine (n=179) or conventional care regimens (n=179). Four patients in the azacitidine and 14 in the conventional care groups received no study drugs but were included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 21.1 months (IQR 15.1-26.9), median overall survival was 24.5 months (9.9-not reached) for the azacitidine group versus 15.0 months (5.6-24.1) for the conventional care group (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.43-0.77; stratified log-rank p=0.0001). At last follow-up, 82 patients in the azacitidine group had died compared with 113 in the conventional care group. At 2 years, on the basis of Kaplan-Meier estimates, 50.8% (95% CI 42.1-58.8) of patients in the azacitidine group were alive compared with 26.2% (18.7-34.3) in the conventional care group (p<0.0001). Peripheral cytopenias were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events for all treatments. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with azacitidine increases overall survival in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes relative to conventional care

Marrow versus peripheral blood for geno-identical allogeneic stem cell transplantation in acute myelocytic leukemia: Influence of dose and stem cell source shows better outcome with rich marrow

Several studies have compared bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) as stem cell sources in patients receiving allografts, but the cell doses infused have not been considered, especially for BM. Using the ALWP/EBMT registry, we retrospectively studied 881 adult patients with acute myelocytic leukemia (AML), who received a non-T-depleted allogeneic BM (n = 515) or mobilized PB (n = 366) standard transplant, in first remission (CR1), from an HLA-identical sibling, over a 5-year period from January 1994. The BM cell dose ranged from 0.17 to 29 × 108/kg with a median of 2.7 × 108/kg. The PB cell dose ranged from 0.02 to 77 × 10 8/kg with a median of 9.3 × 108/kg. The median dose for patients receiving BM (2.7 × 108/kg) gave the greatest discrimination. In multivariate analyses, high-dose BM compared to PB was associated with lower transplant-related mortality (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; P = .04), better leukemia-free survival (RR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = .013), and better overall survival (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0. 92; P = .016). The present study in patients with AML receiving allografts in first remission indicates a better outcome with BM as compared to PB, when the dose of BM infused is rich. © 2003 by The American Society of Hematology

Marrow versus peripheral blood for geno-identical allogeneic stem cell transplantation in acute myelocytic leukemia: Influence of dose and stem cell source shows better outcome with rich marrow

PubMed ID: 12829583Several studies have compared bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) as stem cell sources in patients receiving allografts, but the cell doses infused have not been considered, especially for BM. Using the ALWP/EBMT registry, we retrospectively studied 881 adult patients with acute myelocytic leukemia (AML), who received a non-T-depleted allogeneic BM (n = 515) or mobilized PB (n = 366) standard transplant, in first remission (CR1), from an HLA-identical sibling, over a 5-year period from January 1994. The BM cell dose ranged from 0.17 to 29 × 10 8 /kg with a median of 2.7 × 10 8 /kg. The PB cell dose ranged from 0.02 to 77 × 10 8 /kg with a median of 9.3 × 10 8 /kg. The median dose for patients receiving BM (2.7 × 10 8 /kg) gave the greatest discrimination. In multivariate analyses, high-dose BM compared to PB was associated with lower transplant-related mortality (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; P = .04), better leukemia-free survival (RR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = .013), and better overall survival (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0. 92; P = .016). The present study in patients with AML receiving allografts in first remission indicates a better outcome with BM as compared to PB, when the dose of BM infused is rich. © 2003 by The American Society of Hematology