PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective chart review of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) was to describe patterns of retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy and responses to retreatment in a community-based setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients treated in US Oncology-affiliated community oncology clinics who received 2 separate treatments with bortezomib-based therapy. Eligible patients had > or = 60 days between treatments and > or = 4 bortezomib doses during initial treatment. Responses were determined primarily by laboratory values. Response categories included (1) very good partial response (VGPR), > or = 90% M-protein decrease; (2) partial response (PR), 50%-89% decrease; and (3) less than PR (< PR), < 50% decrease, excluding progressive disease (PD). RESULTS: Retreatment response data were available for 82 patients; 5 (6%) had VGPR, 12 (15%) had PR, 52 (63%) had < PR, 5 (6%) had PD, and 8 (10%) died. Among 62 patients with response assessments for initial treatment and retreatment, VGPR/PR rates to retreatment were 44%, 23%, and 13% among patients with VGPR, PR, and < PR to initial treatment, respectively. Median time between bortezomib treatments was 9.7 months; 29% of patients received non-bortezomib therapy between treatments. The most common treatment pattern (58% of patients) was single-agent bortezomib at initial treatment and retreatment. Toxicity contributed to discontinuation in 38% of patients during initial treatment and 22% during retreatment; rates of neuropathy contributing to discontinuation were 18% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy is feasible, with predictable toxicities. This observational analysis supports bortezomib alone or in combination as a retreatment option after initial bortezomib treatment in patients with relapsed MM.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective chart review of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) was to describe patterns of retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy and responses to retreatment in a community-based setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of patients treated in US Oncology-affiliated community oncology clinics who received 2 separate treatments with bortezomib-based therapy. Eligible patients had > or = 60 days between treatments and > or = 4 bortezomib doses during initial treatment. Responses were determined primarily by laboratory values. Response categories included (1) very good partial response (VGPR), > or = 90% M-protein decrease; (2) partial response (PR), 50%-89% decrease; and (3) less than PR (< PR), < 50% decrease, excluding progressive disease (PD). RESULTS: Retreatment response data were available for 82 patients; 5 (6%) had VGPR, 12 (15%) had PR, 52 (63%) had < PR, 5 (6%) had PD, and 8 (10%) died. Among 62 patients with response assessments for initial treatment and retreatment, VGPR/PR rates to retreatment were 44%, 23%, and 13% among patients with VGPR, PR, and < PR to initial treatment, respectively. Median time between bortezomib treatments was 9.7 months; 29% of patients received non-bortezomib therapy between treatments. The most common treatment pattern (58% of patients) was single-agent bortezomib at initial treatment and retreatment. Toxicity contributed to discontinuation in 38% of patients during initial treatment and 22% during retreatment; rates of neuropathy contributing to discontinuation were 18% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Retreatment with bortezomib-based therapy is feasible, with predictable toxicities. This observational analysis supports bortezomib alone or in combination as a retreatment option after initial bortezomib treatment in patients with relapsed MM.
Authors: J Laubach; L Garderet; A Mahindra; G Gahrton; J Caers; O Sezer; P Voorhees; X Leleu; H E Johnsen; M Streetly; A Jurczyszyn; H Ludwig; U-H Mellqvist; W-J Chng; L Pilarski; H Einsele; J Hou; I Turesson; E Zamagni; C S Chim; A Mazumder; J Westin; J Lu; T Reiman; S Kristinsson; D Joshua; M Roussel; P O'Gorman; E Terpos; P McCarthy; M Dimopoulos; P Moreau; R Z Orlowski; J S Miguel; K C Anderson; A Palumbo; S Kumar; V Rajkumar; B Durie; P G Richardson Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Deborah J Kuhn; Zuzana Berkova; Richard J Jones; Richard Woessner; Chad C Bjorklund; Wencai Ma; R Eric Davis; Pei Lin; Hua Wang; Timothy L Madden; Caimiao Wei; Veerabhadran Baladandayuthapani; Michael Wang; Sheeba K Thomas; Jatin J Shah; Donna M Weber; Robert Z Orlowski Journal: Blood Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S K Kumar; J H Lee; J J Lahuerta; G Morgan; P G Richardson; J Crowley; J Haessler; J Feather; A Hoering; P Moreau; X LeLeu; C Hulin; S K Klein; P Sonneveld; D Siegel; J Bladé; H Goldschmidt; S Jagannath; J S Miguel; R Orlowski; A Palumbo; O Sezer; S V Rajkumar; B G M Durie Journal: Leukemia Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Paul G Richardson; Philippe Moreau; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Lidong Zhang; James E Littlejohn; Yu Cui; Xiaobo Cao; Chander Peddaboina; W Roy Smythe Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 27.401